Musings. . .

“Civil Rights”–it’s a strange and highly loaded term. My own history with the term has been mostly as an observer. . . And “racial tension”? *sigh*

My maternal grandfather grew up “hardscrabble poor”. His family consisted of him, his father, and his mother. They lived as sharecroppers, growing tobacco in a county that had been shattered along a “North/South” fault line of sympathies, splitting communities and families, and the 30 that had lapsed between the end of Mr. Lincoln’s War and my grandfather’s birth had not healed all wounds.

So, divided communities, hardscrabble poverty, competition at the bottom of the economic barrel between poor “whites” and poor “blacks” for subsistence living: all just parts of his daily life growing up.

And then his father died, forcing him to leave school early to support his mother.

Between those early years and when I came to know him as a child, a lot of water under the bridge, a lot of growing. Yes, to his dying day he maintained some of the biased views that formed him as a child (don’t we all?), but. . .

When I spent summers with my grandparents as a child–one set and then the other–I experienced more education in life than in all my years of schooling. Some of the days I shadowed Dad-Dad at work (he was by that time a Southern Baptist pastor, and had been for decades), I didn’t give a thought to the things I learned, though they were planted deep within me. One of the things I learned unconsciously while shadowing him was learned during his perambulations downtown, visiting folks, mostly business people and their employees, in the area where his church was located. I didn’t think a thing about it at the time, but a couple of decades later, one of those business people brought it all back to me.

But before then, while in grad school, I lived and worked in a neighborhood its denizens labeled amongst themselves, “The Good Part of the Ghetto.” All my neighbors and friends in the area (save for a little “white” lady in her 80s who lived a block south of me and a Vietnamese family several houses north) were “blacks”. It was where I lived and worked. They were my neighbors. It just seemed natural to be friendly with friendly folks.

Several years later, I reconnected with one of Dad-Dad’s friends, while I was working with my Dad selling insurance and servicing clients’ needs. Part of that was simply calling on referrals clients made. One of those referrals led me to one of the two funeral homes that serviced mainly black folks in the community. I recall very clearly the moment the owner shook my hand and said, “You were that little boy that visited with Dr. Tom, weren’t you?”

Now, this man and his family had never been members of Dad-Dad’s church. He was “black,” Dad-Dad was “white”. Both had grown up in, frankly, bigoted environments. When I was a young lad visiting around with Dad-Dad, racial tension was rife.

This man and Dad-Dad were simply friends. As things progressed, I ended up having more referrals from that contact than any other in town. Why? Because my raised-to-be-a-bigot grandfather. . . wasn’t by the time he was my grandfather, at least not by the standards of his friend and his family and friends, all of whom remembered him with appreciation, at the least.

How did this color my own upbringing? Well, as I said, racial tensions were rife, in those days, but I never really noticed (I was just a clueless kid, after all, and the only black folks I knew were Dad-Dad’s friends), until I was laid up in the hospital for a month with little to do. . . and a black and white TV on the wall that could tune in soaps, game shows and. . . breaking news reports about civil rights clashes.

Blew. My. Mind. I had never been aware of racial tensions before. As I said, the only folks the prominent bigotry of the day was most likely to see as “other” were just like Dad-Dad’s friends, as far as I could tell.

Even before The Speech, family and life had just drilled into me the precept: People simply ARE NOT “by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” It’s just the way it is.

But yes, I have experienced racial bigotry–some by direct observation of both “whites” and “blacks” and some by angry, unthinking blacks who DGARA about anyone else’s character, just the color of their skin. But examples of racism personally observed or experienced have been rare for me.

I suppose nowadays, I am some sort of “racist” for embracing the concept of looking at people as people, members of the human race and not just this or that “race” based on physical attributes. *sigh* I look at or hear or read people who view “race” as the defining characteristic of a man’s existence as mentally and morally stunted, so in today’s parlance, yeh, that makes me a “racist.”

I don’t get it. Oh, I do understand that such stupidity exists–I’m not in denial–but it baffles me. Maybe I’m just to old to get it. . .

“Pursuit of Happiness”

The expression, “pursuit of happiness,” can mean many things, and it definitely had at least one commonly-accepted meaning at the time Jefferson included the phrase in the Declaration of Independence that is almost unknown today, but I want to consider just one today in light of the following comment by William Penn:

“No people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyments of civil liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Conscience as to their Religious Profession and Worship.” — William Penn, Pennsylvania Charter of Liberties, 1701

The First Amendment to the Constitution explicitly denies the “feddle gummint” ANY power to impede the free expression of religion. Nowadays, the feds are all over the place bending over backwards to accommodate those who want to eradicate any religious expression that does not agree with their own agendas from the public arena.

And Christians, of all groups, make it especially easy by having secularized their churches to the extent that they have little to stand on in protest of “feddle gummint” misbehaviors.

Let’s take Penn’s “Religious Profession and Worship” phrase to contrast to today’s churches. “Religious profession,” in Penn’s language, does NOT mean “professional religionists,” as in clergy. No, a “religious profession” is a declaration of one’s religious beliefs–to many, anathema in the public square. . . as long as it is profession of Christian beliefs. Anathema even to some who claim to be Christians. When Christians allow themselves to be cowed into silence about the substantive teachings of the church, they have denied their profession.

