Obama Special Olympics Comment Not a Big Deal

I was watching the Tonight Show last night when Obama made his Special Olympics comment. I cringed as he said it, but brushed it off. I knew the comment wouldn't go unnoticed, but I wasn't expecting an uproar of this size. The CNN home page has three separate stories about it right now. Except for those rare times when a major story takes over the entire home page, you NEVER see that many articles about a single incident. Personally, I think it's being blown way out of proportion.

I have a personal connection to those served by Special Olympics. My son is challenged by a developmental disability. He works extremely hard to learn things that come naturally to other kids. For example, at age six he still can't talk and isn't potty trained despite years of effort on his part and ours. But no matter what his challenges, he's a wonderful person who deserves to be treated with love and respect. Although I'm totally on the "show respect" bandwagon, Obama's comments just don't bother me. Poor choice of words, yes, but let it go.

When I was a kid my friends and I told Pollock jokes, like "how many Pollocks does it take to screw in a light bulb." The thing is, I honestly didn't know that Pollocks were real. I had no idea that a Pollock is someone from Poland. I thought Pollocks were about as real as Martians, but instead of being little and green they happened to be dumb. Our Pollock jokes weren't about real people or even a stereotype, but about imaginary creatures. I don't think I found out what a Pollock is until I was in my teens.

Today when I hear Pollock jokes (which isn't very often), I find them mildly lacking in tact but not offensive. They don't bother me because I know they are about mythical creatures. Nobody associates people of Polish anscestry with the characters in Pollock jokes. The Pollock title may have racist origins, but today they're no more racist than Martian jokes. I'd prefer the jokes were converted to something like Lemming jokes, but if you don't I'm not gonna storm off in a huff.

Obama's comment was, in my opinion, along the lines of a Pollock joke. It was lacking in tact, but not worth all this outrage. I simply don't believe it was a reflection of how he truly feels about people with special needs.

How Christians Led Me to Support Gay Rights

I am a practicing Christian who believes that homosexual relationships are wrong, yet I support gay rights. The reason is simple - I don't believe our government and its extensions should be enforcing a narrow definition of right and wrong. Although many experiences have influenced the evolution of my opinions, I'd like to share one particular series of events.

In the late 90's, a diversity program was established at the government facility where I work. Several groups were already meeting in conference rooms once a month during lunch, and had informal web sites to post schedules or host discussions. One of the first things the diversity program did was to clean up all of the informal networking groups that were already in existence. Each group was appointed one of three outcomes: some were brought under the umbrella of the diversity council; others were allowed to continue as an "affinity group" (most of these are support groups); and others were required to discontinue. If a group was asked to discontinue, it was no longer allowed to use company resources in any way, including web sites, e-mail, or conference rooms. Among the groups that was asked to disband was the Christian Networking Group.

At the same time, and almost definitely as part of the same activity, all web pages with any mention of Christianity were identified. Those maintaining the pages were contacted and told that if they did not remove the offending material they would face discipline up to and including termination. In general, this was appropriate, as government-owned computers are not an appropriate place for religious content. However, among the people contacted were people who included work for churches on their company-required résumé. One man who had done some engineering work on a chapel appealed to the Ombuds Office for permission to keep this career-relevant work experience on his résumé. His appeal was denied, and he was told that if he didn't remove the reference he would be fired. Several other people who had done volunteer work for religious organizations also appealed and got the same response.

Then came an on-site "coming out" rally sponsored by the diversity council. The speakers were highly inflammatory, and intentionally so. They attacked religion (if I remember correctly, they singled out a couple of specific denominations to lambast), and they attacked traditional families. A summary of the event was sent to all employees, including quotes from some of the speakers. We were told that religion is an antiquated artifact of society's history. We were told that we shouldn't talk about our wife and kids at work because it is offensive to people who don't believe in the nuclear family.

You can see why Christians felt like they were under attack at our place of employment. You couldn't acknowledge that you'd ever worked for a church, but you could openly ridicule religion. There is no doubt in my mind that all three of these events - the shutting down of the Christian networking group, the removal of all references to religion, and the force-feeding of anti-religious and pro-gay rhetoric - were part of a deliberate and orchestrated attack on traditional belief systems. Certain individuals were taking advantage of their role to cause the company to take an official stance on homosexuality and religion, a stance that not only defined appropriate behavior toward others, but also told us how we were expected to think.

You might say they have a right to express these viewpoints. I would agree if this were on a website, in a conversation with your neighbor, or at a public rally at a park, but it wasn't. It would be wrong for a company to send out a "Jesus Saves" pamphlet to all its employees with the strong implication that everyone was expected to align themselves with the pamphlet's viewpoints. Sending out a "religion is bad" pamphlet was just as inappropriate. And remember, this wasn't just any pamphlet at just any company, but an official government publication sent to several thousand employees at a government facility. Even worse, it was done under the auspices of the diversity council, a government-funded group whose charter is to prevent the creation of a hostile working environment. Yet there they were, openly expressing hostility toward a large segment of their fellow employees.

