Intent

Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus

It's a phrase taken directly from the traditional Latin Mass but it's actually a direct translation of

קדוֹשׁ, קדוֹשׁ, קדוֹשׁ

which appears in the Jewish Bible. There are many other examples of similar appropriation of non-understood language from one tradition to another. It means “Holy, holy, holy,” but there are other examples of similar cultural appropriations, and this one was only chosen because of it's short length.

Does it matter if the supplicant doesn't understand what he is saying? I'm not a theologian and can only answer based on my own views, but I doubt it. (Vivaldi, who lost his ability to speak, expressed himself through his music.) If the supplicant's intent is proper, the language is irrelevant and, I believe, the act is judged on its own merits.

But the idea is not limited to religious thought. And the results it achieves are not immutable. People with honest and virtuous intents may disagree. Although there are some absolutes, their number is limited, and in most modern arguments both sides are right – at least in regard to some of the particulars. And if contemporaries disagree over “right” and “wrong” it is certain that past and future generations will question what we think, and how we decide and act.

If they can.

When tyrannical regimes in the Middle East destroy sites that others consider holy, we protest their action, even though its proponents believe that they are eliminating places of blasphemy, sacrilege, and immorality and they demolish whatever relics of it that they can find. Their intent is to improve rather than destroy. Yet we are outraged. When we are embarrassed or angered by an American past that includes slavery in our country, we destroy as many symbols of it as possible, including monuments and the names of those who supported or even tolerated it. Perhaps their intent was virtuous. Perhaps they were being honored for other acts, that is not relevant. We ignore their intent and their context and substitute our own. And, like tyrants elsewhere, we destroy our own history making it more difficult for future generations. We honor George Orwell's 1984 and Soviet historical revisionism.

Bad as such behavior may be when practiced by an individual, it is worse when it involves group action. If someone is convicted in the press of an alleged act, and others, with no knowledge of the act, wish to support the “victim,” their good intentions should be supported by a review of all sides of a story – not just the one reinforcers want you to hear. Yet that's what media groups, social and otherwise, prompt people to do – to convert uninformed good intent into mindless and forceful acts. Too often, for example, “good” people, with good intentions, demand freedom of speech, but are encouraged to protest when requested it is sought by others who disagree with their leaders. The “Right” of such a freedom devolves only on those with the “right” point of view.

Proper intent is necessary, but only if its inspired by information rather than incitement. Those who would use the good intents of others to add strength to evils which they wish to promote will be judged (according to your beliefs) by G-d or future generations.

Virtuous intent is to be praised. Well-considered virtuous intent based on your own beliefs and knowledge. (And those who would manipulate that virtuous intent are to be condemned.) The existence of virtuous intent is worthy of praise. The virtue of the act must be judged separately.

For example, in the summer of 1945, Harry Truman, having recently assumed the Presidency following the death of Franklin Roosevelt, authorized the atomic bombing of two cities in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because of which it is estimated that 130,000 died immediately (with many more subsequently). Development of the weapon had been initiated by his predecessor, but Truman authorized its use. It brought to an end a war that had caused the deaths of tens of millions already, and damage and destruction to numerous cities and historic sites.

Truman's intent, to end the war while preserving the lives of many future combatants and civilians was achieved. The intent was worthy and the result was cheered at the time. There have been many questions raised subsequently about whether a similar result could have been achieved otherwise, but that is not for me to judge.

However I continue to believe that if the supplicant's intent is proper, it is understood; and the act itself is judged with this in “mind.” We may not live in the time and context of the act, and the imposition of our time's political correctness, or any other criterion, isn't appropriate.

Society And The Rest Of Us

I started this essay between six and seven years ago, but I never finished it. The time has come, even though the slant now may be different from what I originally intended. I've edited it to conform to my current philosophy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Someone repeats the same sentence several times. He is getting older and his children are tired of hearing him. What's to be done? Perhaps the affliction is pathological and requires a remedy.

A man goes around the room straightening every picture – some only a millimeter or two off his mark. He has obsessive-compulsive disorder. It clearly abnormal. Everyone agrees he needs to be treated.

A child looks out the window every time a teacher starts speaking. It must be attention-deficit disorder. Such a problem is clearly detrimental, and the proper medicines and counseling must be instituted to alter this behavior.

A woman talks incessantly, not leaving an opening for anyone else to talk, and apparently unaware of what anyone else has to say. Though irritating, it's normal and requires no professional intervention, although someone may say something.

No, this isn't a misogynistic or any other type of rant. My target, rather, is the way we set standards of what is normal and what isn't. I'm a little put out by the way we decide what falls outside the range of the acceptable, in speech and in behavior, and what we should – or is it what we can – tolerate. I'm concerned because I view our standards as being based on politics or some kind of imagined correctness and not on any objective criteria.

Let me give an example: A “pin-up” calendar in a men's locker room would be viewed as provocative and unacceptable, while lush wallpaper in a ladies' lounge, wallpaper that includes images of virile Greek gods, would not merit mention. How this attitude entered our society isn't clear, but there are many men, in addition to women, who agree with the view. Somewhere along the line society has conditioned us as to what's acceptable and what's not.

So our comfort is what counts, and the man with OCD needs treatment because it's bothersome to others – not necessarily to himself. And it's easier to diagnose a child as having ADD, and possibly put him on drugs, than to look for any other reason for his behavior. Perhaps the elderly individual who cannot remember what he said would benefit from therapy, but the problem is most striking to the listener, not to the one repeating himself – though he may be judged by the courts to be incapable of making decisions and forced to undergo therapy that others choose.

