WE GOTTA TALK!!!

We American Christians have a weird relationship with controversy.  Though we are causing it all the time, publicly in the news or privately in our local groups, we are trained not to talk about it.  We are told by Ministry not to gossip, yet, when important issues come up, we have no instruction for addressing them if they are controversial. We have these sub cultural mores that tell us if we question something with too much emotion, especially if it is challenging something, even something bad, we have a "critical spirit," and are not contributing to the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," as Paul instructs us to in his letter to the Ephesians.  So, we Christians are trained not to talk publicly about anything too controversial, as it will "cause division."

What often happens, I've seen, is that we achieve a kind of surface-unity, while gossip remains rampant and controversial subjects are never really processed.  The preferred way of processing those things is to avoid talking about them, especially if they bring out emotion and disturb our "peace." If there are things you can't process well in a church, you either try to address them and are labeled as "critical" and not "submissive," and, possibly, told to leave. Or you leave yourself, because you just can't continue your authentic sense of Christianity and continue to "keep the peace." You have to ignore the cognitive dissonance that comes from pretending to be part of a group that doesn't want to process important things if they cause too much of a flurry. (Don't forget that being honest with yourself and others, is a fundamental Christian value!)

What if you had a family like that?  Or a marriage?  What?  No arguments?  Arguments can be productive. We learn from one another through them, if handled correctly. And handling them correctly and productively, as you find out once you are married to someone for more than a few days, does not cancel out the fact that emotions rage, on both sides of a subject, when those views are held passionately.  You don't divorce because you argue. You learn how to handle your emotions a little better.  You learn how not to be threatened by your partner's emotions.  You learn to listen beyond the emotions. You don't throw your spouse out because they are emotional about something, even if that something is as minor as how to squeeze the toothpaste.

One definition of trauma is a distressful experience which you don't have the internal or external resources to handle.  The experience isn't processed, and is so stored in our brains to be processed at a later time, which is the definition of Post Traumatic Stress.

Right now, members of the Christian Church in America are fighting.  It's obvious.  There is a great division, between the Christians who are devoted followers of Trump and those Christians who are not.

On one  perceived "side," you have a certain, valid, version of "love of Country," for whom so many died, whose foundation many believe was "Christian," conveniently omitting that there were a lot of non-Christian behaviors that were mixed with that founding.   (This is another thing about which American Christians have fought, and are fighting. My view is that being honest  about the sins that came in the name of Christianity does not have to cancel out our Christianity, or our love for our country.  But that is the subject for another blog) These people are fighting for the respect of Trump, and what they perceive is the lost American "greatness," which he has promised to restore.

On the other side are the Christians who often are labeled "Liberal Christians," those who are  perceived as always "crying" about compassion and kindness and who are viewed as "weak" by the Trump brand of Christian. The "Liberal" Christians are perceived of as guilty of not complaining harshly enough about abortion, being anti-war, believing in the results of academic study even if it challenges our current view of Scripture.  Liberal Christians would bake a cake for gay wedding partners.  They might even go to their wedding.  Some of them may feel that homosexuality can't be rigidly supported by Scripture, but, even then, they are welcoming to the LGBTQ community and, in general, aren't threatened by it. Oh, Liberal Christians tend to not like guns too much, though I'm sure many of them are avid hunters or law enforcement officers.

Speaking of threats, the Trump Christians are very threatened by the "Liberal" Christians.  They feel that if we followed the liberal "agenda," we will not only lose out Christian country, but we would slide right into Socialism/Communism/Marxsism.

"Liberal" Christians think that the Trump Christians are destroying our county, and the values we stand for.

How can this be?  Can both sides be destroying out country?  I'm not sure.

BUT---WHAT I WANT TO ADDRESS NOW IS OUR SUB CULTURAL CHRISTIAN WISH NOT TO TALK ABOUT ALL THIS.

