Legal, Moral, and What’s Right

Just because something is legal, does that mean it’s necessarily the right thing to do? I started thinking about this after reading about a melee that broke out during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio. As you might recall, an attempted burning of the American flag ignited the scuffle.

Someone on social media pointed out the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 ruled burning the flag is not illegal. That’s true, but does that mean it’s okay to do?

Consider: There’s no law that prohibits cheating on one’s spouse, but does that mean it’s the right thing to do? You won’t get arrested for cutting into a grocery store’s checkout line, but just because it’s not against the law, should we do it? And I doubt there’s any legislation restricting a person from walking into a mosque and shredding a copy of the Qur’an (if you prefer, Koran), but that doesn’t make it right – or advisable.

As I’ve so often found, the Bible has something very practical to say about this. And you don’t have to be religious – or even spiritual – to appreciate its wisdom: "’I have the right to do anything,’ you say – but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’ – but not everything is constructive” (1 Corinthians 10:23). Another translation states it this way: “’All things are lawful,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things build up.”

I’m all in favor of free speech, and if people want to protest, they should have that right. But if that involves attacking the sensibilities of millions of proud, patriotic Americans – especially in these days when we’re told to avoid offending anyone – maybe it’s stepping over the line.

Some might argue an American flag is just a piece of material, so what’s the harm? But if the protesters thought it important enough to select the Stars and Stripes to set ablaze, it must be more than a piece of material to them. For them it’s a significant symbol, representing some cause they wish to protest or denounce.

Countless thousands of soldiers have given their lives to protect what the flag represents. Many thousands more have returned from battle maimed in body, mind and spirit to guarantee the rights of these protesters to voice their dissent. My father suffered two wounds in World War II, and a number of family members and friends also participated in various wars because they believed in the values and principles the American flag has traditionally represented.

So for those who feel inclined to burn Old Glory to express their ire, I’d like to ask them, as the Scripture passage admonishes, “Is it beneficial?” “Is it constructive?” “Is it helpful?” “Does it build up – or does it tear down?”

I’d also make a suggestion: If these protesters feel so strongly opposed to the American way of life, why don’t they burn their Social Security cards and renounce their benefits? Or their welfare checks, food stamps, or college financial aid vouchers? That would make a point, for sure.

And since those that protest in such an unseemly manner reject what they believe the red, white and blue stands for, these folks should be encouraged in the strongest possible way to quickly find a new country of residence, one whose flag they can look upon with pride rather than scorn.

That’s not to say all is well with our nation. Far from it. But for those of us who choose to convey concerns and dissatisfaction in more civil ways, we’d be wise to heed the exhortation of Micah 6:8, which informs us, “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

We’re not to worship a flag – or a nation. But in our strivings to bring about a better world, wouldn’t an approach that’s beneficial and constructive, one that’s helpful and builds up, be better? Flies still are much more attracted to honey than they are to vinegar.

Valedictorians . . . and Worldviews

The Tennessee Legislature has been considering a bill to permit students to express religious beliefs through homework and art without fear of reprisal for presenting those views.

Opponents, of course, argue that’s a violation of the so-called separation of church and state. One legislator said she’s “a little bit confused,” thinking the legislation if passed would “pretty much blur the line” of separation.

I’m weary of this rhetoric. The Constitution clearly expresses the state cannot impose religion on the people. But nowhere does it deny individuals the right to express and integrate their faith wherever they are, even in public, government-sponsored settings.

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” That does not say someone relating spiritual beliefs – whether in homework, an artistic creation, or even a valedictory address – is “establishing religion.”  And it does not restrict where someone can freely exercise religious convictions.

To deny someone the right to communicate what they believe – as it relates to both subject and setting – seems a clear violation of another portion of the First Amendment, which further states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech….”

Just because we hold different views, must
we be prohibited from expressing those views?

I realize there are situations when free speech needs to be restricted – shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, for example. But whether in an essay, on an test, or even during a graduation address, to deny individuals the right to appropriately express their faith – or lack of it – within the context of their message, disregards both the intent and spirit of the revered First Amendment.

