When I was a kid I always wanted to read. Mom told me that we would learn that in school. So when the first day of kindergarten came, I was ecstatic. But when I got home, Mom noticed that I was disappointed.
“What’s wrong?” she asked.
“We didn’t learn how to read,” I replied. “I think that the teacher does not know how.”
That was my first introduction to unrealistic expectations, and sadly it was not the last. A second expression of frustration is produced when our affirmations are made in an inappropriate venue. If we are unhappy with our service at a restaurant, we will not vent our feelings in a movie theater. The place to complain is where it will do some good, and not necessarily disturb other patrons of an unrelated venue.
Are our NFL protesters doing any good by expressing their frustration with racism and mistreatment in an NFL stadium? Incidentally, the initial wave of protesters were very well paid and fairly treated, it would seem. I guess I missed the racism and exploitation. Is their “protest” highly public and noticed? Indubitably. But is it 1) effective, and 2) focused on the proper audience?
The biggest impression that most people hold of the protests is that they are denigrating and demeaning the flag and the national anthem. Their protestations not withstanding, the focus is clearly on those two topics. The initiator had to “explain” the meaning of his initial protest. That is not a communication coup when the subject of the protest is not clearly defined and pinpointed.
And are the denials of intent to damage the flag and anthem credible? Imagine that someone took to the media and spued vituperations laced with the “n-word” and other racial and ethnic slurs. “I didn’t mean it like that,” would probably not be an acceptable disclaimer. The same would be true if someone went into a church and cursed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
“I was just sharing some language that I heard on the street. It does not really mean that I am anti-God. I am protesting swearing.”
Turn the story around. Suppose that someone wanted to protest the CTE damage that football players and boxers suffer. So to protest, he protests in front of the medical facility that is studying and attempting to identify and cure the problem. Does “inappropriate venue” come to mind? Dishonoring the very people who have shared and even spent their lives to bring freedom and equality to America is the height of, well, let’s be candid, stupidity. Protesting the very people and institutions that have made us the greatest nation in the world is nonsense.
And, like my kindergarten self, to expect something to happen in one day because I “protest” seems to be another instance of unrealistic expectations. Combine an inappropriate venue with unrealistic expectations and we have a recipe for failure. And we also face the frustration of alienating or dividing our society. We do not need any more divisive issues, thank you.
One game seemed to have an acceptable combination. The players knelt for a minute to draw attention to the players’ concerns, then, arm in arm, stood for the anthem. It made a point without isolating anyone or alienating anyone. That was some mature thinking. Too bad our “kindergarten” friends have not caught up.
Friday, September 29, 2017
Friday, September 8, 2017
A Parable
We got a new(er) car this year and as a dutiful owner, I was perusing the owner’s manual. I got to the section on lubrication and it said that the owner should use synthetic oil. I immediately hurled that hateful book into the garbage. I can put what ever I want into my car and I am not going to have some engineer who thinks he knows it all tell me what to do. If my personal preference is for natural oil, I will use it.
Logical, right? (Notwithstanding the fact that it will limit the lifetime of my vehicle.) Well, you might chuckle or cluck cluck at that, but I dare say that has happened recently with the Nashville Statement. (https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement) A multitude of critics have assailed and assaulted the statement as a hate-filled, bigoted declaration. I have read it and did not find “hate,” or intolerance, or any other derogatory reference. There were 14 affirmations accompanied by 14 denials of misinterpretation of the affirmations.
There are quite a few rebuttals to global warming and none, that I have seen, has been characterized as hate speech. And the opposition to abortion is profound and increasing. I do not recall any “hate” labels applied to that. And there is a group who opposes capital punishment. Defenders of the ultimate penalty do not charge these opponents with being hateful. Even the civil rights movement was not characterized by hateful name calling. Even the dispute over slavery did not devolve into such tactics.
The attack tactics of the homosexual lobby are unprecedented in American history and have descended to a new low in both civility and rationality. For those who have not read the Statement, there is a link included. You will find frank language, but not even as specific as we find in the Bible.