This is important!!!! Our country is being torn apart!!! Do you think that a family conflict would be solved by not talking about it!  Many a trauma has been caused, in families and in churches, and in many organizations, secular or religious, by "not talking" about what is tearing the group up.

Talking is messy. Fighting is messier. It is fraught with misunderstandings, mistaken perceptions, inaccurate presuppositions, thinking you know others' motives.

But here is my take:  IT HAS TO BE DONE.  and IT'S GOING TO BE DONE, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, BECAUSE THE ISSUES ARE TOO IMPORTANT.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUSH THIS UNDER THE RUG IN OUR QUEST FOR PEACE!!!!


What is the result going to be?  I don't know.  I see the American Christian Church as now deeply divided in a way I'm not sure we will ever be healed of.  It is not just that we have gotten mean to each other in our facebook discussions.  It is that the differences go so deep. The Trump movement is just bringing this out.  We can't pretend those differences don't exist. WE HAVE GOT TO deal with this!!!!

Many Christians not only discounted Obama's Christian profession, but sincerely believe he is a closet Mulsim/Marxist.  Many Christians see Trump and his followers as the flawed, inauthentic Christians and are disgusted by that "brand" of Christianity.  People will try to say, "Let's just hang onto what we have in common, that Jesus died for us,"  But following Jesus has consequences. Some believe those consequences include loyalty to your Christian countriy's foundations, and some question those foundations and view Christianity as supra-national---beyond national.

I could go on and on about the differences.  We will see this continue to unfold in the months and years to come, as one vision of America's "greatness" is built into our national culture and laws.  I don't think it is wise to "not talk about it" to maintain the peace, as we all boil within, holding back our explosion. (Although, I think our current leader and those who support him would be fine with our being afraid to question the things he does---Hmm That reminds me of many churches, where you can't challenge or question the leadership too strongly. Also reminds me of Kim Jung Un and others like him.)

I think that, despite the shame and embarrassment of the public "family fight," to not bring these differences out would be like a family covering up all sorts of dysfunctions, pretending "everything is alright."  Often in our Christian circles, we think that "the world" will see us fighting and be disgusted and not come to Jesus because of the way we are acting.  That may be partially true, but, wake up, Church--the world is more savvy about human nature than we give them credit for.  They can see a fake a mile away, and when we are pretending all is "peaceful," they can see the steam coming out of our ears!

I think we have to let this out. Let it come out about where our hearts really are!
One thing I will warn,  whatever type of Christian we may be.  If it turns out that we start jailing the type of Christian we don't want to be, we will know at that point that we are not the real deal!!!!

(what about preservation of the Union?  What about a persecution that will bring us all together?  Will that happen? Or will one brand of Christian take over and put the members of the other brand in jail? What about Jesus coming to bring a sword, and the enemies of someone being even in their own household?)

White Privilege Meets Racisim

Today I believe I, via one of my sons, experienced an instance of blatant "Ablism," And it is quite possible that I also experienced my first very personal instance of blatant Racism.

Ironically, I had just yesterday been thinking about blogging on the subject of White Privilege, and how one of its attributes is that we don't know we have it.   We Whites, in general, do not like to consider ourselves "prejudiced," much less agents or participants in a social system that is framed by Whites', somehow, being privileged.   No matter how much I may think, "I don't want to be privileged," or, "I didn't set up things this way, so why am I being accused of being part of it!" White Privilege exists, just the way that other privileges exist.  Those privileges may be partially "on purpose," propagated by those we consider out-and-out "racists," or they may exist as a part of the societal air we breathe every day, contributed to unknowingly by all of us, just as we breath in oxygen and breath out CO2 throughout each day without even thinking about it.

One of our adopted sons, Trevin, had a father who  was African-American and a mother of European descent.   Trevin's skin is brown enough for the average observer to know one of his parents was black.