Most of the problems for which we have devised solutions derive from what society has taught us. And society's dictates vary from time to time. To the point that we no longer accept the Constitution of our country as it was written. Extensive interpretation is necessary. Free speech is nice unless it offends someone. And if it bothers someone we've designated as a member of an “oppressed” group it may constitute hate speech. “This is your punishment for deviating from the Bible. I pray that you are forgiven.” Though the speaker may sincerely wish for the benefit of the person he is addressing, said to a homosexual it constitutes deplorable hate speech. The concepts of free speech and freedom of religion, and religious views, are less important than the feelings of the listener. (Often it is a non-involved party whom it offends more than the one to whom it was directed. No one will find it offensive if somebody accuses you of being a gun supporter, though it may be accompanied) by more hate than the biblical remark.)

And words that were perfectly acceptable in the past are no longer to be used. Euphemisms must be substituted. A child who was once said to be retarded is now “special.” But if everyone knows what the euphemisms mean, they're no different from the words they replace. Except to the “sensitive” among us. Meanwhile other words, anatomical designations or expletives once forbidden in public discourse, are used freely and without disapproval.

There's no solution to the problem. Some people will insist that only the way they speak is acceptable, and those who disagree should be silenced. But, as Benjamin Franklin said, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” Or, in the words of George Orwell, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” The freedom to express ourselves any way we want is paramount (although those who see their nation's flag burned, or who see Nazis protected by the government while marching through the streets may want their representatives to revisit the issue). And our behavior as well. Forcing us to obey the rules of the intolerant is contrary to any ideas of freedom. Making us fit into societal norms is tyranny.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I said then, and I still believe that what we say and what we do (as long as we're not physically harming others) is our own business and should be protected by society, not controlled by it. Limitations on free speech are only rarely justified, and such action should be taken only after careful consideration of the consequences. As for forced, or pressured, therapy, we went through the tragedy of eugenics early in the last century, and we should know by now that no one should be treated for any real or imagined disease unless he chooses to be.

The United States was founded with the intent of offering freedom. Destroying that freedom in order to soothe the majority must not be tolerated.






February 9, 2017

Can We Talk?

Islamophobia is bad. It paints an entire population with the faults of some. If most Muslims favor Sharia law and the destruction of Western culture, that is their right. Criticism of their views, however, is not ours. In the United States if there is a verbal expression of anxiety over the fact of Islamic ideas it is considered “hate” speech. If someone labels a terrorist bombing or other incident as a terrorist bombing or other incident, it is viewed by many as Islamophobia and shifts guilt from the bomber to the one speaking. Academia has created “safe spaces” where students, purportedly in universities to learn the views of the world around them, can protect themselves from ideas they don't want to hear.

There is a German song, “Die Gedanken sind frei” – Thoughts are free. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedoms of speech, thought, and religion, but that only seems to apply if the concept you're considering is in fashion politically, and if it can be taken out of context to make a political point or to express something fashionable. You may decry whatever “common knowledge” has decided is evil, but not any thoughts you may have about some taboo topic. Thoughts are free but not their expression.

Muslims participated in slave trade long before it became a way of life in America. And most of the African blacks who wound up here were rounded up by black African leaders who made a great profit from the transactions. We don't talk about that – that part of history is of no interest to us. Rather we undo American history by desecrating and destroying as many as we can of those aspects of the slave trade and the Confederacy with which we disagree. They may have been blights on our heritage (irrespective of how they were viewed at the time), but the blight – and responsibility for indemnification and apology are ours, and not in any way associated with those who sold us the slaves. Vilifying America is virtuous – especially if accompanied by mass action. It is an expression of freedom of speech. But we are not free to question that point of view. We are bigots if we do so. The only thing we're privileged to discuss is what happened in our country, not elsewhere. Context is irrelevant. And discussion of context is forbidden in safe spaces.

Let's take another example. Antisemitism has been around for millennia. And that includes the United States where it can still be found. We don't talk about it. Prejudice against Jews and many other groups – is not a subject of conversation. There is no discussion of “Affirmative Action” anchored in the quotas of the past. It is of no interest to universities. And, of course, what happened to them in the past – history – is not our concern if it doesn't fit into the current narrative. What fits should be excoriated in the names of justice and free speech. What contradicts our current views is hateful and its discussion should be repressed, irrespective of the means necessary.

One more example: whatever is said against blacks or Muslims is hate speech. If it is mentioned at all in the media it is only to be condemned. Better – it should not be mentioned at all. Similar accusations against conservatives, however, are not only legitimate – whether false or true – should be shouted from the rooftops. And those having a different opinion are bigots. Our media tell us so.

Look at the New York Times on almost any day. (That paper is merely my example because I live in New York, but I suspect the pattern holds true in most homes of “liberalism” – the only truly American point of view.) The opinion section is almost entirely about the evils of conservatives and conservatism. It is heavy-handed and it rarely prints contrary ideas, no matter how important and logical the perspectives are – and it's only to provoke outrage among its readers. That's expressed in the letters they choose to print.

Worse. Conservative views are overlooked and even the “objective” articles are filled with the newspaper's opinion (advocacy journalism). Indeed, the choice of what “news” to cover seems to be based on a paper's editorial views, rather than its inherent worthiness.

In short, free speech seems to be limited to politically acceptable ideas. Anything contrary to them is beyond the pale and should be suppressed. In part it's about (political) fashion, but more important it's about the Constitution, and what students nowadays are taught is its meaning and that of the amendments.

Can we talk? Only if you say what I want to hear.

Safe Spaces And Dangerous Places

I've come to the conclusion that one of the most dangerous places around is home. Not physically, but from the perspective of free speech. I arrived at that determination after learning that one of the reasons that academic institutions were establishing “safe spaces” was that students wanted a place to express their own opinions, and didn't want to hear someone offering anything that was in conflict with it. It's likely that in their own homes they were expected to be seen but not heard. So what they couldn't say at home was what they sought to have a place to say in the university.