If you miss the love and compassion, read it again. It does not pander to society’s aberrations, and that is conceivably the motivation for the strong negative reaction. It is a strong statement of Biblical world understanding.
The Bible, like my auto manual, it directs us to optimal operational principles for maximum enjoyment of my experience and the longevity of the equipment. Maybe we need to return to the trash can to retrieve our discarded “manuals.”
Logical, right? (Notwithstanding the fact that it will limit the lifetime of my vehicle.) Well, you might chuckle or cluck cluck at that, but I dare say that has happened recently with the Nashville Statement. (https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement) A multitude of critics have assailed and assaulted the statement as a hate-filled, bigoted declaration. I have read it and did not find “hate,” or intolerance, or any other derogatory reference. There were 14 affirmations accompanied by 14 denials of misinterpretation of the affirmations.
There are quite a few rebuttals to global warming and none, that I have seen, has been characterized as hate speech. And the opposition to abortion is profound and increasing. I do not recall any “hate” labels applied to that. And there is a group who opposes capital punishment. Defenders of the ultimate penalty do not charge these opponents with being hateful. Even the civil rights movement was not characterized by hateful name calling. Even the dispute over slavery did not devolve into such tactics.
The attack tactics of the homosexual lobby are unprecedented in American history and have descended to a new low in both civility and rationality. For those who have not read the Statement, there is a link included. You will find frank language, but not even as specific as we find in the Bible.
If you miss the love and compassion, read it again. It does not pander to society’s aberrations, and that is conceivably the motivation for the strong negative reaction. It is a strong statement of Biblical world understanding.
The Bible, like my auto manual, it directs us to optimal operational principles for maximum enjoyment of my experience and the longevity of the equipment. Maybe we need to return to the trash can to retrieve our discarded “manuals.”
Definition (Haters)
Abraham Lincoln once said that calling the tail of a dog a leg does not make it a leg. There are factions within our society who villainize others who disagree with their viewpoint. This is not a logical nor reasonable response to disagreement. Doctors have for years warned against smoking cigarettes. And, to be honest, some doctors literally hate cigarettes. And I do too. They stink. Are those doctors “haters or bigots” because they disagree with some peoples’ choice of recreation?
How about those who actively oppose and even arrest excessive and illegal opioid users. In fact, they claim to be doing it for the health of the targets. Is this hatred or bigotry?
A quick internet search for “life expectancy of homosexuals” will uncover page after page of documents. There is some controversy, but the overwhelming majority suggests at least a tenuous link between shorter life spans and what was formerly considered aberrant behavior. So does the person who warns against such activity a “hater,” or someone suggesting a different course of action for the good of the subject? Is being an enabler for such activities really expressing a loving spirit or a callous one? The doctors who counsel against cigarettes or illegal drugs are not doing it to punish or hurt the people involved. They are suggesting a healthy course of life.
If I stand beside the road with a submerged underpass farther ahead and wave merrily and wish a good trip to the cars barreling past, am I showing love? Or if I wave my arms in alarm to attract attention and divert them onto a different route, am I bigoted or hateful?
Interestingly enough, these new viewpoints oppose those held by most societies for thousands of years. Now some wish to change the norm and resort to name calling. Just as calling an appendage something other than which is normal, disagreeing with someone’s societal, philosophical, or theological position does not make them a hater or bigot. It merely points out how the “caller” is deviating from the norm.
The “Nashville Document” is not a hate-filled diatribe. It is a product of a concerned body of believers who can see “down the road” and are warning against a situation worse than a bridge out.
A tail is not a leg, and one who warns against disaster is not a bigot nor a hater.
How about those who actively oppose and even arrest excessive and illegal opioid users. In fact, they claim to be doing it for the health of the targets. Is this hatred or bigotry?
A quick internet search for “life expectancy of homosexuals” will uncover page after page of documents. There is some controversy, but the overwhelming majority suggests at least a tenuous link between shorter life spans and what was formerly considered aberrant behavior. So does the person who warns against such activity a “hater,” or someone suggesting a different course of action for the good of the subject? Is being an enabler for such activities really expressing a loving spirit or a callous one? The doctors who counsel against cigarettes or illegal drugs are not doing it to punish or hurt the people involved. They are suggesting a healthy course of life.