The underlying issue is “worldview.” If someone is an atheist, everything he or she sees, hears and interprets is sifted through a “there is no God” worldview grid. Similarly, someone possessing a deep faith in God views the world around them from the perspective of His existence and daily involvement in their lives.

In Acts 17:28, the apostle Paul wrote, “For in Him (Jesus Christ) we live and move and have our being.” His worldview was of God being vitally involved in every area of life.

Just as the oxygen we breathe surrounds our every step whether we acknowledge it or not, spiritual beliefs permeate our thoughts and actions. What we believe – or don’t believe – has a profound impact on what we do, how we think, how we respond to circumstances we confront, and how we interact with people and the world around us.

That does not justify proselytizing or belittling views of those who disagree with us. First Peter 3:15 provides an excellent guideline for communicating our beliefs, whether in a homework paper, a college exam, a podium, or a private conversation: “…Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”

I can’t separate my faith from my everyday life any more than I can separate my head from my body. Nor should I be expected to do so. Isn’t it about time our government acknowledged that and ceased seeking to skew the fine principles of the Constitution to appease a vocal minority?

The Power of a Closed Mouth

There’s a fellow I know who apparently gets up every morning determined to figure out how many different ways he can pick an argument and how many people he can aggravate. He’s the kind of guy who, if you observe that the sky is blue, will insist that it’s really pink.

Every once in a while I run into him, and he seems always ready to poke and prod to elicit a response. I’m not the only one he targets, but he seems to have a fondness for me – maybe because my natural tendency is toward bullheadedness. Since I’m inclined to air my own opinions, he and I have crossed words on more than one occasion.

Recently I arrived for a meeting and sure enough, this man made a comment he knew would get my attention. I tried to offer a light-hearted response rather than accept his invitation to spar verbally, but he would have none of it. He made another snide remark. This time, however, I decided to zip my lip and heed the words of Proverbs 10:19, “When words are many, sin is not absent, but he who holds his tongue is wise.”

I walked away and went about my business. Even though he tossed another zinger my way a few minutes later, I resolved to remain silent rather than fall into the temptation to give him a piece of my mind that I could ill afford to lose.

Elsewhere, the book of wisdom declares, “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1). I don’t always succeed in following that advice, I’ll admit. But as I grow older and more mellow, I think I’m making steady progress. Hopefully that will continue.

Critical Thinking Running Amok?

Acid tongues. Vented spleens. Poison pens. Caustic keyboards. Is it just me, or are we experiencing an unprecedented explosion of relentless, mean-spirited criticism toward anyone and anything?

Maybe it’s because we have more options than ever for expressing our “critical thinking”: Message boards, talk radio, e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, even blogs like this one. Not to mention traditional venues, such as letters to the editor and public forums. Whatever the cause, it seems many people have adopted the philosophy, “If you can’t say something bad about someone, don’t say anything at all.”

Having been a journalist for my entire professional career, I’m fully in favor of freedom of speech. But like any freedom, it should be cherished, not abused. Football coaches, for example, are lambasted by armchair quarterbacks who can barely distinguish between a jockstrap and a chinstrap. Government officials are chastised by citizens who have never set foot in any legislative chambers. Celebrities adept at acting or singing feel compelled to voice their “expertise” on national and world issues.

I’m not saying we don’t each have a right to express our opinions, but what’s wrong with making certain our views are informed by research and reason, not simply formed out of ignorance? Balance and rationality, rather than unrestrained bias and emotion, should temper the expression of our views.

When we point a finger at someone, our other fingers are pointing back at us. If we were as critical of our own lives, our own work, our own conduct as we tend to be of others, I wonder how well we would fare. As Jesus admonished, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matthew 7:1-2).

What HAS Happened to Civility?