It's a noble idea to want to exercise your right of free speech, although I think that the students, and more regrettably the universities, are missing the point. It was my (naïve) belief that one of the main purpose of higher education was to expose the students to ideas that differed from the ones with which they were familiar. It was all part of the learning process, and the goal was to prepare students for the “real” world where they would have to hear such ideas and analyze them so they could make their own decisions.

Perhaps I was mistaken, and I am confused about the role of the university. If those in academia consider their obligation to be to make students comfortable, the approach is reasonable. As would more parties be, except that some of their charges may take such revelry as a form of “microaggression,” and they might be offended and protest.

Or perhaps I am misunderstanding both the university's goal and the way that it is satisfying student needs during the time that it is broadening their perspectives. Unlikely as it may be, the path to the toleration, and, indeed, the celebration, of real free speech and education may be viewed as requiring students to be led there slowly. And universities bay be subtly trying to bring their novices to that path.

Trying to imagine how that might be done, I wonder if what these in loco parentis institutions do is to assign every new student to a single room where there is no one to disagree with him (or her). Any visitor to that room will be expected to agree with all the opinions he expresses. And that means that when he visits a friend in another room – and college freshmen (and women) are a gregarious lot – it is incumbent on him to listen to, and to agree with, the views expressed by the room's occupant. Whether or not he agrees with what he hears, if he wants friends he'll have to tolerate their views. Maybe he'll even pay attention to what they think, and the thinking behind it. Sometimes the views of others make sense.

Having said it, however, I don't believe it. From what I've seen in the media, I am of the opinion that the universities are among the most dangerous places for learning that exist. Blame it on society itself if you choose, but there is an increasing focus on the spoken word and its implications. Fearing offending others and the “slippery slope” of faulting those who fault our society, students slide, instead on the slippery slope of intolerance of opinions that they think may not be popular or in keeping with their own. They don't want to hear them, and they don't want others to hear them. Instead of free speech, which they claim to support, they favor limiting speech to fashionable opinions – opinions in which they've been indoctrinated.

And the universities are supportive. Many of the faculty came of age at a time when rebellion and opposition to “the establishment” were de rigueur and they applaud, and encourage, such an approach on the part of those under their tutelage. It is their mission to inculcate distrust in them – distrust of the culture in which they live and distrust of any who support it or who disagree with them. People like that are wrong and have no right to be heard. They're Nazis, or supporters of apartheid, and their views are invalid and disruptive. Disrupting them is perfectly right and necessary.

And university administrations all too often cower before such forces. “Cower” may be the wrong word because it implies an unwilling surrender to superior forces. (Superior in strength, not wisdom.) All-too-often, unfortunately, the administrations agree with the actions of the masses. It's easy to attribute to inexperience and fearfulness, to the apprehension that faculty, students, and, most importantly, the press will view them as supporting unfashionable causes if they take a stand against mob censorship, so they either take no action against protesters or support them. The university is not a safe place for those who don't agree with majority opinion, even if that opinion is uninformed.

Home may be seen as dangerous, but the places to which many of our youth – and the teachers of the future – “escape” are far worse. Indeed, they are not safe spaces but the most dangerous to which they can go.

January 2, 2017

Say What I Say Or Shut Up

If I've said it once … – no, they wouldn't let me say it. They shouted me down.

That's the current status in academia and, for that matter, much of the non-academic community. Too much of our society has come to a point of intolerance, and demands agreement with the “accepted” point of view. Most in the news is the approach of our universities to differences of opinion among students and, more important, the role of faculty. Students must be bearers of a socially acceptable political philosophy – they probably are anyway – and faculty don't hesitate to indoctrinate them in their own opinions resulting in students' fear of being penalized if they should hold otherwise. And, in addition to the incitements of bellicose students, faculty sometimes provoke student protests against speakers with whom they disagree. Those they oppose are wrong, and students shouldn't (have the opportunity to) hear their views. No one wants to be thought of as violating societal norms and opposing his “friends.” So there is conformity with the beliefs and wishes of others.

Those in charge, fearing negative reaction, set up “safe spaces” where only the opinions students want to hear (or are told that they do) are permitted. Opposition is silenced – forbidden, despite the fact that one of the most important functions of an academic institution is to expose students to different points of view. It is better to reinforce popular positions than to risk questioning them.

Freedom of speech is simply an extension of freedom of thought. And everyone is entitled to express his thoughts. Anyone may argue with them but may not silence them. While the courts have permitted limited restrictions based on safety, the suppression of opinions is not acceptable. There have been alien and sedition laws from time to time. While they were defended as safety measures, their imposition was wrong and they have been withdrawn. And the courts find a Constitutional right for what many would consider pornography (and I am one of them) and a threat to the safety of our society, especially the young, in view of the fact that it is rampant graphically and orally. Expletives are rarely omitted in our society, except by those trying to make a point.

In short, censorship of almost any kind is proscribed. At least by law. But more and more we are experiencing the loud expressions of the politically correct, and the silencing of views that differ with their ideas. Protests and intimidation provide the censorship that is prohibited by law. But isn't the insulting of those with whom you disagree politically as much hate speech as the expression of negative views of those whose ethnicity or sexual preferences differ from yours? And isn't attacking them a hate crime? Yet these acts are rarely prosecuted as hate related.

Free speech has a long history in our country. It's a basic right as defined by the First Amendment to our Constitution. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled on numerous cases dealing with it. (There have also been cases involving freedom of religion – another First Amendment right – but I'll deal with them another time.) For the most part they have confirmed our rights, even though there have been many who would like to still those whose views differ from theirs. And they have included groups (Citizens United and other organizations wishing to express a view). We have long accepted the right of the media to do so and if a rich newspaper can express opinions, it's not clear why other organizations should not have the same right. Free speech may not be free, but it should apply equally to all.