Trevin is also "disabled."  ( I like the phrase "differently-abled.")  He is 11, and is 2 grades "behind" in school, and also acts much younger than a typical 11-year-old.  We love him.  He has great gifts of movement, drama, athleticism, insight, and tenderness-of-heart.   Trevin is a great kid!!!

Trevin had been playing, unsupervised, with the 5 year old girl next door.  Innocent play.  Nothing bad.  Nothing "dangerous."

Trevin was hastily shooed off to his own yard by Todd, the girl's father.  "You have to leave!  Go home!"  And with that, the Dad threw the large frisbee-like disc back into our yard.  Trevin didn't even know what to think.  My wife caught the event while looking out our window, and told me about it.

So, being the concerned Dad  (Nobody is going to tangle with MY kid!!!!), as well as an advocate against Ablism, I went over to ask the Dad what was going on.

     "What is he, 12 years old?"  he barked.

     "He's 11." "He has delays." I said.

     "I see that," said the Dad.

I then proceeded to tell the man that Trevin came from a very difficult background and that his Dad was extremely harsh with him.  "So try to be gentle with him," I said.

     "Whereever he comes from, I don't think it is appropriate that he play with my daughter unsupervised!" "He's 11 and she is 5.  Do you think that is appropriate?"

     "What is there that bothers you about him?   Why do you feel he is a threat somehow?"  I asked.

     "I don't want my daughter to act the way he acts."

     "What do you mean, his tantrums?"

     "I don't want her to learn how to act the way he acts."  And with that he went into his house, and I had to tell both my younger sons that they could no longer go over there to play with his daughter "unsupervised."   (My older, 13-year-old, comes over often to play with their cat, but he looks younger, and also looks White, though he is part African-American too. But we have never had such an outburst from Todd when that son was playing on his sidewalk!)

So, at first, I think that the Dad's weird reaction to our son is related to Trevin's differing abilities.   But then I realize it might be more than that.  Am I reading into this?  The man is from South Carolina.  He doesn't want Trevin's "ways of acting" influencing his daughter. He made that clear!

On the way back to our porch I yelled out, "Well, she is going to have to learn how to relate to different people!"

A few minutes later, I wanted in the worst way to knock on his door and ask him point blank: "Is it because Trevin is part Black?  But I thought better of it, because this guy seems a bit unstable anyway, and I didn't want an escalation I couldn't handle.  Besides, this is enough to get any parent's blood boiling, and any hot-headedness on my part would not have contributed soundly to the situation.  (Maybe I'll ask him tomorrow.)

Was that racism?  I'm not sure.  Trevin was sure treated differently by this guy.  What was he perceiving?  When he said it was "inappropriate" for Trevin to be playing with his daughter, was he implying that Trevin would try something sexually inappropriate with her? Where would he get that from?  Trevin obviously acts much younger than his age, and, up to this point, there has been no sign of his acting out in any such ways.

But then, as I began to mull this over, I thought, "Is this what people of color go through?"  "They may not want to think that "everyone" is a racist, but, somehow, they have to "decode" the strange ways that we Whites relate to them differently than seems normal.   We may not even know we are treating someone differently.  As I said at the start of this blog, we may not even know that we are privileged and the ways in which we experience privilege as part of our everyday lives.

Once I found myself ignoring a Black colleague  in a lunch line, as I was offering my White peers a plate and silverware.  Ironically, the seminar was about discovering our hidden biases as classroom teachers, and avoiding them.  When she waved to me, cheerfully calling me on it, I was awkward and ashamed.  "How could I be so blind as to not "see" her, and not even know it?"  I wondered.

But that is my point about White Privilege:  We don't even know when we are experiencing it or treating someone differently because of it, because it is such a part of our lives.  That may not be "my fault," in the sense that I set it up, but I still am accountable, I feel, to be aware of it and how it may affect my relationships with others.

