Leaving God Out

     I don’t know if you have ever noticed it, but Christian ministers tend to mention God from time to time.  It goes with their job.

     A hospice organization in Florida seems to be surprised that a minister would actually bring up God sometimes.  I’m surprised that they are surprised.  Why have a chaplain if the chaplain is not supposed to express religious beliefs?

     Hospice by the Sea in Boca Raton tried to forbid the Reverend Mirta Signorelli from mentioning God when she prays during staff meetings.  Why even ask her to pray if you don’t want her to mention God?  Who is a Christian minister supposed to pray to anyway–the great nobody?

     The CEO says that the ban was enacted because they do not impose religion on their staff.  How does using a certain word impose anything on anyone?  Are the listeners so weak that they crumble in abject submission before the Almighty because the minister utters a certain word? 

     I’ve heard lots of words in my life.  Not one of them has caused me to  adopt a belief against my will.  Not one of them has scared me so badly that I demanded that people not say it in order to protect my tender little ears from hearing things I don’t agree with.

          What do you think?

Rules of Blogging Engagement

     I have been reading and commenting on blogs for over two years, and I have been writing and editing this blog for nearly that amount of time.  During that period I have seen all sorts of interesting attitudes and behaviors.  Some of them sadden me, some of them delight me, and some of them actually frighten me. 

     I’m not innocent of blogging crimes, I will admit at the outset.  I have written things that I should not have.  I have been too forceful, too unthoughtful, too unfeeling.  I hope that other guilty parties who read this will admit the same thing.

     Along the way, I have developed some rules for myself, which I follow more or less consistently.  I think that they are good rules.  Some of them have been suggested by other readers and writers.  Some of them have roots in my college philosophy and rhetoric classes.  Others are just plain courtesy.  What do you think about these rules?

1.  Stay on topic.  Although you might have a different agenda than the blog owner, it is not polite to go way off on a tangent just to satisfy your need to be heard.  Write about anything you want on your own blog, but show proper respect to other bloggers by sticking to the topics that they choose.  If a person writes a blog about dogs, don’t keep posting comments about the superiority of cats.  It’s childish and annoying.

2.  Read carefully.  I myself have made stupid comments because I misunderstood what I was commenting on.  Sometimes it is my own dunderheadedness, and sometimes it is the awkwardness of the writing.  Nevertheless, it is important to summon up all your reading skills and try to clearly and carefully understand what is being communicated.  If somebody says that dogs are stupendous, don’t reply, “They are not stupid.  They are quite intelligent.”

3.  Have realistic expectations.  Most blog posts are only a few hundred words long or shorter.  They cannot discuss a topic comprehensively.  They cannot reflect every nuance of the writer’s thoughts on a particular matter.  They cannot be the definitive statement on any subject.  They cannot answer every question.  Take them as brief statements that make very limited points.  Consider them discussion starters.  If a person says that he likes dogs but doesn’t mention cats, don’t assume that he hates cats.  And don’t assume that he wants to marry his dog  or nominate the dog for president or transform himself into a dog–unless he actually says so himself.

4.  Take the words at face value.  If a person makes a statement about his beliefs, attitudes, or opinions on a blog, you pretty much have to accept that the person is sincere and accurate.  You cannot prove otherwise, unless you can point out where the writer has been inconsistent.  In that case, the writer might be able to reconcile the two statements and clarify his or her position.  If you comment, “So you are really saying that dogs are the only thing that matter in life.” you are probably misrpresenting the writer’s actual viewpoint, and that’s neither fair nor kind.

5.  Avoid the ad hominem fallacy.  It looks like this:  You would think that, since you are a Christian or Well, of course you think that, because you are a liberal.  It’s not nice to pigeon-hole, stereotype, or generalize about people.  It’s not actually a logical argument, either.  That’s why it’s called a fallacy.  Some Christians like cats, and some liberals like dogs.  Other Christians prefer dogs, and other liberals prefer cats.  Hardly anybody can be labelled precisely.