Errors of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. (Thomas Jefferson)

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. (Louis D. Brandeis)

We'd be better off if those who promote “Truth” would listen respectfully to others who may subscribe to a contrary “Truth.” And even more so if they talked to each other and worked out their differences of opinion.

Sez Who? 2

In an earlier essay (May 29, 2011) I wrote about free speech and its defense, concluding that all speech should be permitted and that, in the words of Justice Louis Brandeis,

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

I noted Justice Robert Jackson's words as well

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.

While I still agree with those sentiments, I am aware that I didn't spend any time on an important underlying problem – the plethora of “speakers.” What I mean is not that everyone is talking at once, although that's certainly true – and, sadly, there is “a good deal of rubbish” around – but that there are so many who are “experts” and we are getting our instructions and our marching orders from more and more of them. And obeying those in charge is even more complex. So determining what is valid and what isn't often presents difficulties. I have my own views in this regard, but I realize that others may disagree. Nonetheless, I shall present my appraisal of the various sources of “the rules of the road” – those telling us what to do, or pretending to be more virtuous than we, and to know more than we do. To one degree or another they direct our thinking and our actions, though they often contradict each other.

Among the oldest standards, and the ones considered by so many to be the least rational, are those that are spiritual in origin. The Bible and other religious codes contain the absolutes that we are to accept, because they are “right,” and whatever contradicts them is wrong. By and large they don't accept the idea of cultural diversity and contrary opinions, and the responses of believers to disagreements are a blind eye and ear in the face of perverse notions, tolerance, argumentation, and war. Luckily my religion boasts the correct rules and I am thus the bearer of ageless wisdom. But, I suppose, you feel the same way, even if our traditions don't overlap. (I should point out that I'm right and you're wrong, but I'll deal with that issue at some time in the near future, and tell you how I know it. PS – I'm not interested in war.)

According to the religious approach, the absolutes were announced by G-d, and are universal. There's no such thing as “moral diversity.” Right's right and wrong's wrong. But not everyone holds this view. (They're wrong of course.) So we've wound up in a situation of national anarchy. Every country makes its own rules, and they usually differ from each other and from the religious absolutes. That's what I mean by “national anarchy.” Secular laws are whatever the legislators want them to be – what they or their contributors find the most appealing – without any necessary linkage to propriety and justice. No. that's a misstatement. Since they make the rules, they define “propriety” and “justice.” It's whatever they say it is, and you'd better do what they say.

But even that's not correct, at least not in our country. And I presume elsewhere as well. Our legislators set goals and leave it to others – unelected bureaucrats – to make the regulations that we have to follow. Penalties result if we don't do so, despite the fact that the rules were never approved by those our Constitution decreed responsible for doing so.

Secular law, however, is superimposed on a large number of other sources of instruction that abound in our lives. Among them are “common knowledge,” customs and traditions (“We've always done it that way”), fashions, rumors, societal “norms,” the expectations of others, and numerous other guides. Our bookstores are filled with handbooks for us “dummies” so that we'll do things in the right way.

And besides the sources of instruction are the authorities that tell us what we should do are those who tell us what we must do. At home it's our parents. Elsewhere it may be teachers, bosses, doctors, accountants, union stewards, and similar experts. And, of course, judges. Their opinions and biases, after all, supersede the written laws which, in any case, they interpret. In actuality, they have the last word. Ignorance of their views is no excuse for violating them. (You certainly don't want to contradict a dictator. At least not if you value your life.)

That's the minimum. There are other authorities of all types and they both set standards for us and manage our lives. Hebrew National answers to a “Higher Authority.” And federal and state authorities make sure that we're following the rules. And the MTA and similar agencies govern our ability to go from place to place. There are others, of course, which only deal with us in particular areas of life. In my case, for example, the JCAH (Joint Committee on the Accreditation of Hospitals) decided what constituted proper medical practice, setting the rules as to how to follow their wishes but, every few years, when we were finally beginning to understand their rules, they changed them.

What's the answer? What should we do – especially when standards and rules disagree? There are different approaches, mainly based on your philosophy. But rather than outline the approaches themselves, it will be more productive to review the criteria you'll use to choose.

Your level of belief may lead you to choose religious edicts rather than others while attachment to life may take you in another direction; abiding respect for your nation's history and customs may govern your actions but the suggestions of your lawyer or accountant may direct the way you abide by the law; the guidebook for dummies may point you in one direction and your personal trainer may go the opposite way. It doesn't matter what you choose. You're wrong.

So the best answer is to do whatever you think is right; to take the approach that you think is most consistent with your personal philosophy and your ultimate goals. But be prepared to take the consequences if things don't work out. Those who practice civil disobedience with the knowledge that they may be arrested are doing that, but it's what they've chosen to do; it's what they believe to be right.

So speak your mind, and either make a decision based on what is important to you or flip a coin.

Just remember. Heads you lose, tails you lose.

September 21, 2016

That's Not Who We Are, Or Is It?

“Who we are” debates have centered on immigration policy – a topic not covered explicitly in the Constitution. Nor is there any mention in that document of sex, marriage, privacy, or a large number of other issues that dominate the thinking of many Americans. What is present, however, is a ban on the limitation of free speech. And the states can't do it either. But our own people have found a way to subvert the Constitution that gives them freedom and is the basis for the law under which we live.

Yesterday, following demonstrations in Berkeley, California, (UC Berkeley, the university that claims to be the site of the origin of the “Free Speech Movement) a speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos, was prevented from expressing his views. The security forces at the college decided that, because of protests and riots, his safety couldn't be assured.