I know some things about Racism that I have generalized from my own experience being on the receiving end of both Classism and Ablism.  (The "isms" are ways that people relate to those in a  group not based on knowledge of them as individuals, but based on erroneous assumptions about them as perceived members of those groups.)  Up to this point, I felt that, as a White, I will never "know" the feeling of racism against African-Americans, in the same way I, as a man, will never truly know the vulnerability and unsafeness that women feel when men are constantly "looking them over," as is the norm in our society.

But today, I realized, naively, that I will, indeed, experience Racism, through experiences and treatments my son will receive.  Should I give him "the talk" about not wearing hoodies and being "extra respectful" when relating to the men in blue?

This makes me sad.  This makes me mad!  It turns my stomach and makes me ache a little inside.
Hmm--I think I am going to have the "privilege" of knowing more about what Racism feels like!
 
   

A Culture of Accusation

When I feel sick of hearing the bashing and counter-bashing that politicians do, when they think they are explaining their positions, I realize that one of the reasons I feel sick is that "accusation" seems to be the only mode of communication that these ladies and gentlemen have at their disposal!   How often do we hear a platform, opinion, or position actually explained, without being put into the framework of, "The other guy is wrong because of . . . "???

I was stunned when I was actually listening for content recently, in the comments of a congressman, but, instead, all I heard was, "The other party is doing this, this, and this, and that can't work."  I wonder what we'd find if we did an actual analysis of the percent of the rhetoric we hear that is mere accusation of the other guy, and what percent of the rhetoric is actual "content" explaining the speaker's point of view.

It's like a husband and wife bickering, or, worse yet, like two kids, saying, "He did it!"  "No, she did it."  Back and forth, and no one is really telling you what they are responsible for!

I don't like to paint all our elected officials as shallow, sloganeering, "bad guys," but I can't help but think that they don't know they are wearing the Emperor's New Clothes, as they proudly and staunchly "explain" their positions, while not really explaining anything, but just saying why "the other guy" is wrong!  No wonder so many of us feel so disenfranchised, and wonder if our voting "makes a difference" or not.  Most of the time, I think we are not even sure what we are voting for, because so much of what we have heard has been in terms of what the "other guy" is doing wrong, or not doing!

Then, I think about how this affects our perspective of things, including bosses, company policy, opinions of others, etc, etc, etc.  Could one of the reasons the level  of our civility in discourse is shrinking be because we ourselves are losing the ability to state our position, resorting more and more to a format of accusation to explain ourselves?  Look at our facebook posts.  How often does our "taking a stand" consist of not that, but our saying why someone else is wrong?

I think there has to be a better way, a more responsible way, to talk to each other about where we stand or don't stand on any given issue.

Any comments for discussion?

The Issue of "Responsible Speech" in Light of Our Attitude Toward Leadership

     It's almost 1:00 AM, and I've been watching a Charlie Rose interview with Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and former Secretary of State, Jim Baker.  As I watch and listen, something is "clicking" inside of me in terms of the relationship between "Responsible Speech"  (or Irresponsible Speech) and a person's attitude toward a person in leadership who is in power at any given time.

     First of all, let me give a gentle disclaimer that I am a person who likes to think of people's motives as pure, as opposed to crooked and conniving.  I'm not naive enough, though, to believe that people's motives are absolutely pure.   I realize that, even when any one of us believes we have all the best conscious motives, impure and self-serving motives may be present in our decision making. 

     In general, I come from that slant of perspective, that some may interpret as naive, and trying to "butter up" to those in leadership and decision-making positions.  However, I have to admit that I also have had my share of distrust of those in leadership positions that has caused me to make the mistakes I'm about to talk about--mistakes in our view of those people that, I believe, leads us to what I would call "Irresponsible Speech."