The rally was the last straw for some. A lawsuit was filed against our company. A judge agreed that the company had gone too far, forced the reinstatement of the Christian networking group, and warned the company to avoid implying that one's employment was contingent upon a particular belief system. And just for the record, in the years since these events I think my company has done a great job of reshaping the diversity council into a more appropriate vehicle for tolerance and inclusion.

If you think the events I just described wouldn't do much to convince a Christian to support gay rights, you're right. But what happened next is what really shaped my viewpoint. Now that the Christian networking group had legal protection, it had the audacity to make some of the same mistakes the diversity council had made. They placed anti-gay links on their now-allowed web site. The group's leadership was taken over by the most right-wing of Christians. They established a strict definition of a Christian and limited participation in the group to those who met their criteria - Catholics, Mormons, and anyone who holds certain banned beliefs need not apply. It was not the inclusive alternative to the diversity council some imagined.

What I realized is that the Christian group was imposing a specific definition of right and wrong on everyone, just as the diversity council had done. I wasn't comfortable having a group with an agenda declaring the acceptability of my beliefs, regardless of whether that group is a diversity council or a Christian networking group. Both groups were clearly lacking in tolerance.

There's never going to be a group that reflects my beliefs exactly. I am no one's ideological clone. But even if I did stumble upon a group of like-minded people, that group should not force the not-so-like-minded to adopt the same views. Sure, we need standards of behavior that promote some degree of harmony and respect, but those standards should never be extended to become an authoritative set of beliefs that all must adhere to.

I find it sad that this very over-extension is occuring throughout western society, yet few seem to recognize it. Laws are leveraged to make certain beliefs effectively illegal. In many cases schools choose topics not to teach the subject at hand, but as an underhanded means to promote a specific world view. I'm really bothered that so many people are OK with this. Today you may agree with our "state doctrine." Tomorrow you may not agree, but the precendent will have been set. We will have already handed the keys over to the thought police.

Fabled Morality

An interesting console game came out recently. The game, called Fable II, has a simple but unusual premise - the morality of your choices shape who your character becomes. Each time you make a morally good choice, the purity of your character increases. Each morally bad choice makes your character more corrupt, to the point that you can eventually become a demon complete with horns and scars.

One of the problems with such a system should be pretty obvious - not everyone has the same perception of right and wrong. For example, eating meat in Fable's world causes you to become corrupt. Read a few reviews and you'll find that many people take issue with this. I think some people just don't like having to put up with slow healing to maintain their character's purity, but others are bothered by the implication that their real-world diet is immoral. To say there is a lack of universal consensus that eating meat is bad would be an understatement. In fact I once knew a family that considers vegetarianism to be immoral. I don't know how common that viewpoint is, but it's out there. I'm guessing people who feel that way would find Fable's morality engine to be corrupt.

But Fable is just a game, a creative work of fiction. The creators of the game can manipulate the game world and its rules however they want. But what about the real world? There are definitely benefits to a vegetarian diet. Would it be right to establish laws to impose a vegan lifestyle on the population at large? It certainly wouldn't be popular with most Americans, many would consider it an infringement of their rights, and some few would see it as a violation of their faith. Would the environmental and health benefits outweigh the resistance? Would it be right to take away people's right to believe and act as they choose if it benefits society and its citizens?

What if vegetarianism were not imposed by law but was promoted through other public means? What if it remained legal to eat meat, but schools were used to teach the "right" way to think about eating meat? Would it be ethical for our government to follow that path? Should schools teach the consequences of a meat-based diet and economy? Should schools go a step beyond that, teaching a specific stance on the morality of vegetarianism and the immorality of eating meat?

I belive that our schools are within their charter when they take on controversial topics, but as soon as they assert the "rightness" or "wrongness" of anything but the most universally accepted principles they've crossed the line. Same goes for other government programs. Same goes for our laws and their interpretation. Non-government organizations are in a different boat - they can and should promote viewpoints on issues of all types. But our government and its extensions needs to carefully avoid establishing or promoting an official state doctrine.

The Meaning of Diversity and Tolerance

Current civil rights issues are almost always couched within the concepts of diversity and tolerance. These two terms are not consistently interpreted. I'd like to present my own interpretation of these two valuable notions.

Diversity is a recognition of the variety present in the world's societies, and within any collection of people. Diversity appears in all facets of humanity, including ideology, personality, gender, ambition, race, religion, morality, motivation, attraction, appearance, skill set, appetite, cultural identity, experience, etc, etc, etc. When spoken of in a societal context, the concept of diversity includes the recognition that differences bring advantages that a homogeneous world could never realize. For example, a detail-oriented person may never see the forest for the trees, while a high-level thinker may never see the details required to make the big vision a reality.

Now allow me to assert what diversity does not mean. Diversity is not a declaration that there is one right way to think. Diversity is not the adoption of a single "diversity-sanctioned" attitude toward social issues. Diversity is not mandatory agreement with other people's choices, actions, or attitudes. Diversity is not the belief that everything is acceptable. Diversity does not require the abandonment of one's beliefs.