Students said that they were protesting peacefully and that the violence was caused by outside agitators, anarchists, but a large, and increasing, number of incidents in which a speaker is drowned out or prevented from speaking, exposes not only a hatred of contrary ideas, but a fear by demonstrators of others hearing them. Since 1791 the First Amendment has been part of the Constitution and, in 1977 in the Skokie case, the ACLU maintained, and the Supreme Court decided, that people had the right to express heinous views, even to those who didn't want to hear them. It's not an outdated interpretation. It's recent. There is great fear among many of those who oppose others designated as “strict constructionists” and “originalists,” and they maintain that the interpretation of the Founders in the eighteenth century has to be revised. Whether or not that is the case, it's hardly the first time that a speaker – almost invariably a conservative (or someone who is believed to favor Israel) – has been silenced and denied the right of free speech, especially in academic centers, and often with the aid of faculty. And they will prevent others from hearing whatever they disagree with. Sadly, university officials usually don't enforce rules against such behavior. That, of course, encourages it to continue.

A slightly less obvious form of suppression of free speech has also taken place. It is viewed by its proponents as “sensitivity,” but it is actually “politically correct” speech. And going along with that is the establishment in universities of “safe spaces” in which students will be protected from hearing ideas with which they disagree. It seems that many who seek to learn are only willing to hear what they already believe, and whatever speech disagrees with it must either be replaced or drowned out. It's a definition of education that varies with past expectations. In fact it is a definition that completely negates the idea of a university education that exposes students to ideas they should examine.

Students, however, are not all that different from the rest of society, though they may be more vocal. Protests of ideas have become epidemic – often fueled by professional protesters – and there is an emphasis on euphemism and other politically correct speech and action. Particular groups are in the forefront of the movement – groups that claim a desire for a free and liberal country – but the issue is what they do, not on what they believe or say. And the effect of their actions is to silence those with other points of view.

As I have said before, the real problem is that they are little different from the rest of us in respect to the way that they think. They have their views and want their way. Don't we all? And the Constitution guarantees us the right to say so. But it doesn't give people the right to silence those with other views. Most of us would like to have those with “wrong” views shut up, but most of us would not take action to achieve that goal. The vast majority of those who take such steps were born here. They are our brothers and sisters. They are who we are. And they are wrong. But they have a lot in common with the rest of us – even if they don't represent us.

Who we are – those born here – seems to be self-interested people, but we should not be confused with those who invariably find fault with others, and act more hatefully than those they condemn. Who they are, and what they claim, should not be viewed as typical of all Americans. They are not who we are.

The Olympics, Academia, And ISIS

The Greeks had a word for it. In fact, they had two words: Ολυμπιακοί αγώνες, Olympiakoi Agones, the Olympic Games. According to Wikipedia, the “athletic competition was tied to worship of the gods, and the revival of the ancient games was intended to bring peace, harmony and a return to the origins of Greek life.” So that the games could take place, a truce was declared suspending ongoing battles. And the prize for winning an olympic event was an olive branch. That's not to say that olympic ideals were always met, but those were the goals.

When the games were reinstituted at the end of the nineteenth century, they were restricted to amateurs, the “lovers” of sports, and they were designed to bring peace between nations. Indeed, one of the olympic goals is to “[c]reate a window of opportunity for dialogue and reconciliation, separate from any religious, economic or political influence.”

Unfortunately, the olympic ideals have been sacrificed over the years to dogma, dollars, and the quest for publicity. Officials have been involved in corruption, competitors have used drugs to improve their performance, professionals have been accepted into the events, and, worst of all, as time goes by the “games” (they aren't really games any more) have been more a matter of politics than sport. Hitler politicized the games in 1936, and the Palestinians ascended to the world stage in Munich in 1972 by attacking and killing Israeli athletes. High ideals were betrayed – both by the people who were promoting them, and those with a political message.

Academia has seen the same kind of dishonesty. Universities have been functioning for centuries. For most of that time they have been viewed as places of learning, where our youth would be exposed to a wide variety of ideas and to explore the merits of scholarship other than that which they had met earlier. They would have the opportunity to consider and debate views that might be inimical to them, but which they never completely understood before. They expected others to be tolerant of their views as they would reflect on the ideas expressed by those others. That was the point of education: to determine if your preconceived notions stood up to challenges, and to offer counter-arguments to the contentions of others. It was a safe place to express yourself – whether in a formal setting or a bull session.

In recent years, however, those ideals have themselves been challenged and often betrayed. “Relevance” and anti-war sentiment were the themes of students toward the end of the twentieth century, and they were accompanied by the demand for free speech. They insisted that they be heard. It was a time when political sentiment was moving to the left, and they were a part of it. They were liberals and concerned for everyone. So much so that they avoided any reference to others that might be considered derogatory. Language was changing and euphemistic terms replaced the blunt descriptions we had of others (eg “disabled,” “short,” “retarded,” “blind,” “fat,” and the like). You had to be careful when you spoke. But you could speak.

However you can't always do that anymore. Times have changed. Free speech and the exchange of ideas aren't always tolerable on a college campus. That's an overstatement. Free speech is available to protesters and protected classes, but not to those who disagree with them. The “safe space” that once existed in order to allow those who disagreed to air their views without disparagement – and gave others the chance to hear them and, possibly, to learn from them – has been supplanted by a place where only your truths may be spoken and no one may disagree with you. You'll be comfortable and not face the “risk” of exposure to unacceptable views. You may not learn anything, but for your (parents') tuition money you can rebel and protest in peace. Those who disagree will be shouted down (much to the delight of protest organizers and the press) or, if they're faculty members or members of the administration, denounced, and forced to recant or resign. That's not the conventional way to learn about the USSR or Orwell, but it's as close as many college attendees (I hesitate to use the word “students”) will ever get.