     This is what occurred to me, as I watched Hillary Clinton's responses to Charlie Rose's questions:  

1.  I know that many think that Secretary of State Clinton is "out for herself," and, basically, a liar who is always positioning herself for some political or personal advantage of some sort or another.  That has been the basic stance, if I'm correct, of most of the conservative pundits, like many from Fox News, Rush Limaugh, Glen Beck, etc, as well as many conservative Christians who generally back the Republican Party.  I believe that one of the errors in judgement that many of us make when we are criticizing someone in a powerful leadership position is that we ascribe motives to them that aren't necessarily there.  We think we know things about that person's motives and decision-making processes that we really don't.  We are, in effect, playing "God," when we are making our grandiose assertions of what that person is "really out for," and why "that person is wrong!"                                                                          (Please don't misunderstand me to believe that only conservatives do that.  We are all guilty of it, no matter which party or ideals we back!)
2. The second mistake in judgement that we tend to make when criticizing people in leadership positions is that we think we know more about what is involved in that particular job than we really do.  Whenever I see these interviews of Hillary Clinton and others in her post, it is very clear to me that the dimensions and level of responsibility involved in the job of Secretary of State go far beyond the dimensions of most of our personal lives, and even most of our jobs.  While I assert that view, I don't mean to say that, because someone is in a leadership position, we are to blindly support them and sheepishly agree with everything they say or do.  However, as I watch Charlie Rose interview these States People, and as I observe their responses, I'm keenly aware that every decision that someone in that powerful a station makes has to be made in a very detailed, thoughtful, weighted, and responsible manner.  In other words, when Hillary Clinton is negotiating with the Chinese or the Iranians, or whoever, she cannot be as flighty as some of us may like to think she is; if so, our world would be put in a very dangerous, unstable and insecure state.  One wrong decision from the level from which she administers could end up in thousands of lives being lost, instability in more countries than one; not to mention the ire of many factions, in this country and others, that are moved by a blind religious fanaticism and emotionalism that could only result in a pretty chaotic and dangerous society. 

   *************************************************************  

     I have to acknowledge that my position may be influenced by my experience in the field of Special Education. There is a simplistic "might makes right" philosophy that many school administrations and teachers subscribe to, that actually may cause someone who is emotionally unstable to escalate, and, therefore, cause further danger to themselves and others.  When someone is trying to help a kid de-escalate their emotions, they are often accused of "coddling" the child, not making the adult authority clear enough, and neglecting to show that student the clear and immediate consequences of their actions.  I would like to ask us all, who responds well to someone merely enforcing power over us when we are in an escalated emotional state?  Those of us with spouses and partners can readily testify that there are certain times when our spouse or partner ought "not to say anything" when we are in a certain intense emotional state.  "Not now!"   is the retort we give to our spouse or child when they are making a demand of us that we know is going to push us over the limit. We have to calm down and get our wits back about us before we can make any rational decisions.  The fact that we have to calm down doesn't excuse us, or our kids or students, of our responsibility to do what is right.  However, there are often more dimensions to the picture than that, one of them being our being able to regulate our emotions when we are upset or angry. 

     Do children have to submit to authority?  Of course!  Do children have to learn how to take responsibility for their actions and learn from consequences?  Of course!  However, children (and adults) have to learn how to regulate their emotions even when they are very intense and powerful.  Just "submitting to authority," as necessary as it is, does not, necessarily, teach a child how to regulate powerful emotions.  It may be an important component in her/his learning that emotional regulation is absolutely necessary, but it is only one component.  There are other aspects that come into play when we are learning to regulate ourselves.   

     

        Likewise, there are elements in our society and others' that are moved by highly charged emotions, and just saying to them "Stop it!" with our bombs or "authority" or military force, may, as right as it seems, result in unwanted escalation and consequences more dangerous than we had anticipated. 

   *************************************************************  

     My point is, in relation to "responsible speech" about those in leadership positions, that, to put it bluntly, we really may not know what we are talking about when we are assessing and criticizing someone who has a job that is much more complicated and demanding than we have any idea of!

