I posed that question on a Christian online forum. It was an active forum, so I had reason to expect a variety of responses. Instead, I recieved only one: "I wouldn't want a day of no consequences!"
As disappointed as I was, I suppose I should not have been surprised, since I had on prior occasions heard Christians make statements to the effect: "If I didn't believe in God, I would do anything and everything that crossed my mind." Statements like this always make me nervous. I know a lot of unbelievers, and none of them do anything and everything that crosses their minds; if these Christians would, that suggests something about the type of person attracted to Christianity. It suggests Christians may not be the most wholesome company.
Even so, the question as I asked it made no implication as to whether or not the person believed in God. Christians make much of being transformed by Christ; they like to say that Christ replaced their old, sinful heart with a new one. They also claim to believe that the Holy Spirit dwells within. Why, then, be afraid of a day of no consequences? Are they, perhaps, not as "transformed" as they think they are? Mirah Yom Tov Zeitlyn's song, "Carved in It" contains the line, "I don't believe in rules that don't come from inside of me." If the Holy Spirit really dwells within, then why are Christians so afraid of rules that come from inside of them?
Now, not everyone sees it this way. I have been asked to explain why I thought fear was the reason someone would not want a day of no consequences, so the person who asked, presumably, did not think it was necessarily fear. She thought it was rather that adults accept that consequences are part of living in the world, and see no reason to avoid them. Another member of the same conversation allowed that he could not think of any laws "in his immediate vicinity" that interfered with his life. I said that if that was the case, I pitied him, as I could not imagine him living any sort of life I would want to live. This, of course required further explanation.
What would I do with a day of no consequences? First, you must understand what my days are like now. A few years ago, I was on a road trip, and stopped in a small town in Oklahoma, where a friend had grown up. As I wandered the streets, seeking to understand my friend by experiencing his place of origin, I often stooped to look at the henbit and other assorted flora growing along the edges of the sidewalk and in neglected corners of the town. When I returned to my vehicle, I was met by two local law enforcement officers, who spent several minutes questioning me as to why, a stranger in town, I was bending down looking at “weeds.” Of course they claimed to be motivated solely by concern for the safety of children (although I had not actually seen any children during my walk). Having failed to extract any actual evidence of wrongdoing on my part, they eventually let me go.
To my knowledge, there is no law against admiring roadside flora, especially if one remains on the public sidewalks and parks. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any law against strangers walking about town, if they stay in the public spaces. Why, then, did the officers of the law stop and question me? The only explanation I can think of is: most people are too numbed to the world to notice the beauty of “weeds,” or to care about it. My behavior was therefore “different,” which for most people is the same as scary. There are consequences for being “different,” even if no law has actually been broken.
In Sweden, the Right of Public Access allows outdoor recreation on almost all open land, public or private; provided that one does not disturb the landowner or destroy nature or property (of course, there are certain regulations defining what constitutes disturbance and destruction). Also, landowners may not put up fences to keep people out of lands subject to Right of Public Access. I find this a much more sensible law than the American definition of “trespassing” as merely setting foot across a boundary line. Merely setting foot across an arbitrary boundary harms no one. Why should there be consequences for doing no harm?
I think we all know the REAL reason for “trespassing” laws. The REAL reason is exemplified by Rainforest Action Network, an environmental organization dedicated to taking on the biggest destroyers of the environment. On May 2, 2012, five protestors from Rainforest Action Network’s campaign against dirty coal scaled the Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina, and hung a banner reading “Bank of America COAL.” Of course they were promptly arrested for “trespassing.” No property was damaged. People were not even prevented from entering or exiting the stadium. The only “harm” done was the harm to the PR image of a major polluter – Bank of America is the biggest financer of dirty coal mining, and, apparently, didn’t want that publicized. “Trespassing” is a convenient catchall charge when power wants to appear not to be silencing truth or dissent. Shame on any state that would impose consequences for bringing the truth to light. Shame on any law enforcement officers who would participate in such a travesty of justice.
So, what would I do with a day of no consequences? It should be summertime. I would be obvious about enjoying the beauty of roadside flora – even if it is “just weeds.” I would explore vacant lots as I did when I was a boy; scavenge among the litter and “trash” for things I can use. I would play ball with my dog, unleashed. I would sunbathe and skinnydip without fear or shame. I would hang banners from the buildings of polluters. I would tell anyone who cared to know: “This is called life, people. If we make a few changes, you all can have it, too – not just for one day, but every day.”
Remember my experience in Oklahoma: living life is looked on with suspicion. At first I thought people were afraid of life; but now I do not think that is it. Most people desire life; they are just afraid of the consequences of daring to live it. It feels safer to be conventional, stay in line, don’t draw attention to yourself. Drawing attention has consequences.
Wolfi Landstreicher wrote: “But more essentially, a spirit of free play fuels total revolt and joy in adventure – by a desire to explore every possibility for intense life which society tries to deny us. For all of us who want to live fully and without constraint, the time is past when we can tolerate living like shy mice inside the walls. Every form of the ideology of victimization moves us to live as shy mice. Instead, let’s be crazed and laughing, joyfully tearing down the walls of society and creating lives of wonder and amazement for ourselves.”
Now, I know what my readers probably thought just now. Probably, the initial, instinctive reaction was excitement at the thought of being “crazed and laughing,” of “creating lives of wonder and amazement for ourselves.” But that feeling was scarcely felt before it was swept away by your own internal Thought Police, telling you it is dreamy, utopian, unrealistic, can never happen. Stand up to those Thought Police. Ask them, “Says who?” Insist, “We’ll never know until we try!”
Actually, many people do, in fact, believe such a life is possible – but only in the afterlife. Some people’s ideas of the afterlife are vague: “Grandma’s gone to a better place.” The strangest one I have heard was one who said that in heaven, we will spend eternity “doing what God says.” Obviously, there was something in that person’s worldview that I missed, because at face value, an eternity of being told what to do does not seem very heavenly. More often, people define heaven as the absence of the horrors of earth: no more crying, no more sickness, and so on.
Why define it negatively, i.e. in terms of what is NOT there? If we define it positively, i.e. according to what IS there, does it not come out much like Landstreicher’s vision? Not merely the absence of sorrow and crying, but in fact “crazed and laughing.” Not merely a life freed from the burden of cares, but “lives of wonder and amazement.” If this be so, why not show glimpses of it now? People live lives of such dull drudgery, why not inspire them with a vision of what they might look forward to -- or even strive for here and now?
What would I do with a day of no consequences? I would show people glimpses of heaven. I would show people what it is to be alive.