This week USA Today asked, “What happened to civility?” In recent days, a congressman has disrupted a speech on health care reform by President Obama, calling him a “liar”; a rapper interrupted an award acceptance speech by a country-western singer because he disagreed with the choice; and two tennis stars berated match officials with expletive-laced tirades.

But the issue goes beyond such public moments. We live in an age when apparently if you disagree with someone, you have the right to shout them down. In workplaces we have lost our sense of politeness. If two people are meeting, we barge into their conversation because we are too impatient to wait our turn.

One person suggested the reason for growing rudeness and hostility in our society is because of a pervasive sense that “we don’t have power or even any say-so in what’s going on.” This may be true, but still doesn’t license us to adopt an “it’s all about me” attitude in daily interactions with others.

Perhaps it dates back to the 1960s, when many in my generation adopted the mantra, “Question authority!” To an extent, I agree with that – having a position of authority does not ensure being correct. But there are more appropriate, more civil ways of getting our point across.

Even if you disagree with some of Barack Obama’s views, doesn’t the office of President of the United States still deserve respect? Don’t award recipients deserve their moment? Don’t people in a work meeting deserve an opportunity to conclude their business before we butt in?

It goes back to the “Golden Rule”: “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31), also known as “the ethic of reciprocity.” How can we expect respect from others unless we insist on giving it to others?

Humor at Others’ Expense

During a recent opening monologue, late-night talk show host David Letterman made a comment that still has people debating its appropriateness.

Letterman said "an awkward moment" occurred for former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin when, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by (Yankee third baseman) Alex Rodriguez." Without naming her, the joke apparently referred to Palin's 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, an unwed mother. But it was 14-year-old daughter, Willow, not Bristol, attending the game.

When Palin reacted the next day with understandable anger, Letterman offered a weak, halfhearted apology – couched within another joke.

I wonder: What if Letterman had said something like that about Chelsea Clinton while the Clintons were in office, or about one of President Barack Obama’s daughters? Or a daughter or granddaughter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? No doubt Letterman today would be among the ranks of the unemployed; at the very least taking extreme measures to demonstrate genuine remorse.

Growing up, and even as late as the 1980s, I heard jokes about various ethnic groups – Italians, Poles, Jews, Hispanics, etc. Today most of us agree such efforts to elicit laughs at the expense of individuals or specific groups of people are unkind, inappropriate, and just wrong.

Perhaps because she is Caucasian, conservative and Christian – apparently the “unholy trinity” for elitist, left-wing wags – Palin and her family are considered fair game. But ideological and political differences do not excuse insensitivity and bigotry.

Once again, the Bible offers a simple, yet profound principle to apply to these situations: “Do not let unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen” (Ephesians 4:29). In other words, “If you can’t say something nice about somebody, don’t say anything at all.”

Free Speech – An Endangered Species

When the year 1984 arrived and left, George Orwell’s futuristic novel “1984” suddenly seemed archaic. America had no “groupthink” or “Thought Police” as Orwell envisioned in the fictional totalitarian regime. Fast forward to 2009 and it seems his prognostications just might have been off about 25 years.

Recently Miss California Carrie Prejean, while competing in the Miss USA pageant, was asked by an openly gay-activist judge to give her views on same-sex marriage. It was a classic lose-lose situation, like asking a man if he has stopped beating his wife.

Prejean attempted a polite but honest answer: “Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other…. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there…."

For her response, even though Barack Obama and Joe Biden took similar stances while seeking election, she was blasted by the 21st century’s version of the Thought Police. How thoughtless of her to wave her beliefs in the face of “politically correctness.”

In 1791 the Bill of Rights was ratified, stating, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….” Obviously, this excludes the “right” to yell “Fire!” in crowded theaters. But opposing same-sex marriage is hardly yelling “Fire!” Nor is it “hate speech.” Prejean was simply asked for – and expressing – her sincere, personal opinion.

The Bible states, “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone” (Colossians 4:6). Prejean seemed to be trying to be gracious in her reply, but apparently that’s not good enough.

If we don’t act quickly to protect free speech, groupthink may soon become more than a fictitious notion.