Related to the concept of diversity is the concept of tolerance. Tolerance is the respectful treatment of people and ideas, even in the face of differences. It means that you don't ridicule people, even if you disagree with them. It means you don't create a hostile environment. It means you consider how your speech and actions will impact others. It means you resist taking offense when others violate your sensibilities. It means that no matter how completely you believe something, you leave room for the possibility that you are wrong. It means that you allow people to live their life without requiring your approval. It means compromise. It is an acknowledgement of diversity, and an appropriate response to it.

And what is tolerance not? Tolerance is not the belief that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Tolerance is not the belief that every idea is equally valid. Tolerance does not mean there are no rules. It is not a cry for unreasonable levels of political correctness. Tolerance does not mean you don't stand up for what you believe. Tolerance does not mean that you don't make people aware of the potential consequence of their choices. Tolerance doesn't mean you never disagree, nor does it mean you never challenge behaviors or ideologies.

To me, tolerance is primarily about how you react to that with which you don't agree. It is respect. It is flexibility. It is the opposite of selfishness. It is simultaneously the opposite of both belligerence and appeasement.

Feel free to disagree with my interpretation of these important concepts. After all, we live in a diverse world. :-)

Why I Don't Support Current Same-Sex Marriage Legislation

I believe that freedom to choose our own path in life is one of the most fundamental rights there is. I support the right to choose even if I don't agree with the choice made.

Among the most contentious issues voters will adress this year is whether to recognize same-sex marriages. In principle, I support the right to marry someone of your own gender. I do not, however, support legislation which explicitly grants legal status to such a marriage, at least not as they are written today. This sounds contradictory, and it partially is. But laws allowing same-sex marriage have been used to justify taking away other rights, and for that reason I cannot support such laws. Ironically, I oppose laws protecting gay marriage for exactly the same reason I oppose restrictions on gay marriage - because the alternative is to unduly restrict personal freedoms.

How can granting rights to one group take rights away from another group? It happens by extending the interpretation of the law to not only allow the right to marry, but the right to interject a particular moral stance into early public education, and the right to restrict how religious organizations serve the community. In effect, the right to marry has been used as justification to limit what one is allowed to believe. On those grounds, I cannot support granting the right to same-sex marriage unless there is a legal guarantee to separate that right from the broader implications of such a policy.

In other discussions of this topic, someone invariably asserts that the right to same-sex marriage does not lead to the effects I've described above. Unfortunately, real-world examples do not support that assertion. I'm sure you've heard most of the following examples from Massachussetts:

• Many Massachussetts school districts include discussions of homosexuality as an integral part of their curriculum, starting in kindergarten. Examples include in-class readings of "King and King" to kindergarteners and first graders, and a man invited to speak to a third grade class about his upcoming sex change operation. Parents are not given notice of these discussions, nor are they allowed to opt-out their children from such discussions. Furthermore, discussions go beyond promoting awareness and tolerance by asserting the moral acceptability of homosexuality.

  Courts have upheld school districts' policies and actions. The legal basis for the court's judgements has been the legal status of same-sex marriage.

  I have no intention of burying my kids' heads in the sand, but I have the right to introduce moral issues to my children at the time and in the context of my choosing. When schools take sides on moral issues, especially when teaching them at such an early age, they are taking away those parental rights.

  I am also strongly opposed to turning our schools into social engineering camps.

• Some churches have been sued for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. The churches had to choose between performing marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs, or no longer perform marriages of any kind. Some of these churches have chosen to close their doors to weddings rather than compromise their religious principles. Members of these churches are no longer allowed to be married in their own church.

• Similarly, church-sponsored adoption agencies have faced lawsuits for not placing children with gay couples. Again, the choice was to place children in families that violate their religious principles, or close their doors. Catholic Family Services, which used to place about 10 children a week, no longer provides adoption services in Massachussetts.

But I do think same-sex marriage should be legal. Marriage has been a huge strength to my relationship with my wife. Knowing that I have made a commitment makes a difference in my behavior. Knowing that our family is something I deliberately chose, rather than something I fell into, is a boost to help me make appropriate choices when challenges come up. I am convinced that I am happier as a married man than I would be if we were living together as an unmarried couple with children. The act of making a visible commitment has been a very good thing. I see no reason to prevent same-sex couples from making a similar visible commitment and gaining similar benefits.

So what would it take for me to support a same-sex marriage law? The law would have to include guarantees that it would not be used as the basis for additional rights. It would have to be legally and explicitly irrelevant to what is taught in schools, irrelevant to what a religious institution can do and for whom, and irrelevant to what an individual can do, say, or believe. It would have to neither grant nor deny any rights other than the right to same-sex marriage. Give me a law that meets those criteria and I'll vote for it.

Why I'm Blogging

There have been so many times I've wanted to reply to someone else's blog, but with a longer post than really ought to be put in a comment. I've thought about creating a blog for just this purpose for a while now, and today I finally got around to creating one. I intend to write responses to other blogs, things I read elsewhere online, as well as things happening in my "off-line" life. Considering how long I waited before I got around to setting this up, I'm guessing I won't be the most prolific blogger out there. We'll see...