3. The third mistake in perception of leadership that I see we make--that then makes us vulnerable to "irresponsible speech"--is related to the second (that we think we know more than we really do about the responsibilities of the person we are criticizing). It is that we are over-simplifying the reality that a person in leadership may be facing.  

     I see this not only in the rash criticisms of leaders that I see coming from our political mud-fights, but also in many of the criticisms we may have of a leader close to us--a boss, a religious leader, or even someone who is heading up a project in which we are one of the supporting participants.

     Does it mean that we can't question, at least in our minds, what the particular leader is doing?  Of course we can question! Questioning is not only human:  It's a great learning tool. There are times, though, when it is better to "go with the program," whether we think we are right or wrong, because, even if we are "right," our disruption of the leadership would cause more destruction than the "mistake" we are trying to criticize.  

     But, if we take this principal of "responsible" vs "irresponsible" speech to the level of our personal lives, it might be instructive to ask ourselves if we are making the mistakes that I'm talking about, in our estimation of whether that person is "right" or "wrong," and in our choices to assert our opinion publicly, in the name of "saving the cause."  

1. Are we ascribing motives to that person that aren't there?  I see this in the religious community a lot (and have been guilty of it myself).  I see this also in the workplace.  We really think we know what the motives are behind such and such a person's decisions.  That really is a "high and mighty," pride-filled position to take, no matter how much we think we are "standing up for the right thing!"
2. Are we taking the view that we really know the breadth and depth of what goes into the decision making of the person we are criticizing?   Do we think we know more about their job than we do?  Even if we are in a subordinate position to someone who is doing a job we ourselves have done, is it possible that we may not know some of the dimensions and level of responsibility that person is facing?
3. Lastly, in line with the second mistake, above, are we oversimplifying the what we think is the reality and context that leader is facing?  

     Once we make those mistakes in perception, it is very easy, then, to start speaking "authoritatively" about why we think such and such a leader is wrong, "crazy," "out of their minds," etc, etc, etc.   That, in my view is "Irresponsible Speech," and that is the time we ought to "shut our mouths," even if we think we are "on the right side of history" in our assertions!!!!

An Example of Responsible Speech

From: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/02/02/146272425/same-sex-marriage-bill-easily-clears-key-hurdle-in-washington-state

"They are not, nor should they be accused of, bigotry," Murray said. "Those of us who support this legislation are not, and we should not be accused, of undermining family life or religious freedom."


     This is what I call an example of responsible speech. Senator Murray is ensuring that neither "side" of this particular argument looks at the other through narrow, simplistic slogans and generalizations.  If you call all those who are against same-sex marriage bigots, you are guilty of that.  BUT if you accuse all those who are in same-sex marriage of undermining family values or religious freedoms, you are also guilty of that.


     There is an inherent human downfall we risk if we are a a strong "believer," in anything:  It is that our feeling of "being right" about some things affects how we view everything.  Thus, when it comes time to be self-critical and think more deeply about how we view others, we fall short---just as the Bible says that we do (Romans 3).  (Yes, we fall short, even if we consider ourselves Christian!)


     Jesus says to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."  I have thought that leaven, a metaphor of pride in the scriptures, to be something akin to the attitude of "having it all together," or "thinking you are right."  If the "Gospel" that we say we believe in is true, then we may be "right" about that.  However, that doesn't mean that we abandon appropriate self-criticism when we estimate people's views with which we disagree. 


     As Christians, we should be all the more careful about our speech, especially since "The power of life and death is in the tongue" (Proverbs 18).  What we say about others may serve to bring them closer to the "Truth" that "sets free," or bring them farther from it.   Too often, we Christians have wanted to sound all powerful and effective, and have done damage in the process by saying things that aren't true.


     Does same-sex marriage undermine family life?  Well, let's see.  I could imagine a same-sex couple being very responsible in the way they raise their children and devote themselves to their family's well-being.  I can also imagine a Christian couple undermining their family by  raising their children in a climate of guilt and condition-setting that comes in the name of God.  My point: Healthy and unhealthy families are raised by both traditional, opposite-sex families and same-sex families.  


