Stolen from the internet …
Stolen from the internet …
I don’t like a double standard. I don’t really think any of us do, unless of course they favor us, and that is human nature. Our best selves however recognize that we all needed to be treated with the same dignity and respect. We all need to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, and we all need to be able to be treated with equal expectations, at the very least at a base line level, in what is and is not appropriate behavior in society at large. Basically what I am trying to get at here is that the expectation of how we act, what is and is not appropriate to say, etc. should be norms, no matter who we are all in all. Before I get into this, let me say a few things. Bullying is wrong. Harassment is wrong. Sexism, racism, etc. are all wrong. If you read anything in this that you think says otherwise, one of two things is true. It is possible that you misunderstood what I was attempting to say. It happens to all of us, me a lot in truth, so it’s not a condemnation. It is equally possible (I am being generous to myself as it is much more likely) that I did not do a very good job of trying to explain the point I am trying to make. If, after reading this, you would care to comment, please do. Keep it classy though please, because in the last few days I have had enough of what can only be called unproductive conversation based in ignorance.
Let’s get the ball rolling with the elephant in the commercial, Gillette. In a rare twist, most of my issues with it can be summed up by VOX. Believe me, I was as surprised as any of you who know me are. I am in no way justifying any of the poor behavior that is shown in the advert. It’s terrible behavior. I desperately want to be able to seriously talk about the problem of reducing important social issues to an advertising campaign designed to make a large corporation money. Now, I freely admit that this is my, perhaps overly, cynical view, but it is an educated view based upon the shrinking profits of Gillette over the past several years and their inability to regain market share from competitors, combined with the current social awareness of these matters. Really, the VOX piece describes much of my concern better than I can, so please read it and think about it. The one thing not mentioned is the portrayal. In the advert, the majority of men are portrayed as those who encourage poor behaviors, while it is the minority that stands against them. No, that is not my fragile male ego talking. I promise my ego is neither fragile nor is it small enough to be bothered by a commercial. It is my concern that the wrong message is being portrayed from that standpoint however as I reject the narrative that the majority of men are somehow terrible. That was the impression that I got from the ad personally. Read the VOX piece, consider it, and give it some real thought. After doing that can we have an intelligent conversation? You know, one that involves a little bit more than ugly accusations spewed and devoid of negative assumptions?
Something else that I found interesting about the people who think that Gillette was brilliant and being socially responsible and that more corporations should do this, and to be clear, I have no problem with holding that opinion, though I do disagree with it, when asked about Citizen’s United, the SCOTUS case that allowed large amounts of corporate money into the political process by declaring campaign donations protected speech, the answer was a resounding no. I do not see a logical consistency here. If corporations should be socially responsible and push for positive, or perceived positive, societal change, then should not those same corporations be able to support the candidates and policies that can bring that about? If not then aren’t we saying you should have a voice, but no influence politically? Isn’t that downright unamerican? Can we have a conversation about that? Can we intelligently discuss this? Can we talk about if we really want a bottom line profit driven corporation to control general societal morality and behavior? Please?
The second story is about a Gm plant in Toledo, Ohio and some overtly racist actions that occurred there. I hope that you take the time to read it as it is disturbing to say the least. Let’ take a few minutes to talk about what this is and is not. This is not about free speech. Yes, hate speech is protected as free speech, however the workplace has policies in place against such language and treatment of individuals that they apparently did not follow as they should have. Your employer has the right to limit your speech, during your on the clock hours. Not only that, an employer is ethically obligated to apply company policy equal to all. What happened here (according to civil action) is continued racial harassment. It’s wrong. Period. That, and under no circumstances is a noose hanging from a rafter free speech when used as an obvious threat. Never. That’s a threat, which is illegal, and likely constitutes a call to action, neither of which is protected speech. Can we have an intelligent conversation about this? Can we talk about how amazing it is that the two gentlemen who were treated so horribly did all that they could, every step of the way, to try and resolve the problem rather than immediately jumping of the cliff of civil actions like so many do? Can we talk about how sick it is that they had to? Please? Intelligently and not trying to cloud the issue with free speech arguments that do not apply? Please?