It's also close to the procedure of ISIS. They're a bunch of people with fixed, if somewhat frightening views (and a huge income from stolen oil). And they don't tolerate disagreement. So while rioting college students may sometimes force university officials to apologize for disagreeing with them, at the risk of having to face sanctions – they must plead for their (academic) lives – from their faculty organization or the administration, ISIS requires more. There must be an admission of evil deeds and a demand that the subject's government change its policies to suit their needs. It is part of a ritual which they videotape in order to get publicity. Then they behead the one who has done the pleading (that's the French Revolution's approach to the problem), unless he converts to Islam and accepts their views. Even then, his future is not certain. There is no truce and the only chance to achieve peace and harmony is on their terms – by acquiescing to their view of the “worship of the gods.” It was good enough for the Greeks, though they were unbelievers and would also have lost their heads.

Dogma, dollars, and the quest for publicity.

Perhaps there are times when the end justifies the means. Perhaps there are times when the end is justified. But that's not always the case.

The Bible And American Law

Suppose you wanted to rent a room in a public building – a school for example – to have a forum on the permissibility of murder in other societies, and the possible benefits of killing of some people in our own. You might favor the death penalty and euthanasia as examples. Or, perhaps, the killing of malformed newborns. In all likelihood the municipality, citing the first amendment and the right to express your opinion, would grant permission.

Suppose you wanted to rent a room in a public building – a school for example – to have a forum on the evil of murder in other societies, and the harm that would result from the killing of innocent people in our own. You might decry abortion as one such example. In all likelihood the municipality would cite the first amendment, and the declare the impermissibility of promoting a religious agenda in a property run by the government, and would refuse to grant permission.

If someone stole a car he would be prosecuted for larceny because theft is illegal, and if you presented evidence that would help in the conviction you'd be praised as an upstanding citizen.

If someone performed a homosexual act he would be viewed as a an individual legally exercising his rights. If he declared it proudly he would be considered as brave in exposing himself to public opinion. If you argued against his actions you would be denounced as a religious bigot.

And the person who lies while testifying at a trial will, if caught, be tried, himself, for perjury. False testimony, as we all know, is against the law.

But whoever calls a pagan an enemy of G-d's will, will be sanctioned for hate speech. And if he touches the pagan – perhaps offering a reassuring pat on the shoulder – he has committed assault and it is a hate crime. Opposition to paganism is religious oppression, and those who speak out against it are considered to be in violation of the Constitution. They are sectarian extremists.

Opposition to abortion, homosexuality, and paganism are certainly denounced in the Bible, but so are murder, theft, and perjury. In fact, murder, theft, and perjury are forbidden in the Ten Commandmentsⁱ, and should certainly be recognized as religious principles.ⁱⁱ In reality, most of those ideas, and other aspects of what we see as “right” and “wrong,” are important themes in religious works. Yet some we incorporate into the law of the land, and some are prohibited as taboo topics, even for discussion.

Interestingly, it's not just atheists who oppose the discussion of “religious” ideas in public placesⁱⁱⁱ since many religious supporters of the Constitution will cite the “wall of separation” between Church and State and the Constitutional ban on the support of religion by the government. They fear that if such discussion should take place it would lead to the support of a religion, or religion in general, by the state in violation of the First Amendment. It's “slippery slope” argument – the camel's nose concern – the “domino theory” masquerading as Constitutional Law. It's the presumption that the majority can't be relied on to distinguish between right and wrong. People, however virtuous their intent, aren't to be trusted. And the intent of the writers of the founding documents cannot dictate our interpretation of them.

But the laws we follow are of human origin. Whether they were inspired by the Bible or another religious text, or even if they sprang fully formed from the head of some lawmaker, they have the same religious heritage as the concept of “Creationism.” The intent of the proponents of both ideas is the same – to govern human behavior using “just” criteria.^iv Only it is humans who decide which religious laws are “just” and which reflect bigotry. And it reflects our intent now^v rather than that of those who lived in earlier centuries.

That path, however, isn't invariably followed, and sometimes we loudly declare the intent of our predecessors to be a critical factor in deciding the validity of an idea. It is such intent that keeps us from imposing the will of the majority on the minority – sometimes.^vi And the “wall of separation” of which Jefferson wrote in a letter^vii in 1802, is considered a basic Constitutional principle by the Supreme Court, even though Jefferson played no part in the writing of the Constitution and wasn't even in the country at the time.^viii But his intent is considered as relevant to an understanding of that document and our current interpretation of it. There is less sympathy for his views regarding states' rights: that a state could overrule laws passed by Congress that it considered unauthorized by the Constitution.^ix “Intent” is a deciding factor – but only if it supports your preconceived notions.

Some of the Ten Commandments ceased to be religious precepts when they resonated with lawmakers, while others, with which they disagreed, were viewed as blinders of the ignorant. According to those who view themselves as non-believers, there are certain basic strategies by which people can live together and these include the proscription of murder and theft. They reflect what we call “morality.”^x But, it may be argued, it was people who made the decision about what strategies to consider useful to society^xi and which ones to dismiss as inappropriate. And those people saw any rules with which they disagreed as religious and bigoted to those who scorned religion, while they were simply deemed wrong by those who followed a different religion.

However an individual, or a society, decides what is Right and what is Wrong, it cannot be denied that all such judgments come from the same source – whatever you believe that is – and human beings, at various times in the past, chose which would be considered moral and which were to be dismissed as fantasy. As they still do. Arguments that some are “religious precepts” simply reflect the rejection of such ideas and the wish to have them viewed in a negative light. Perhaps we're not prepared to accept everyone's views on all issues, but making their discussion taboo, and limiting people's right to think whatever they want and believe whatever they want only serves to divide us. If we only want to hear what we already believe and ban the expression of different ideas, it's not likely that we'll ever learn or grow.

Banning thoughts and ideas is a more restrictive concept than any you'll find in the Bible. The Constitution ha no place for it and neither should we.

Next episode: “The Devil Made Me Do It” – I'm entitled to be bad.