     Because a Christian may not think that same-sex marriage lines up with their theology, it does not necessarily follow that same-sex marriage automatically results in poor family life.  It is not responsible thinking to lump it all together like that and make all-inclusive generalizations.


     And, from the other side of this argument, all Christians are not bigots.  I would wager that many Christians who argue against same-sex marriage, if not most, are not bigots.  They are struggling with very deep convictions, views, and feelings, just as the person who has same-sex desire does.   While I honor the struggle of both parties  (and, by the way,  those two groups are not exclusive of each other!), what I don't honor is any one of us of either party speaking irresponsibly about the other, in order to lift our own views up!  


     In short, we don't have to speak irresponsibly about others, even when we hold strong and deeply held convictions that those "others" disagree with.


     Thank you, Senator Murray, for speaking responsibly. I appreciate it!

The Bin Laden Photo--When Criticism Becomes Irresponsible

     We are in a heightened awareness of everything--because we are being trained, I believe, by media to be hyper-critical of everything.
     Case in point:  The criticism of Obama because he has not released the photo of Bin Laden after he was shot.
(1) If he had released the photo, he would be criticized for that just as much as he is being criticized now.
(2) To "think critically," that is, to ask a lot of questions, is healthy.  I think we can all agree on that, or at least most of us.
(3) What is it, then, that makes my stomach turn, when I hear news people and celebrities ask Obama pointed questions, such as, "Why didn't you release the photo?" ?  Is it that the questions are asked in such a way as to try to shame the President because he did something someone didn't agree with?  Are there motives behind the questions that have nothing to do with finding the best course of action, but have more to do with just accusing the President?  Perhaps it is the underlying accusation that there has to be a purely political reason for Obama's decision on the matter, implying that we can't trust him as a President to do anything on the Nation's behalf out of a desire to do the right, sound, and safe thing?

     We seem to elect presidents based on the promise and hope of "great things" being done.  But then, once they get in office, we tear them down completely, because we are "absolutely sure" that they have no interest in acting on the Nation's behalf at all.  What is this demagoguery turned demonization?   I think that the speech that comes from either motive is irresponsible.  First, either extreme is flawed simply because labeling anyone by such good or bad extremes undermines the complexity of any human being living.  None of us is that simple to be "all good"  or "all bad."   Secondly, both extremes are a rather harsh "judgement" of a person.  We are such a fickle people--on one hand "not wanting to judge," but, on the other hand, being ready to raise someone to be a Messiah or cut their throat within a moment's notice if the mood hits us.

     Responsible Speech is not led purely by emotion.  It is measured.  It is thoughtful.  One senses, when Responsible Speech is engaged in, that the person speaking isn't just blaring out the words, willy nilly.  One senses that there has been thought behind the words, that they have sane, purposeful intent, other than just to bash someone or raise them to the heights of glory in a rash sweep of bravado.

     I am proud of this president for his Responsible Speech in regard to the Bin Laden photo!

Have I been irresponsible?

     I haven't written in this blog for awhile, and I wonder if that's "Responsible Speech."  To be self critical, I would say that it is not.  I look at the last post, and, as excited as I was to write it, it now seems old and obsolete.  I'm ashamed.  Were this blog to be read by many people, they would wonder, "What is the latest on Responsible Speech?"  "Is that all Mr. Morano can comment on?"  Maybe even, "Who cares if NPR is 'liberal' or not?!"

     I think that "Responsible Speech" carries with it some responsibility to keep your readers informed, fresh, staying up-to-date with the latest example of responsible or irresponsible speech.  Though it would be irresponsible, in my view, to blog and blog and blog for no reason ("blog blog blog" sounds like "blah blah blah!"), to not write regularly when I thought I committed myself to seems "irresponsible."

    Well . . . At least I took the responsibility to ask myself about that!