Finally we get to the piece i came across accidentally by virtue about reading a lot of news regarding sports. It is about a German Men’s Soccer Team. The very first line of the article reads: “The first woman to coach a men’s team in one of Germany’s top five leagues is tackling sexism by sarcastically suggesting her selections are based on penis lengths.” Read the whole article please, it is short. I am perfectly willing to accept that this is a sarcastic remark. Let’s change the first line slightly though by reversing the situation. We will, in our thought experiment, change it to a woman’s team and a male coach. The first line of our imaginary story for the purposes of our thought experiment reads “The first man to coach a woman’s team in one of Germany’s top five leagues is tackling sexism by sarcastically suggesting his selections are based upon breast size”. Again, this is not my fragile male ego, but rather my research and experience, that tells me that, even if it were an obvious joke and sarcasm, that the imaginary comments in the thought experiments would be called out as at least inappropriate, by some sexist, and by some others to rise to the level of sexual harassment. Now, to me personally, I have no issue with the woman making an obvious sarcastic comment like this. I chuckled honestly. Then it dawned on me that while I would chuckle about the same basic comment made by a man about women, I do not think that many, and maybe most would. I further think that there would be very loud calls for him to quit or be fired. If the comments are inappropriate, then they need to be inappropriate for all. Can we have a serious conversation about how being treated equally includes this? Can we thin have a conversation about some of the “male rights” types that I find basically silly, in this have a point? Please?
Three stories, three topics, and three different types of situations, but they all have one thing in common. We can not talk about them like adults. As an example, in a conversation about the Gillette story, after I had affirmed that the behaviors they are presenting as bad are indeed bad, when I mentioned my concern that such serious topics should not be reduced to profit was suddenly a misogynist idiot that hated women and was simply attempting to mansplain myself. If voicing a concern is reduced that that, we can not talk. Similar things happen in various discussions about the other two stories. The question of being able to have an actual conversation goes far beyond these stories, but let’s start small. Can we talk about this please?
If you have not taken the time to read the links provided, I hope that you do. They are important for understanding. I am going to start my comments with the news story, specifically some of the comments made by those seeking the school superintendent position.
“I already put out there that I teach for Liberty University (a Christian school). I also teach for Grand Canyon University (a Christian school), so how do you think I feel about this question? The reality is I wholly believe it. So the reality is, it should be taught … ” There is a very troubling implication here, namely that if you do not believe in the literal seven day creation that you are obviously not a Christian. This is simply not the case. The second troubling issue is that he seems to think that his belief is all that is required for a thing to be taught as science. The reality is that the best scientific data we have points to some sort of evolutionary process, even if my thoughts happens to differ. The point is that God created, not how God created. The same person went on to say “Two years ago, three years ago at Walmart, it was not even allowed to say ‘Merry Christmas.’ We showed that we, as Republicans, can change this world. We, as Republicans, can make this happen.” I really can not express how much I detest all of this boycott stuff over what ends up amounting to nothing. If you want to know the truth of the story, you can do it here. Republicans need to stop trying to claim the moral high ground when they support practices and policies that are not moral. So do Democrats. Republicans also really need to stop trying to claim a monopoly on the Christian faith.
“We used to be able to say ‘Merry Christmas.’ We used to be able to say ‘God bless you’ with no fear. I will tell you, should we teach intelligent design? Yes, definitely. There are teachers that do it. They’re the ones that shut their door and say, ‘Yes, this is our curriculum, but you know, we have more here.’ … Do I feel that science should be amply supported and looked at from both sides? Yes. But we’ve got a problem here in this state, and it’s reading and writing. Would I get rid of science and that subject area and focus all on reading and writing? No. But that’s something we have to look at in this state. These kids aren’t ready to go to college. Then we can look at how we’re going to intelligently insert God back into the classrooms, because that’s going to be a tough one. But yes, I think it should be done.” Where to begin…well frankly I still say Merry Christmas and God Bless without fear. There is no reason to have a significant amount of fear when saying such things at all. That said, the disturbing part is about putting God back into schools…that is disturbing because it requires a couple of beliefs that simply are not accurate. The first big problem is that the idea that God is not in a class room means that somehow a law of man kept Him out. i think a lot more of the power of God than that. My son’s classroom is holy ground. I know that because my son believes, and he has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, so everywhere he goes is holy ground. There is also prayer in my son’s school because he prays. Look, God is in school. The reality is that we live in a religiously pluralistic society, so prayer should not be led in school as a part of the day, nor should theology be taught there. If you think that God is not in school, I dare say that reflects more on what you think of Christian parents than what you think of current law.