6.  If possible, back your statements with evidence.  I don’t always do that on my blog, because a lot of what I write about is simply general opinions that I hold based more on my core principles and my reasoning.  I don’t always have time to look up sources, either.  It’s a major weakness of my blog.    When I’m really on the ball, I link to smarter people and to informative websites.  Please, if you choose to challenge a fact statement, it is good to at least gnerally describe the basis for the challenge if you cannot give a reference to a legitimate source.  If your challenge is not of the factual kind, try to use good deductive reasoning for your view.  (And, no, “You’re just stupid,” is not good deductive reasoning.)  “Dogs are bad pets because they smell bad when wet” is more like it.

7.  Don’t get hysterical.  It’s a bit over the top to write.  “Oh, so you ONLY like dogs.  You said so yourself.  You probably want to send cat-owners to prison.  No, you probably want to kill them.  You’re a dog-lover, so of course you want to kill people.  You’re just as bad as the Nazis.”

8.  Be honest.  People know what they themselves think and feel, and they know what they wrote.  It’s pretty silly to lie and say that they think or feel the opposite of what they have stated.  It’s pretty silly to claim that they wrote the exact opposite of what they actually wrote.  Not only are they aware that you are lying, but anyone who reads the posts and the comments knows it, too.  They won’t look down on the person that you are lying about; they will look down on you.

     By the way, I like cats.  I don’t really have a preference between dogs and cats.

Annoying Words and Phrases

     Which trendy words and phrases annoy you?  I have several I could list.  Lake Superior State University has just published its annual list of words that should be banished.  I agree.  Here are the three from that list that bug me the most and my own comments on them:

Green and Going Green

It’s a good concept, but the word and its various uses have lost any impact they ever had through overuse and even misuse.  (On a sidetrack, it would seem to me that producing lots of CO2 would be a very green thing to do, since plants require it for photosynthesis.)

Winner of Five Nominations

It’s an oxymoron.  Being nominated does not make you a winner.  It makes you a nominee.

Not So Much (as in, “I like this phrase not so much.”)

It was cute the first time I heard it.  Slightly annoying the second time.  Completely worn out the third time.

———————————————————–    

     How about you?  What words or phrases from the list get on your nerves?  Are there any that should have won a nomination?

Arguing Over Words

     So the opponents of Proposition 8 in California are arguing that it revised the state constitution rather than simply amended it.  I can’t wait to see what the justices do with that one.  Is there a legal distinction between amending and revising?  Is there a definite line dividing the two actions?

     I would think that amending would generally refer to adding something that is not yet covered by the consitution or clarifying something that might be misunderstood in the consitution.  Revising would probably refer to changing the wording or order of things already in the constitution.  But what do I know?  I’m basing my thoughts on the amendments that have been made to the United States Constitution.

     But then again, when I give it some more thought, I think that some of the Amendments to the Constitution have been pretty substantial and significant changes.  For example, giving personhood and citizenship status to black people was a major change from the original Consitution.  Nevertheless, we call that part of the Consitution “Amendment 14″ and not “Revision 14.”

     I don’t blame the opponents to Proposition 8 for trying to find a way to invalidate it.  It’s their right.  They should have their day in court.  I just can’t wait to see how a justice can determine if something is an amendment or a revision. 

     In the meantime, the Attorney General says that the amendment should take effect and should be enforced.  He’s right.  If officials can simply ignore parts of the state consitution that they do not like, then we have become a country run by political power instead of a country run by law.  Let’s hope it’s not that bad just yet.

The Liberal Dictionary

I have in my possession (just kidding) the Liberal to English DIctionary.  You won’t understand what liberals mean when they talk or write unless you know the right definitions.  Here they are–what liberals say and what they really mean when they say it.

