I learned that according to the mass I attended, we are Servants though sinners. Although this was not the intention of this phrase, I wonder if this is where the manufacturing of sin and crime comes from. In particular, I wonder whether that concept was taken and used out of context by those with power in our world. Are we turning people into slaves or servants?  Hence, are we impacting them with the extraction exchange exclusion takings cycle because of this?   What is the concept of employment?  I believe we should all be connected to a unidiversity first before we have loyalty to the idea of employment.   

I’ve been reflecting on a concept I encountered recently during a televised Mass: the notion that we are fundamentally “servants though sinners.” While I fully appreciate the theological depth and humility this phrase is intended to convey, it has, perhaps unexpectedly, prompted broader reflection on societal structures and power dynamics.

My thoughts drifted to whether such a potent spiritual idea, when divorced from its original sacred context, could inadvertently contribute to, or even be co-opted in, the crafting of societal norms that define “sin” and “crime” in a secular sense. I question whether those in positions of significant influence have historically, or even currently, reinterpreted and used this concept in ways that serve their own interests, perhaps at the expense of general human well-being. Does it intentionally create irrational societal stratification?

This line of inquiry directly relates to the modern landscape of human interaction and economic participation. Are we, as a society, perhaps unknowingly, maintaining systems that turn individuals into mere cogs—placing them in a state of constant subservience instead of encouraging real autonomy and growth? I am especially concerned about what I see as a widespread cycle of extraction, transactional relationships, exclusion, and appropriation of individual effort. This cycle often appears as systems built to take value without fair compensation, fostering purely economic exchanges that marginalize those considered less productive and ultimately seize the fruits of labor for a privileged few.

This brings me to a fundamental question: what truly defines the concept of employment in our modern era? Is it a partnership of continuous adaptive mutual growth, or has it, in some instances, become a sophisticated form of obligation where an individual’s worth is inextricably linked to their economic utility only?

My profound conviction is that our primary allegiance and connection should first be to a foundational “Unidiversity” – a universal recognition of our shared humanity, inherent dignity, and interconnectedness as beings on this planet. This fundamental bond, this sense of collective belonging and purpose, should, in my view, precede and inform any loyalty or commitment we develop towards the construct of “employment” or economic roles. It is only by centering ourselves in this shared human experience that we can hope to build truly equitable and empowering systems for all.

Richard Thomas Simmons