Friday, August 12, 2011

Good Manners - No Matter Who It Offends

When did it become okay to be offensive? When did it become acceptable in society to not care about who you offended? I thought going through life with a concern for the feelings and beliefs of others was an example of character and good manners. When did this change?

You see posts on public forums in which people encourage others to do something "no matter who it offends." The latest thing is the pledge of allegiance. The post usually points out that back in the day everybody recited the pledge as a kid and that we do not require it now so as to not offend anyone.

I challenge the whole concept that schools are refraining from leading the pledge for fear of offending someone. I think they are refraining from doing it out of fear of being sued. And they should be afraid. They would lose in court. And they should.

Imagine you are in Nazi Germany and you are required to swear loyalty to Hitler. Imagine you are in an Iran and have to follow the precepts of Islam on penalty of death. Imagine you are Daniel and you are charged with praying only to the king or be thrown to the lions. Part of being in a free country is that you have the right to NOT conform.

Why, in a free country, should the state have the power to require you to stand up and say you believe or support a particular view? And teachers are agents of the state. They are paid by the state. Their conditions of employment are set by the state. They can be fired by the state. And we think it is okay for them to force our children to stand up and swear before God and their classmates that they will be loyal to the government?

The only reason we think this is okay is because we like what is being said. I stand for the national anthem every time that it is played. I pledge allegiance when I go to Rotary Club meetings because it is a voluntary organization. I believe in this country. And part of that belief is that we are a free people and should not be forced to state our beliefs on anything.

For those who want to point out that we have to swear to tell the truth in court, I point out that no freedom is universal and that government has to impinge on our rights in the most extreme cases that allow our society to function. Testimony in legal issues is one of those extreme cases. Forcing children to recite a loyalty oath in public is not.

But even if all of the above were not true, why is it okay to post the pledge "no matter who it offends"? If you have deeply held beliefs and want to share them with the world or if you feel the need to push yourself out of your comfort zone and say something that you feel needs to be said even if it is unpopular, why do it in a way that says you don't give a crap about others? Is this going to lead to a dialogue with the people that disagree with you or is it just going to get a "hell yeah" from the people who already agree with you?

I don't see what is accomplished by picking a fight. And that is what I read when I see the words "no matter who it offends" or "don't care who it offends". If I disagree with you, you are not interested in explaining your beliefs and maybe changing my mind so that I am on your side. You just want to tell me "up yours".

At this point, I need to mention the hypocritical nature of me urging people to not engage in conflict. I spent most of my life actively looking for authority to rebel against and people to argue with and sensibilities to offend. I am as guilty as anyone of looking more for a fight than for converts. I have spent most of my life wanting to win the argument rather than understanding the views of the other person.

But this gives me a unique perspective on how well this tactic does not work. You have to allow people to be wrong. I know that is incredibly arrogant (have you met me?), but we all tend to think that we are right. If we don't allow for others to be wrong, and that it is okay for them to be wrong, then we tend to pick fights instead of engaging in conversations. At least I do.

At work I see people in leadership positions who are more concerned with being the boss and not caring if they offend people. It makes for a miserable work place for the teams working with them. I see clerks at the BMV and the post office who follow the rules as laid out in their collective bargaining agreements and don't worry if they offend anybody. It makes for a miserable place to spend far too many hours.

Why don't we simply state that "I don't mean to offend anyone by the following but this is a deeply held belief of mine. I would like to share that belief and why I believe it so you can get to know me better." That isn't picking a fight. That is how friends are made. And it may be how converts are made.

At least that is how I see it. Those are my thoughts on the subject. What do you think?

7 comments:

  1. I have refrained from commenting on the facebook posts that you mentioned, because I did not want to start an argument (yes sometimes I avoid arguments). I was never comfortable with the pledge of allegiance as a child. I remember discussing this with my father when I was in eighth grade. My father, who is a very religious man and who was in bible college at the time, told me that I did not have to stand and say the pledge if I did not want to.

    I remember the first day that I did not stand. I was extremely nervous, but I felt like I had to "make a stand", so I remained seated. As soon as the pledge ended one of the girls in my class, like a good maximum youth, raised her hand and told the teacher that I had not stood and said the pledge. My teacher at least had good sense and told her that I had the right not to stand.

    I wanted to tell those who are so hell bent on saying the pledge that what we said in school was not the original pledge. It was changed many times, the last time on the 50's when the "under god" portion was added to show that americans were not atheist or any "weird" religion and that those different people were not welcome in this god loving country. I find this addition to be highly offensive. To this day I will not stand for the pledge, but I always stand for the national anthem. I also remain seated at baseball games when they think it is necessary to sing god bless america.

    Micah

    ReplyDelete
  2. I typed nazi youth, bit my phone thought maximum youth was better.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The fact that you actually did not participate in the pledge is amazing. I always participated and I still do in voluntary situations. God Bless America at ballgames tends to warm my heart as well and it is also a voluntary situation without an agent of the state requiring my participation.

    The changes to the pledge that most people don't know about was almost as much fun as when GA changed the state flag to not reflect the Stars and Bars of the Confederacy. Most folks did not know that the Stars and Bars had been added in the 50's at the start of the civil rights movement to keep black folks in their place.

    Hard to argue that it is about "heritage and not hate" when the Stars and Bars were put on there in the first place as a blatant statement of hatred.

    My main concern is that people tend to be unwilling to put themselves in the other person's shoes. And I have been as guilty of that as anyone but I am working on it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maximum Nazi Youth - sounds like a skin head death metal band. HA.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well the flag thing is funny because what we ended up with in Peoria instead of the battle flag (stars and bars) is a flag that is almost identical to the official flag of the confederacy instead of the battle flag. Guess nobody recognizes it and thus is not offended. When I have pointed it out to people they usually do not know what I mean and then do become offended when I show them pictures.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are right that god bless america is voluntary, but it doesn't feel very voluntary when the pa announcer is asking everyone to stand and the drunk guy behind you is asking why the f don't you stand up and tries to start a fight with you. I would argue that the whole pa announcement puts a forced feel to it. You can argue that it is voluntary, but you can argue anything is voluntary and that you just have to live with the consequences.

    By the way I did not fight the drunk guy, but we did have words as I explained to him that I was excersising the freedom that my ancestors had fought for.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have thought about it for a bit and while I think the drunk guy was out of line, I have tapped guys on the shoulder at ball games to remind them to remove their hats for the anthem. Not sure what I would have done if they had refused or gotten ugly. I was careful to not be ugly about asking them to doff their caps.

    Complaining about sport parks singing some songs that emphasize God and patriotism is kind of like going to a Chuck - e - cheese and complaining about all the kids... and the pedophiles. You KNOW they are going to be there when you go.

    But having a privately held sporting concern endorsing a certain religious view is fine by me. And I am not so naive as to think that the Braves are a "Christian" organization. A friend pointed to me that he does not necessarily want a Christian plummer - he wants a good plummer. I know that so much of those kinds of things done in public forums are just window dressing to appeal to the masses.

    But to wail against it is to complain that Hardee's doesn't sell healthy food when the CEO will tell you that the healthy stuff just does not sell.

    ReplyDelete