• C
• captialism:  semi-socialistic economic system
• compassion:  seizing private wealth and giving it to other people (not to be confused with actually caring about people and doing what is best for them)
• compromise:  acceptance of liberal views
• choice:  pulling a baby from the womb by the legs, stabbing it in the head, and then removing it completely; not considered a hate crime or a regular crime
• D
• diversity:  sameness; making sure everyone on a faculty or student body agrees with liberal views
• E
• environmental activism:  (1) flying in gas-guzzling jets to conferences and rallies or (2) making a movie
• equal opportunity:  sticking people in a housing project and issuing them a free food card
• F
• fairness:  giving certain people special privileges based on their skin color and sexual preference
• far right:  the political wing encompassing moderates and mild conservatives
• fascism:  another name for the policies of our current President
• freedom of speech:  the right to promote liberal ideas
• free market:  regulated market
• G
• greed:  wanting to earn some money
• H
• hate:  a statement liberals disagree with
• hate crime:  when a white person commits a crime against a black person
• I
• intolerance:  a statment liberals disagree with (see hate)
• L
• liberal:  [no definition given; see moderate and progressive]
• M
• managed competition:  government takeovers
• moderate:  a liberal
• multiculturalism:  uniculturalism; the belief that everyone should speak Spanish
• N
• nuclear installation:  something that Middle Eastern dictatorships should have but the United States should not; something that Middle Eastern dicatorships would never use to make weapons
• O
• occupation force:  an American military presence (see peace-keeping force)
• P
• pacifism:  the idea that its better to let brutal dictators opress and kill people than to try to stop them; the idea that if we do nothing, everyone will just get along
• peace-keeping force:  a non-American military presence
• progressive:  a liberal
• R
• regular crime:  when a black person commits a crime against another black person or a white person, unless the victim is a homosexual (in which case, it might be classed a hate crime)
• right-wing extremist:  a moderate or mild conservative (see far right)
• right-wing propaganda:  facts
• S
• socialism:  [no definition; liberals deny its existence (see capitalism and free market]
• T
• taxing the rich:  taxing everybody who earns money
• tax rebate:  sending people money that they never paid to begin with
• terrorist:  [no definition; liberals deny that there are any, except maybe Osama bin Laden until he is captured, at which point he probably will not be one anymore]
• tolerance:  trying to stop people from saying things I disagree with
• truth:  a liberal notion
• U
• unilateral:  a decision that does not include France or Russia

The Word God Under Fire

Name the sources of the following expressions:

In God We Trust

One Nation Under God

God Bless America

God Shed His Grace on Thee

A teacher in California got in trouble for posting them in his classroom.  Apparently the fact that the word God appears on the posters made somebody unhappy.  After having them in his classroom for twenty years, Brad Johnson was ordered to remove them.  It’s hard to believe that a public school classroom in America would be banned from having patriotic messages on the wall.

The first phrase is the motto of the United States, and it has appeared on our coins since 1864.  It’s hardly an example of the Religious Right trying to impose their beliefs on other people, since it has been around for almost 150 years.  Actually, the words can be found in a slightly different form in a little-sung stanza of our National Anthem, which dates from the War of 1812.  One line of that anthem is “Let this be our motto:  In God is our trust.”  If anyone is trying to impose his or her views on everyone else, it’s the people who want to take this revered motto off the coins.

The second one is a phrase that was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.  It is recited every day in schools throughout America and at the opening of each session of Congress as well as at sports events.  It’s funny that school administrators would forbid a teacher from posting words that are recited by our federal lawmakers.

“God Bless America” is a patriotic song written by Irving Berlin in 1918.  As Mr. Berlin was Jewish, I doubt that the song is a radical intrusion by Evangelicals into public schools.  People in my parents’ generation love that song and sing it with a devotion second only to the National Anthem.

“God Shed His Grace on Thee” is a phrase from the song “America the Beautiful,” which is my favorite patriotic song.  It was written by Katherine Lee Bates just over 100 years ago.  I want to emphasize that neither James Dobson nor Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson wrote the song in order to create a theocracy out of the Untied States.  It’s a highly cherished tradition that almost everyone I know respects.

What do you think?  Did the teacher violate somebody’s rights for all those years by having such “offensive” words in his classroom?  Are they intrinsically linked to the Christian religion?  Are they a violation of the FIrst Amendment?  Or was the school’s censorship a violation of the First Amendment, as Judge Roger T. Benitez ruled?

Fairness

     Some people think it is unfair that there are wealthy people and poor people.  They are using the word fair the way children do.

     Little Johnny thinks it is unfair that little Freddy has a bigger and better bicycle than he does.  He whines, “That’s not fair!”  If his mother has any moral sense, she answers, “Life isn’t fair!”  Johnny pouts but grows up to realize that he doesn’t have some birthright to have everything he ever wishes for. 

     Assuming that little Freddy’s parents bought him the bicycle with honestly earned money, there is nothing whatsoever unfair about Freddy’s having a better bike than Johnny has.  Johnny doesn’t like it.  In fact, he’s envious.  But there is nothing actually unfair about it.

