It would seem we are in a period of removing strands that once provided a level of orientation to all aspects of our society.

The weaving of these strands occurring over time, history building upon history, creating definitive ways in which men and women would engage with one another socially, politically, religiously.

The upside of change is the possibility of renewal, refreshing, an opportunity for something that may have been once unavailable. The downside is the loss of continuity, the shifting of foundations, the absence of standards.

Our society has become graceless. We confuse opinion with fact.

We display little honor. Our selfishness totally obliterates empathy — the only possible way in which we can nurture Love and hope for Peace.

God, or at least the idea of God, either doesn’t exist, or it is all-consuming and leaves little room for acceptance outside of narrowly focused beliefs.

What should be a discussion of common needs and mutual support collapses into selfish wants and unbalanced control.

Leadership is often not respected, as it provides no confidence, as it offers no examples worthy of respect.

We are unraveling.

To coexist, there should be agreed-upon ways in which coexistence can work with minimal conflict. After all of these millennia of human societies with multiple formats, are there no threads that we can identify as viable and sustainable of this goal?

Can we sit together with the more thoughtful men and women of this world, identify these needs and build a path to fulfill them globally?

Does our leadership really show an interest in fairness and true individual freedom? Is individual freedom conducive to the functioning of a large and diverse population?

When you were taught about God, or when you teach about God, was it or is it inclusive?

I experienced childhood and adolescence during the ’60s and ’70s. It was a revolutionary time. There seemed to be a desire to unravel the current fabric of that time: remove what was unjust, unbalanced, less free. I don’t remember anything in particular that was offered to replace that, which of itself provided guidance toward a more just, more balanced, freer existence.

Historically, when something was torn down, there was something offered in its place. An unjust monarchy ruling over its western Colonies was replaced with an orderly Democracy (perhaps a stretch) ruling itself. There were specific guidelines, worked out through exhaustive and passionate discussion, with multiple concessions.

The originators of our nation professed their desire to provide everyone (well, obviously not everyone) life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — our desires being met without harm, without infringement on the freedom of others, with mutual respect.

I don’t have any issue with change, with unraveling the fabric of our society. I thoroughly believe in introspection as a group to really look at what’s working and what is not.

However, before I cut one cord, I’d like to know what will support me after that. I’d like to know the plan. What led to the decision to change from this to that? Any statement regarding change, for me, needs clarity.

What are we changing? Why are we changing it? What will we be doing instead? What are the anticipated outcomes? How will we monitor its influence?

Leadership, in any form, in any aspect of society should provide answers to the questions posed above.

We can loosen threads to add to them a wider variety, but with equal or improved integrity. We may eliminate unnecessary or restrictive ones.

All of this can be done cooperatively and considerately, considering each and every one of us currently and, if at all possible and appropriate, of those to come.

Let us be constructive in our unraveling.

— Jordan, of DeLand, is the owner, with his wife, Mercedes, of Jordan Health Clinic & Day Spa.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here