Now to the United Methodist pastor’s response. To begin, the overall tone is confrontational and frankly rather rude. It alludes to the commonly spread idea that somehow those who believe in the modern literal understanding of scripture are somehow less intelligent and less willing to look at facts and evidence that others. In my experience that, on the whole, is simply not true. “Today, a big chunk of American Christians attend churches that claim the Bible is inerrant (without error) and infallible (a safe and reliable source in all matters). I want to believe that most of them don’t actually believe this – considering that they live in the 21st century – but enough of them do believe it to make it a problem for the rest of us.” A problem? I am a problem? Now this particular pastor is at The Fountains UMC, and I personally have been a problem for him as I have written much about the poor theology taught there. In all truth, any orthodox Christian is a problem for the beliefs taught at The Fountains, but that is a different rabbit hole. My faith regarding creation is not a problem for anyone because I am in a faith tradition that does not require me to hold any particular belief other than God created. So does this pastor. He is describing his fellow Christians as a problem while at the same time preaching and demanding acceptance of his aberrant theology. I know the theology that The Fountains teaches, so I am comfortable saying this. “And you’ve got to feel a little sorry for them.” All I can think of here is the Pharisee that prays he is not like that sinner. To me this sounds like “thank God I am not like that literal interpretation guy”. Different words, same self righteous and sanctimonious idea. “As an outside observer of this phenomenon, it appears that they believe that “real” Christians are somehow spiritually superior for their ability to, despite evidence to the contrary, deny reality. Obviously, this has clear parallels in our current political reality.” Funny how this complaint by him describes exactly what he is doing. Here, if you are a literalist, you are completely disconnected from reality, and not only that, but also a political opponent. Democrats need to stop claiming the monopoly on Christianity as well. We all know Jesus was a Libertarian anyway. (That’s a joke folks, relax) “Here’s the problem: despite the very real and urgent societal issues challenging humanity, many literalists continue to fixate not on solving the world’s problems, but on “proving” the Bible is literally true. They are enabled by theological carnival barkers like Ken Ham, who wastes people’s time and resources on building a full-size ark in Kentucky (complete with dinosaurs to account for and then misrepresent the fossil record) – all to shore up their doubts and insecurities.” Assuming motivation is generally a bad move, as it is here. Assuming that a person who believes a literal creation, is unconcerned with the problems of the world is also false. This idea has surfaced that conservative Christians, and conservatives in general, are somehow less concerned with the issues facing the world and somehow less charitable is pure bunk. It’s slander really, and a pastor should be above such things. I am no fan of Ken Ham, but he has a sincere faith, though I believe he does over emphasize the importance of literal creation, and should be treated with respect for it. A theological carnival barker supports things like “I do believe that Jesus was divine, and that he’s the 2nd person of the trinity. Christians rightfully honor and celebrate Jesus as a unique and fully incarnate manifestation of God. I don’t believe that he’s literally God (at least not what most people tend to mean by that word). We live and move and have our being in God, so did Jesus. The trinity as a beloved Christian poem of who God is to us. But poems don’t literally define things. Like all art, and theology, they point to what is beyond them.” and this: “And it isn’t particularly necessary for Jesus’ resurrection to have been a physical one for it to be a real and meaningful one.” An actual theological carnival barker leads away from the orthodox faith, which the pastor in question does. Finally, “So, put Young Earthers in the same category with Flat Earthers, Vaxers, and those who believe the moon landing was faked: all of them people who, for their own reasons, have decided to live in a world disconnected from evidence-based reality. It would be funny if it weren’t for their attempts to try and impose their antiquated worldview on everyone else.” This is way out of line in it’s entirety, bit I am running out of space, so I will simply say this. I am not what is meant in the modern day, a literal interpretation type. Those who are love Jesus and know, at the very least, that He is more than a poem. They know He was bodily resurrected. They know the orthodox faith, though to be fair, some do try to add to that which is required belief. When your beliefs are outside that, and you teach, and allow to be taught things contrary to the orthodox faith, you should be more careful in throwing stones, because you are indeed in a house of glass. (Get it? Glass is super heated sand, shifting sand…I crack me up…especially when talking about glass houses and rocks…I’m done now.)
It’s two sides of the same coin in trying to force beliefs upon others, one through legislation and one through insults and bully tactics. Both are wrong in the approach. The big difference is that one actually knows the faith, and one follows something that has the appearance of faith, but not the power of it.
I’m currently working on a book on attachment and how this … need… is not only what drives us, but is what makes us so very fragile that once it is disrupted, we begin to lose rapidly what makes us more than the animals, and less than the angels.
I am a constructionist in many ways, namely the way we form what appears to be the Self. I found this quote important. But more than one needing another, like an image needing a mirror to cause a reflection, how does this play into us needing the Divine?