I        In fact its posting is itself beyond the pale in many communities

ii       Indeed, they are among the most important and famous religious principles that we know.

iii       Or anywhere else for that matter.

iv       Wed like to believe this is the goal of both, but we know that such is not always the case.

v        But it may be different tomorrow. Remember that “now” is always changing.

vi       Most laws apply equally to those who agree with them and those who do not, but are the product of the majority – a majority of Congress. There are times, however, when particular minorities are exempted from the laws – for example conscientious objectors didn't have to fight even when others were subject to the draft, and Congress often exempts its own members from laws it imposes on others. The Supreme Court, moreover, has no hesitation in deciding what the Constitution “means,” sometimes based on its view of the intent of the writers and sometimes in spite of that intent.

vii       To the Danbury Baptist Association.

viii     The original idea wasn't his either. According to Wikipedia, it “echo[ed] the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams – who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world" – Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”]

ix        See, for example, the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Jefferson was the author.

x        Of course morality is a relative concept, and the standards may differ depending on the society in which you live.

xi       Moreover, since they disagree on morality, it is not surprising that different societies have different views on some of these issues.

Sterling Silver

In 1977 a group of Nazis wearing and bearing swastikas marched in Skokie, Illinois. Skokie is a town with a majority Jewish populationⁱ and, having been warned of the upcoming event by the boasting of the Nazis themselves, some citizens attempted to use the legal system to prevent the march from occurring. The lawsuits aimed at doing so worked their way quickly through the court system, and ended when the Supreme Court affirmed the right of the Nazis to march.ⁱⁱ

There is protection of our people, by the First Amendment to the Constitution that established the United States, from intrusion into their right to free speech. That dictum gave the marchers the right to flaunt their prejudices untouched by the authorities. It is a protection, however, from any action by the government, and, at least on paper, does not limit a private organization from deciding what speech it will permit. Thus a newspaper can select which articles, letters, and opinions it will publish, and colleges can evict an individual who disrupts a speaker.ⁱⁱⁱ

Perhaps our laws should protect free speech from attacks by non-governmental groups and individuals – but they don't. There are certain uses of speech that are limited or prohibited by law^iv or by the courts,^v but those are exceptions. (In addition there is some limitation on the use of pejorative speech which targets “protected” minorities; and the government becomes involved when it is used during the commission of a crime. This turns it into a “hate” crime with increased penalties. In this instance however, the government is involved speech which, at the time uttered, is not Constitutionally prohibited.)

But, for the most part, free speech is not a feature that automatically exists outside of government. And we impose added limitations on ourselves and on others.

So Los Angeles Clippers' owner Donald Sterling's racist remarks are not protected. Indeed, Sterling's views have long been known throughout the basketball community.^vi And yesterday NBA Commissioner Adam Silver imposed a lifetime ban on Sterling's participation, in any way, with NBA activities. He also fined Sterling $2,500,000, and asked other team owners to force Sterling to sell the Clippers.^vii Silver's decision has been widely praised, not only by those involved directly in the sport, but by the general public as well.

I must admit that I am disturbed by a law that allows Nazis to spew bigotry and hatred publicly, outside the homes of people whose friends and families were murdered by those whom the marchers admire, while words of bigotry and hatred are not protected privately inside an individual's house. I should have thought the opposite to be true – that we were free to think and believe what we want, and to speak our minds freely within the confines of our own castles (it shouldn't matter that what we said was unpopular or even, as it was in this case, racist) despite their proscription in public.^viii

The widespread dispersion of someone's words or image has been made possible and popular by the internet and the social media. The Supreme Court may have decided that there was a Constitutional right to privacy^ix but the parameters of that right aren't clear. Ideally then, even if speech isn't protected, the right to privacy should limit the damage. Such privacy, though, which used to be the heritage of all except “public figures,”^x now doesn't seem to be available to anyone. In this particular instance, Sterling was recorded “illegally,” but the person who made the recording will probably benefit greatly from the act and is unlikely ever to be punished. The concept of privacy is dead. No longer can you say what you think in public or in private; and you take a risk even thinking it.

I'm a hermit. I don't like to talk to people and I suspect my ideas don't correspond to theirs anyway. If I have prejudices, I'm not going to reveal them to anyone but you.^xi And you're not listening anyway. But sooner or later I'll be “outed” and someone will take issue with what I think. I hope so. I haven't had a good fight all day, and you can't force me out of the NBA.

I         Including a large number of Holocaust survivors.

ii        More precisely, the Court decided that the Illinois Supreme Court's action to stop the march was improper, and the group's First Amendment rights would be violated.

iii      They rarely do however. Academic institutions take pride in allowing “free speech,” especially the “proper” unpopular views. They revel in declarations of their openness to all opinions, emphasizing those popular with the faculty and with minority groups. And many of them defend the disruption of some campus speakers as the exercise of First Amendment rights by those who are disrupting. Since, by doing so, they sacrifice the opportunity for free speech by the speaker, their position is difficult is difficult to justify. Even more so since the Amendment specifically deals with governmental actions.

iv        For example libel or slander.

v        Speech aimed at causing a riot will not be permitted. The classic example is falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. There are, however, other limitations on speech.

vi       Though they never were a matter of much concern until they were “tweeted.”

vii      Whether these decisions are legal is up to the lawyers to argue and the courts to decide, but the remarks attributed to Sterling – and he has admitted to having made them – have been widely condemned.

viii     Actually we should be able to speak our minds publicly as well, but some are too “sensitive” to tolerate that.

ix       Even if the Constitution is unaware of it.

x        Who is a public figure and how can someone decide he doesn't want to be one? Is it possible for someone to assert that he want's his privacy – that the Supreme Court has told him he is Constitutionally entitled to it? And if he makes such an assertion, does it have any meaning?

xi      PETA be damned, I have a very low view of skunks. There. Now I feel better. But don't tell them that or I'll never be allowed in a zoo again. Anyway, they'd probably prefer to eliminate the zoos.

