Dear Editor,
Decency has died. It had been dying for a long time but had not before been so comprehensively dispatched to oblivion as at the present time.
Because different value systems will have varying definitions of what constitutes decency, I need to broadly set out some parameters. Nevertheless, the concept of decency, no matter how widely defined, applies to all societies.
First, decency is not morality. Decency is a way of conducting oneself that is acceptable to one’s society. But in a world that is progressively drawing closer together, one’s behaviour can have an impact on great numbers of people from other societies. A classic case of this is when a sprinter (or other sportsman/ woman) wins Olympic gold, and you see the winner’s mouth open wide enough to swallow the sky and presumably screaming loudly enough to wake the dead. Or when a player scores a goal in soccer, etc. Editor, this is not acceptable behaviour no matter how pervasive it has become; not acceptable, that is, to huge swathes of global society. Decency has roots in religion and therefore in morality.
Let us take the case of a fashion event that was covered by the press. A reporter said something to the effect that he could not keep his eyeballs in their sockets. A newspaper published a photo but blacked out part of it and lamented the degree of uncalled for exposure of the female. Obviously this event was not decent by the standards of the newspaper. But it was decent to the organizers of the event who, a few days later, published a piece condemning the report and upholding their right to parade nearly naked women in the name of fashion. The newspaper’s position would have resonated with other societies which believe that women are human beings and not entertainment objects. The exposure would have been classified as indecent.
Editor, if you have not done so recently, please visit the mini-bus parks at prime time and see how passengers are jostled like animals and ask yourself the question: Is there any society on earth that would deem that behaviour decent? Do the relevant powers like that behaviour (think that it is decent) and that is why they do not intervene?
But Guyana is not the world.
If you believe in a Supreme Being, this implies certain modes of conduct. The clothes of nuns, until recently, resembled closely Islamic female dress. Generally, most religions propagate similar values in several areas. This means that they have similar standards of decency which they try to enforce or which they expect their adherents to observe. But it happens that in many societies the rich get richer while the poor struggle along; there is no effort to close that gap because the rich like it that way. And that is indecent on a national or international scale. Here one remembers, for example, the attempt by a person of a powerful nation to patent Basmati rice – an indecent, bullying move if there was ever one.
The last issue that I would like to raise at this time is same-sex marriages. This is a fruit of a behaviour mode called homosexuality. One does not discriminate against people with different hormone levels, but at the same time there is a natural order of things which we do not violate. Different people will have different views to which they are entitled. However we strive to maintain decency according to our religious standards. Islam, for example, is clear –“There is no compulsion in religion.” And we are warned not to abuse gods worshipped by other people. But this does not mean we have to agree with them.
In physics we learn that every action has a reaction, and this applies elsewhere as well.
What happened when Guyanese were once renowned and proverbial for their excellent manners? The answer, or part of it is that decency is no longer the norm that applies in the classroom, and to a greater or lesser extent in the home. The result is children who grow up without moral underpinnings and the manners that go along with it. The idea that we can get along without morality is a hopeless one. This is easily illustrated as follows: we hire a teacher to teach Maths; once he can teach Maths competently, that is all we require of him. It matters not that he is a murderer, thief, child molester, etc, Does anybody buy this line of reasoning?
Yours faithfully,
Mujtaba Ahmad Nasir