If I stand beside the road with a submerged underpass farther ahead and wave merrily and wish a good trip to the cars barreling past, am I showing love? Or if I wave my arms in alarm to attract attention and divert them onto a different route, am I bigoted or hateful?
Interestingly enough, these new viewpoints oppose those held by most societies for thousands of years. Now some wish to change the norm and resort to name calling. Just as calling an appendage something other than which is normal, disagreeing with someone’s societal, philosophical, or theological position does not make them a hater or bigot. It merely points out how the “caller” is deviating from the norm.
The “Nashville Document” is not a hate-filled diatribe. It is a product of a concerned body of believers who can see “down the road” and are warning against a situation worse than a bridge out.
A tail is not a leg, and one who warns against disaster is not a bigot nor a hater.
A Parable
We got a new(er) car this year and as a dutiful owner, I was perusing the owner’s manual. I got to the section on lubrication and it said that the owner should use synthetic oil. I immediately hurled that hateful book into the garbage. I can put what ever I want into my car and I am not going to have some engineer who thinks he knows it all tell me what to do. If my personal preference is for natural oil, I will use it.
Logical, right? (Notwithstanding the fact that it will limit the lifetime of my vehicle.) Well, you might chuckle or cluck cluck at that, but I dare say that has happened recently with the Nashville Statement. (https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement) A multitude of critics have assailed and assaulted the statement as a hate-filled, bigoted declaration. I have read it and did not find “hate,” or intolerance, or any other derogatory reference. There were 14 affirmations accompanied by 14 denials of misinterpretation of the affirmations.
There are quite a few rebuttals to global warming and none, that I have seen, has been characterized as hate speech. And the opposition to abortion is profound and increasing. I do not recall any “hate” labels applied to that. And there is a group who opposes capital punishment. Defenders of the ultimate penalty do not charge these opponents with being hateful. Even the civil rights movement was not characterized by hateful name calling. Even the dispute over slavery did not devolve into such tactics.
The attack tactics of the homosexual lobby are unprecedented in American history and have descended to a new low in both civility and rationality. For those who have not read the Statement, there is a link included. You will find frank language, but not even as specific as we find in the Bible.
If you miss the love and compassion, read it again. It does not pander to society’s aberrations, and that is conceivably the motivation for the strong negative reaction. It is a strong statement of Biblical world understanding.
The Bible, like my auto manual, it directs us to optimal operational principles for maximum enjoyment of my experience and the longevity of the equipment. Maybe we need to return to the trash can to retrieve our discarded “manuals.”
Logical, right? (Notwithstanding the fact that it will limit the lifetime of my vehicle.) Well, you might chuckle or cluck cluck at that, but I dare say that has happened recently with the Nashville Statement. (https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement) A multitude of critics have assailed and assaulted the statement as a hate-filled, bigoted declaration. I have read it and did not find “hate,” or intolerance, or any other derogatory reference. There were 14 affirmations accompanied by 14 denials of misinterpretation of the affirmations.
There are quite a few rebuttals to global warming and none, that I have seen, has been characterized as hate speech. And the opposition to abortion is profound and increasing. I do not recall any “hate” labels applied to that. And there is a group who opposes capital punishment. Defenders of the ultimate penalty do not charge these opponents with being hateful. Even the civil rights movement was not characterized by hateful name calling. Even the dispute over slavery did not devolve into such tactics.
The attack tactics of the homosexual lobby are unprecedented in American history and have descended to a new low in both civility and rationality. For those who have not read the Statement, there is a link included. You will find frank language, but not even as specific as we find in the Bible.
If you miss the love and compassion, read it again. It does not pander to society’s aberrations, and that is conceivably the motivation for the strong negative reaction. It is a strong statement of Biblical world understanding.
The Bible, like my auto manual, it directs us to optimal operational principles for maximum enjoyment of my experience and the longevity of the equipment. Maybe we need to return to the trash can to retrieve our discarded “manuals.”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)