And what of worship? *feh* The weak, insipid, false view of worship that pervades churches nowadays is the direct result of churches becoming just another part of secular society, and just as secular as what is found outside the congregation. Confining a highly secularized “worship” to behind a church’s closed doors is simply a denial of worship, since true worship is behavior that pervades all of life.

Sidebar: The late 60s youth song, “Sunday’s Child,” about someone who was holier than thou on Sundays but lived like hell the rest of the week comes to mind, as does Fred Pratt Green’s, When the Church of Jesus.” A snippet:

V.2

If our hearts are lifted
Where devotion soars
High above this hungry
Suffering world of ours:
Lest our hymns should drug us
To forget its needs,
Forge our Christian worship
Into Christian deeds.

Now, what “Church of Jesus” would allow “feddle gummint” bullying or naysayers’ whinnying to keep them from true worship? Those who do forfeit a happiness that it is their right to pursue. . . or eschew, as most do.

Yes, I’ve wandered around a bit and not really defined what this form of happiness is, but unless one is willing to pursue obedience to Christ, describing it will do no good.

Matthew 28:19-20

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

Yes, “all nations” (all people) means our own, and everyone we meet, whether they like us for doing so or not. Jesus did not say, “Go ye therefore into all the world and try to make people like you by never offending them.” No, in another place He warned that “the world” would hate those who followed Him. Get over it. The highest happiness, for the Christian, is not found in the approval of others–whether of his fellow Christians or outside the congregation of believers. It is found in trusting obedience (our half of the “fides covenant”).

Religious profession: telling others of your faith. Worship: living a life of trusting obedience to God.

And neither of those are genuine if confined only–or even primarily!–inside “church” walls.

Undermining the Foundations

Ponder, if you will, all the times the feds have, of late, misused the 14th Amendment to impose restrictions on genuine rights, create licenses (that it mislabels as “rights”) and in general oppress liberty instead of using it correctly to protect legitimate, natural, God-granted rights. Interesting, eh? Turning constitutional provisions on their heads and destroying liberty seems to be something a majority of SCOTUS, for example, is quite comfy with.

Poisoning the well of freedom. Not a good thing.

Purple-Tinted Rainbow Twaddle Masquerading as Legal Reasoning

Justice Kennedy was exactly the right person to sum up the legal reasoning of the majority opinion behind SCOTUS’ 5-4 HODGES decision. [Note: link is to pdf of Kennedy’s formal opinion.] Let’s just let Kennedy’s emotional bullshit speak for itself:

purple-tinted-rainbow-twaddle

That’s what passes for legal thought in the SCOTUS nowadays. . . Blatant distortion of fact and meaning. Logical fallacy after fallacy supporting emotional bullshit. That is the whole argument for same-sex “marriage” in a nutshell. At least Kennedy got that right.

How to Mend Fences. . . or Not

When you have wronged someone, always apologize in a genuine, straightforward manner, acknowledging your fault, offering to make amends if material harm was done, doing so in a frank, straightforward manner.

When someone has wronged you, always accept a genuine, straightforward apology offered as above. But, always reject a weasel-worded fake apology and specify why. Fake apologies that do not even admit fault are worse than useless; they are additional offense. If the offender refuses to amend their error, shake the dust from your feet and simply ostracize them, make them thereafter a non-person to you, unless the offense also carries substantial material harm. Then, sue their pants off.

In family disputes, this may need a wee bit of tweaking. Between spouses, ignore everything in the second paragraph. No, seriously. 😉

Lobotomized Morning Yaks

I do NOT watch AM TV. . . well, I do not, as a general rule. But. Well, my Wonder Woman is off work today and so morning TV (completely absent anything appropriate for Memorial Day, of course) is on. Blonde Bimbo is attempting to channel her inner 13-year-old “Valley Girl,” complete with the “Listen to me Do I sound stupid or what?” inflections and Robin’s Egg Blue nail polish.

*gagamaggot*

I pointed out the nail polish to my Wonder Woman (school librarian, so look out for the pun). She told me that when she sees girls with blue nail polish she takes their hands and says something like, “Oh, honey, we have to work on your circulation, because your fingers are turning blue!”

*heh*

The Blonde Bimbo Valley Girl on GMA yaks like the circulation problem has caused even deeper problems with her lobotomy. . .

The Natives Are Restless. . .

While the savages in Ferguson and elsewhere demonstrate why ordinary folks hold them in contempt, I’m once again glad I live in America’s Third World County™, where there may be violence from time to time, but usually limited to one-on-one (and at least one of the participants was askin’ for it). There’s quite a bit of gunfire, but it’s usually limited to the range, the deer (or other game) woods, and occasionally shots fired at someone who’s askin’ for it (trespassing, attempted burglary/robbery–usually out in the country where it’s REALLY stupid to try, cos if the 00 shot doesn’t get you, the landowner’s dogs will).

It’s nice to live somewhere with the virtues of civilization and few(er) of its vices.

Keep it in the X-ring, folks!

Is It Just Me?

Anyone else annoyed (to the point of having your gizzard chapped *heh*) by speakers and especially by writers who use the plural pronouns, “them, they, their” in place of “he or she, him or her, his or hers” whenever they simply want to obscure–or simply not specify–the sex of the (singular!) person to whom they refer?

I view such usage as lazy and cowardly. Use gendered pronouns whenever possible. Chap idiots’ gizzards.