Jan Sadeler I: The False Shepherd (c. 1575)

"…I'd prefer to believe most would perceive such beliefs the utter opposite of Decency in action."

If Decency has always been a matter of choice, what constrains such decisions? I see today a proliferation of what I must characterize as poor choices made in the name of what I can’t quite comprehend as representing Decency in action. Our State Department’s embassies recently received a directive from the White House declaring that every country practicing Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion is guilty of human rights abuses. Likewise, those acknowledging their women’s right to choose. These pronouncements seem the very opposite of Decency. Decency stood on its head and turned inside-out: FauxDecency. I would live and let live in this instance except this instance seems a perverse exception, and it is the perversion that drives my aversion. This cannot represent Decency, even as practiced on Mars, or else Decency itself becomes a meaningless concept in practice.

The vast army of whacko right-wing conspiracy believists are not theorists, for they seem to firmly believe that their wickedness represents true righteousness. The Charlie Kirks of this world, and, apparently, those of the next, seem simply inexplicable. They rail on indecently, praising inhumanity as if it were received wisdom, offering implausible excuses for bigotry and overt racism. Anyone who believes themselves superior disproves their claim with their very insistence. Superior people wouldn’t seem so damned full of themselves, so self-promotive. They wouldn’t insist that superficial characteristics were so damnably definitive. They wouldn’t seem so stupid.

The founders of Decency, whomever they might have been, would have shown their wisdom had they attached a tiny proviso to their definition of Decency. It would have cautioned that only upstanding people of good humor should attempt to practice Decency, for those incapable of temporary selflessness or forgiveness can’t seem to help but bungle their attempts to practice it. They tend to try to turn Decency into a competition filled with more losers than winners, more self-aggrandizement than humility. Decency was never intended to be a spectator sport. It’s definitely not and never was a cause.

Their steadfast certainties give away their game. There couldn’t possibly be genetic characteristics that bestowed privilege. Only faith or firm belief could ever hope to balance those scales, and only in the eye of the true-believing faithful. Decency doesn’t demand such fealty. It does not engage in asserting its inherent superiority. It more humbly asserts certain insistences. It does not engage to win, but to continue playing. It does not even try to humiliate others into compliance or tout its inherent superiority, however obvious. Decency doesn’t need to be right, wrong, or oblong. It is its own necessity. It never needs to be evangelical. It’s not engaged in any battle for either good or evil. It should properly remain a riddle much of the time.

Why would one extend such kindness if not with the hope of gaining at least temporary advantage? Decency maintains no natural enemies. It acts for rather than against. It contributes humbly, without the intention of vanquishing anybody or anything. It doesn’t tout a message. It does not engage in self-aggrandizing behaviors because it doesn’t seek to gratify its ego. It aims not to make such a spectacle of itself. It stands appalled at what passes for evangelical Decency, a contradiction in practice, more than merely in terms. That which trades in forced-choice Decency seems to leach most of what might have otherwise qualified as Decency right out of the equation. Freely chosen, I’d prefer to believe most would perceive such beliefs as the utter opposite of Decency in action.

I am not on a crusade here, though I clearly stand in opposition to those who promote FauxDecency. I acknowledge that I stand atop a slippery slope, declaring my opposition to what I firmly believe to be a clear perversion of what Decency entails. I could be wrong. White supremacy might sow seeds of eventual enlightenment. Bigotry could prove to be the backdoor to some backhanded sort of Decency, though both seem merely perverse to me. I do not intend to extend any theological wars, simply to express my disgust at what some insist correctly represents a Decency that I do not believe exists. If it humiliates anybody, it’s not Decency. If it seeks dominion or claims divine intervention, it remains a perversion, FauxDecency, and unworthy of Decency’s name.

©2025 by David A. Schmaltz - all rights reserved

Tags: #Decency, #PureSchmaltz