You Don't Say

                                                    

Language changes. There's nothing original in that thought. It's hardly a unique insight. Anyone who's tried to read an original version of “Canterbury Tales” will attest to it. Even Shakespeare's works are not fully understandable without explanatory notes. Many of the words and idioms have changed in meaning or have disappeared since he set them down.

But it's not only a process from the past, it is one continuing today. Slang has always been an important component of change. Perhaps it's a tool of rebelling youth – a way of linguistically setting themselves apart from their parents and from previous generations. And their punishment for it is that their slang will be laughed at by their own children, who will use newer slang as a secret language which is opaque to them. What goes around, etc.

Language is also changed by technology.ⁱ Everything is. It's happening more rapidly now, though, than it did in the past because modern technological change is raging, while before it was more likely to have been sauntering. New words are needed daily to describe the new technology and the ideas of a changing society. In addition, the tools, themselves, may demand language changes. Instead of writing we text; instead of sending a long hand-written letter to a friend, we limit our characters and send it 2 him (or her) via “the cloud.” When we reach out to touch someone we only have to go as far as our belt or fanny pack or purse. So we can connect more quickly and with fewer strokes. 2, 4, and 8 are no longer numbers, but words. And, as Cambridge University has been reportedⁱⁱ to have shown,ⁱⁱⁱ if words are used, they need neither be complete nor correctly spelled. As long as the first and last letters are properly positioned, the word will be understood. Orthography be damned.

School marms don't change, however. Deviations from what they learned in school are apt to be circled in red and criticized. They tend to be prescriptionists^iv when it comes to evaluating words. Not that such a perspective is so bad – especially when it comes to early learning. There's no question that kids will learn bad usages, expletives, slang, and dialect on the street. That's where they learn most of what we try to keep from them. And most of the basic language is learned – for better or worse – away from the classroom. So it shouldn't be a surprise, nor is it undesirable, that the subtleties of “standard” language, should be learned at school. Though they may turn in different directions, it seems reasonable that our children should all start on the same page. Whether they follow at all, we have to try to lead.

It's also important to teach the etiquette of speech. It's a large topic ranging from practices like bragging, disparaging, insulting, lying, gossiping, and interrupting, through such activities as speaking when silence would be preferable – like during a funeral or when attending a public performance. Speaking should also be avoided (especially loud speech) on a cell phone in a public place. Additionally, many would prefer not to hear your conversation at all, and would even take offense at your rudeness. It's almost as bad as putting someone on hold or call waiting.^v And when your talking distracts you from more something more significant, it should be avoided.^vi (Some adults should be seen and not heard.)

But those considerations simply reflect lack of concern for danger or for other people. Care and courtesy should accompany all our activities, whether we're descriptionists or prescriptionists.^vii There are many who believe that what makes us human, what distinguishes us from the “lower” animals, is the ability to speak and communicate. We're certainly not alone in possessing those skills, but we may be the only ones to find a way – actually many ways – to misuse that ability.^viii

So we try to use it carefully, and sometimes we monitor others too closely – not just as prescriptionists, but as guardians of all those who may take offense – or who we think should take offense – at the use of what really are accurate statements. The substitution of euphemisms and politically correct speech has been harnessed to protect the sensitive, and those who hear “hate speech” and abuse when it (often) does not exist; an act undermining basic freedom of speech, even if it doesn't actually discard it. But that's one of the ways that change takes place.^ix A genuine prescriptionist would probably have mixed feelings about such usages since while they do represent protective practices utilizing correct, though often misleading constructions, they were taught better and more accurate ways of saying the same thing with a more authentic historical basis. A descriptionist would nod and smile. (“Freudian slips,” spoonerisms, and other such slips twixt the tongue and the lip, on the other hand, reflect errors rather than alterations in language, but we must accept them for what they are.^x)

In any event, we're not going to slow change down. As a matter of fact it's likely to accelerate as modern devices spread new usages and new words at an ever-increasing rate. No matter what we do, that will happen. Prescriptionists may delay things but they won't stop them. And the descriptionists will keep the rest of us up on the results.

According to Voltaire,^xi “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” But you don't have to do that, and it won't help anyway. The changes will occur whether you like them or not.

Next episode: “Mixed Messengers” – Sez who”

 

 

i       Marshall McLuhan said “The medium is the message.” That's not really what I mean. The message is the message – although how we express it may be governed by the way we say it, in terms of both the medium on (or in) which it's being expressed, and who or what [organization] is saying it.

ii    The claim has been made in many publications and widely circulated on the internet, but no original publication has been located.

iii    The idea is appealing, but it isn't at all clear that it is true.

See: http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/

iv   Prescriptionists tell us the RIGHT way to define and use words. They're the ones who are forever correcting you.

v    The same is true, of course, when you speak on the telephone while someone is standing next to you trying to get your attention (your child, perhaps), or when your call distracts you from someone – or something – nearby.

vi    The range of such activities is wide here as well. Most people would think of gabbing on a cell phone while driving, but people may also be distracted while walking. And in addition, people may waste valuable work time while standing around the water cooler when other tasks need to be done.

vii   Descriptionists tell us how words are actually defined and used. They don't pass judgment. They allow some of the greatest perversions of the language without making a peep.

viii    Our prosencephalons (look it up) let us do both.
ix    See the essay “Watch Your Language” that appeared August 5, 2012.

x      Don't give up the slip.

xi    “According to Voltaire” because he probably never said it. At least there is no written record of such a statement. Wikipedia contains the following citation: In his A Book of French Quotations (1963), Norbert Guterman suggested that the probable source for the quotation was a line in a 6 February 1770 letter to M. le Riche: “Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”