     It is not the responsibility of Johnny’s parents (or his Uncle Sam) to take Freddy’s bike away and give it to Johnny so that he will feel better.  In the real world we call that theft. 

     It is not the duty of Freddy’s parents to make sure every child in the neighborhood has everything that Freddy has.  They are only obligated to provide for their own children.

     Fair doesn’t mean “getting everything I want” or “having exactly what everyone has.”  It really means that everyone’s rights are respected.  Everyone has equal opportunity to accumulate their own wealth–to get their own bicycle.

     That’s what Johnny’s parents should do.  They should teach him how to work and to save up his money to buy the things that he wants.  He can sell his bike and combine the proceeds with what he earns by working to buy a bigger, better bicycle.  Earning his own money and buying the bike for himself is practically the definition of fair.

True Tolerance

DISCLAIMER:  This post is not a response or reaction to anything that anyone has written on my blog.  It’s just something that I have been thinking about.  In other words, don’t take it personally!  But do think about it, if you please.

—————————————————————

     I have written about tolerance before.  I just want to offer a couple of simple definitions of it for you to consider.

     Tolerance is willingly putting up with things that one does not personally like or agree with, as Robert H. Jackson wrote in a Supreme Court opinion, “The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.”    

     Of course what I consider the gospel truth might be rubbish to you and vice versa.  And that’s just the point.  In a free society I have to allow you to say or write the things that I think are rubbish, and you have to allow me to say or write the things that you think are rubbish.  Hopefully without our calling each other rubbish!

     Tolerance is granting to others the same right to an opinion that you want them to grant to you.  Voltaire said, in his treatise On Tolerance, “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.”  It is basic fairness and courtesy, really.  It is the Golden Rule.  It is just plain decency.    

     Notice that tolerance, as defined here, doesn’t preclude disagreeing.  In fact, it assumes that there is disagreement.  It just means that one peacefully puts up with that which is disagreeable.    

     Tolerance is a good thing.  It’s one of the things that has made America great.  Long live tolerance!

Illegal Immigrants?

     I’ve been reading about the protest rally in Postville, Iowa, that occurred on Sunday.  The protest had to do with a raid on a meatpacking plant that occurred in May.  Several hundred illegal aliens were caught in the raid.

     It’s not the raid or the protests that caught my interest the most.  What caught my interest were the terms in which the issues were discussed.  Almost every article I read referred to the undocumented workers as “illegal immigrants.”  Some of them said that the protest involved disagreements over immigration, and that the counterprotestors were against illegal immigrants.

     As my long-time readers know, words are very important to me.  Words can inform, but they can also misinform.  They can persuade, but they can also mislead.  It is important that we use them carefully.

     An immigrant is “any person who is residing in the United States as a legally recognized and lawfully recorded permanent resident,” according to VisaLaw.com.  That’s how I have understood the word.  There cannot be “illegal immigrants,” since immigrants are “legal” by definition.

     So, who were the Hispanic people caught in the raid in Postville?  According to news reports they were not “legally recognized and lawfully recorded.”  Therefore, they are not, according to the legal definition, immigrants.  They are illegal aliens.  To put it bluntly, they are invaders.

     My great-great-grandfather was an immigrant.  He got permission to enter the United States from Canada in 1867, and he became a citizen in 1878.  My wife has ancestors who immigrated to the United States from the Russian Empire at about the same time.  They landed in New York and Philadephia and went through all the necessary formalities to legally enter the country. 

     So you see, I’m not against immigrants, and neither were the counterprotestors in Postville, I suspect.  What they are against, and what I am against is crime, and invading a country without permission is a crime.

     The protest wasn’t actually about immigration, then.  Immigrants are welcome.  They aren’t rounded up and put in jail.  They are not deported, unless they commit crimes or let their visas lapse.  The protest was about allowing illegal entry to the United States, and that is something we should all oppose.

Spelling Woes

     Okay, everyone.  Time to confess.  Have you ever been guilty of this?

A synonym is a word you use when you can’t spell the word you first thought of.

–Burt Bacharach

     Right here on my blog I have used an alternate word when I couldn’t think of a spelling and was too lazy to look it up.  I’m sorry.  I’ll try to do better from now on.