I previously wrote about the student who asked my daughter not to say 'Jesus Christ' in front of her. She did not respond to the first comment, but a couple of days ago she muttered 'God damn it' in response to some annoyance or other. Her class mate said 'you know how I feel about saying that'. This time my daughter had the presence of mind to reply tartly to this personal censor.
I am actually not in favor of foul language, despite being a fluent and distressingly frequent practitioner. I have tried very hard to improve my language after hearing some others speaking as I have done. Nonetheless, this should be a matter of manners and interpersonal politeness. There is no kind of right to ask others to obey your own religious beliefs.
We have roundly condemned Muslims for their persecution of cartoonists while ignoring the religious zealots in our midst who wish to impose their values on others. I have every right to eat ham in front of a Jew, even while profoundly respecting Judaism. I do not support elective abortion, but I do think it should be legal. Behavioral law can not be made on the basis of religious behavioral restriction. This error has been made repeatedly by our society- blue laws, prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of abortion.
Eventually we will realize that the motto of my alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania, applies- leges sine moribus vanae. Laws without morals are vain. You can not legislate morality or behavior. Too often, the religious wish to impose their values on others. Sometimes this is by law, more often by their arrogant, condescending approach to others. All this does is create contempt for the religious, who do not see the difference between personal piety, chastity and devotion, and being a prig.
Instead, let the religious person's behavior shine as an example to inspire others, not oppress them. Let their happiness and peace appeal to others. Let them serve others, not try to tell them what to do. Let their light so shine before men that they may see the Father in heaven and be glad.
This most certainly does not involve open condemnation, but it also does not involve the sweeter, slightly more subtle words that are just as judgmental. 'I'm so sad when you say that', 'God doesn't like it when you say that', 'God doesn't need a dam- he can walk on water' and other similar phrases are just politely phrased judgment on others. It is no more appropriate for such words to be said than for Mennonites to criticize the short skirts of a non-Mennonite woman. Wear and live your values, but don't you dare to presume to tell others how they should live.
My daughter found a phrase that amply and crushingly summarizes the issue, as much because of as in spite of its analogy-
'You may have a penis. It may be important to you. You may be proud of it. But that does not give you the right to wave it around in public, or to ram it down my throat.'
The visual analogy to rape gets at the essence of such behavior- it is an imposition on others. We readily recognize that imposition on the body of another is wrong- assault, rape, murder. Imposing intellectual and moral values is no less an assault. And it is wrong.
Ted
I am actually not in favor of foul language, despite being a fluent and distressingly frequent practitioner. I have tried very hard to improve my language after hearing some others speaking as I have done. Nonetheless, this should be a matter of manners and interpersonal politeness. There is no kind of right to ask others to obey your own religious beliefs.
We have roundly condemned Muslims for their persecution of cartoonists while ignoring the religious zealots in our midst who wish to impose their values on others. I have every right to eat ham in front of a Jew, even while profoundly respecting Judaism. I do not support elective abortion, but I do think it should be legal. Behavioral law can not be made on the basis of religious behavioral restriction. This error has been made repeatedly by our society- blue laws, prohibition of alcohol, prohibition of abortion.
Eventually we will realize that the motto of my alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania, applies- leges sine moribus vanae. Laws without morals are vain. You can not legislate morality or behavior. Too often, the religious wish to impose their values on others. Sometimes this is by law, more often by their arrogant, condescending approach to others. All this does is create contempt for the religious, who do not see the difference between personal piety, chastity and devotion, and being a prig.
Instead, let the religious person's behavior shine as an example to inspire others, not oppress them. Let their happiness and peace appeal to others. Let them serve others, not try to tell them what to do. Let their light so shine before men that they may see the Father in heaven and be glad.
This most certainly does not involve open condemnation, but it also does not involve the sweeter, slightly more subtle words that are just as judgmental. 'I'm so sad when you say that', 'God doesn't like it when you say that', 'God doesn't need a dam- he can walk on water' and other similar phrases are just politely phrased judgment on others. It is no more appropriate for such words to be said than for Mennonites to criticize the short skirts of a non-Mennonite woman. Wear and live your values, but don't you dare to presume to tell others how they should live.
My daughter found a phrase that amply and crushingly summarizes the issue, as much because of as in spite of its analogy-
'You may have a penis. It may be important to you. You may be proud of it. But that does not give you the right to wave it around in public, or to ram it down my throat.'
The visual analogy to rape gets at the essence of such behavior- it is an imposition on others. We readily recognize that imposition on the body of another is wrong- assault, rape, murder. Imposing intellectual and moral values is no less an assault. And it is wrong.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment