Hats Off to the Chef!

When I was a wee lad, meal time meant gathering around the table. Everyone sat together and talked about events and enjoyed the meal. And the men folk would remove their hats before sitting down. Going out to a restaurant, same thing. Men removed their hats before sitting down. The coat rack at the door also had a shelf for hats, and as often as not it would be layered in a variety of head coverings. Everything from dressy cowboy hats to battered ball caps were removed and shelved for the meal. I asked once, in my youthful innocence, why this was done. I was told it was a sign of respect toward others at the table, that it was a polite thing to do. You remove your hat for the flag, for meals, in church, in school, and when kissing your lady. Women, of course, were never required to remove their hats. This is largely due to a holdover when ladies hats were essentially bolted to their heads with multiple pins, clips, duct tape, cement, whatever they could use. Women never did have to remove their hats, and those who wear hats still don't remove them, even if it's a ball cap.

This doesn't happen anymore. I was in a small diner yesterday and most of the men were wearing their ball caps. Even one elderly man had his gaudily patriotic ball cap on while eating. I, of course, removed my fedora and placed it on the table next to me, not having a hat rack or empty chair to use. This garnered a few looks, but my appearance usually does so I took little notice. Still, no other hats were removed. I left my hat off until I stood up, as should be.

When did this small sign of respect fall to the wayside? When did it become too much hassle to remove your hat? I've been at a number of events which display the national flag and seen far too many men with their heads covered. Restaurants, same thing. Since I rarely attend any church, I can't say as I've noticed this trend there but the last church I attended (just a couple weeks ago) I didn't see any hats either in the sanctuary or on the hat rack. That was something, at least. If you aren't wearing a hat you don't have to worry about removing it.

Maybe it's because we've become so focused on our appearances we're afraid to be seen with "hat hair." We don't want people to see our heads for the mess they are from wearing a hat. This, of course, is vanity. I know my hair is mussed, but I would rather show my dining partner a bit of manners than be rude for shame in my hair.

Or perhaps it's laziness. The removal of a hat when greeting someone has downgraded to barely touching the brim, if that. Granted, tugging your forelock was a suitable alternative to removing your hat, but only if you didn't have a hat on in the first place. The removal of a hat when sitting down to eat isn't difficult. Hang it from the back of the chair, use the hat rack, place it on an empty chair, place it under your chair. It's not difficult or time consuming. You simply have to remember where you left it so you can retrieve it when done.

Gentlemen (and all you other guys out there), it's time we bring back manners. It's not a sign of weakness but strength to show manners and grace in the face of adversity. Remove the chapeau when sitting down to eat or when the flag goes by. Show the world your head  in all its disheveled glory. Demonstrate to your dinner date the respect they deserve, and if she's any kind of lady she'll have the manners not to stare at your hair. Be gentlemen once more!

Happy New Year and a New Beginning

New Year’s Day 2015. It’s a new year, and time for a new start. To that end, I decided to start blogging. Again. (I know you were thinking it….) So I checked, and found that it’s been since April that I’ve posted anything! Wow…. Okay, so another new start.

If you’ve read any of my other posts, you’ll notice quite a bit of ranting. This year I’m planning to keep the anger to a minimum. That doesn’t mean no more ranting, it just means I’ll try to be more civil about it. I’ve learned I can’t change a mind that’s made up no matter how hard I try, so I won’t. All I will do is present evidence to the contrary (yes, I’m contrary!) and share it with whomever will read it. I also plan to share things that are less rants and more friendly.

I’ve been taking stock of my life lately and realized there are several things I still need to change. I want to be a different, a better person than I have been and not get mired in all the negativity I keep finding myself surrounded by. And the latter half of 2014 gave plenty of negativity, that’s for sure! Regardless, I have resolved to be a better person, less angry and hostile, and focus on what I actually want to do with my life. Dreaming and positive thoughts can only get you so far. Action is required as well.

I have the black-eyed peas cooked and waiting for lunch. Cornbread will be made when it’s time to eat. I’ve been sipping on my coffee (Starbucks Willow blend) and trying to decide where to start my changes. Then I decided it doesn’t matter where I start so much as when I start.  So here it is, Day 1 of a new beginning. I look forward to the journey over the next 365 days and wonder where I will be at that time….

Meanwhile, if you have a question or if there’s something you’d like my opinion of, feel free to ask!

Happy New Year! And here’s to a new beginning for all of us!

Front Porch Sipper: A Coffee Shop by Any Other Name....

Front Porch Sipper: A Coffee Shop by Any Other Name....: Some would think sitting at one coffee shop is much like sitting at any other. This is not so. Sure, there are some similarities, but the ...

Can You Legislate Morality?

So I was going to write about how you can’t legislate morality, and to that end I did some research. Yes, believe it or not I like to have actual factual information for my rants, not just my thoughts and beliefs. Anyhow, in doing this research I found numerous articles from Christian sites making the argument that you not only CAN legislate morality, but it MUST be done and in fact IS being done. “BAH!” I exclaimed loudly (in my head, where most of my conversations take place….). I had to read these frivolous articles so I can denounce them!

But you know what? Some of them actually made some sense. Not all of them, of course, and none made complete sense. They were definitely biased. But there was some interesting thoughts. And I’m going to completely disregard any of the comments on the linked articles, because yeah…. People love to hide behind the anonymity of the internet to spout their vitriolic hate. That’s coming from both sides of the argument, by the way. Not just one.

Let me preface the rest of this by stating I believe “Morality” is subjective. What one person believes is immoral may be perfectly natural for another. What some would seek to prevent, others celebrate. There are some points that most people will agree on, of course, but many others that are in contention. So, for this discussion we’ll use the definition from Dictionary.com which states morality is “conformity to the rules of right conduct.”

Micah Watson stated in his article “Why we can’t notlegislate morality”: The truth, however, is that every law and regulation that is proposed, passed, and enforced has inherent in it some idea of the good that it seeks to promote or preserve.  Fair point. Laws are generally enacted with the idea of promoting some sort of good. No killing, no stealing. I think that’s reasonable. Laws against pollution, sure. I’m good with those. We should protect the environment because it’s the only one we’ve got. Watson goes on to say: As Hadley Arkes has argued, if it is wrong to torture other human beings, then we do not content ourselves with mere tax incentives to encourage citizens to stop. We know that the wrong of torture requires that this choice be removed altogether from the domain of what is acceptable. Again, fair point.  A pair of philosophers once stated that we should “be excellent to each other.” Totally on board with that.

Watson sums up his article thus: To legislate, then, is to legislate morality. One can no more avoid legislating morality than one can speak without syntax. One cannot sever morality from the law. Even partisans of the most spartan libertarian conception of the state would themselves employ state power to enforce their vision of the common good. Morality for the sake of the common good? Yeah, okay, going back to the no killing or stealing or torturing, sure. All in the name of the common good, why not?

Where I run into difficulty is with people like Frank Turek. In his article “Legislating Morality: Why Everyone Is Doing It” he confuses morality with will. He states: ‘…what is so often missed in this debate is that pro-abortion activists want to impose their morals on others as well: they want to impose the morals of the mother on the baby and, in some cases, the father.’   Now, I don’t agree with abortion. I think it’s wrong although in some select instances acceptable. Turek is stating that the woman carrying the fetus is imposing her “morals” on the fetus, when instead it is her “will”, her desire, that she is imposing. Granted, her poor decision may have gotten her into this situation in the first place. I’m not arguing that point. What I’m saying is that she is choosing to have an abortion. That has less to do with conforming to the rules of right conduct and more to do with her desire to not be pregnant.

Turek goes on to state: ‘If Christians are to be effective in politics, then we must be able to answer this “cramming morals” objection. As with most liberal objections, Christians must learn to challenge the assumption behind the objection. This objection assumes that it is immoral to impose morals! Therefore, good questions to ask such a person are these: “Why shouldn’t I cram my morals down your throat? Is there something immoral about that? And if there is, by what standard do you come to such a conclusion? Is it just your opinion or is it really, absolutely wrong according to an objective standard outside yourself?”’

Here I really must object. Making Christian morals, or any religious morals, into law is forcing others to live by those standards. Okay, sure, the Bible has some good rules to live by: no killing, no stealing… wait, that sounds familiar….. There are other laws in that same set that many tend to disregard completely, such as honoring the seventh day and not coveting. Then there are other laws in the Bible that are completely disregarded, such as when a man rapes a woman he is required to marry her, or when a man dies his brother must marry the widow. But that’s a different discussion. There are currently laws based on Christian morality, such as the infamous “Blue Laws” or Sunday Laws. In many areas of this country, businesses are closed on Sunday. In businesses that are not closed, some things are not available for purchase, such as alcohol. Sure, if a business owner wants to close on Sunday, that’s fine. If they want to stay open but not sell things, that’s their choice. Making it a law removes that choice. I’m not a Christian, so I’m out mowing my yard on Sunday afternoon when I get a thirst for a beer. I have none at home, but I can’t go to my local grocer and buy some simply because someone else decided I shouldn’t buy beer on Sunday, something about the “Sabbath Day.” Oddly enough, Sunday isn’t the Sabbath, but again that’s another discussion.

Other things are illegal for no justifiable reason beyond the concept of morality. Gambling and prostitution, for starters. The Bible says nothing about gambling, although criticizes people who want money (except for the churches, of course). Yes, it condemns prostitution, but this is an example of forcing your morality onto others. In parts of Nevada, for example, prostitution is not only legal but alive and well. Being legal means the women are better treated and not subjected to the violence they would encounter in areas where it’s illegal. This article by Dylan Love in The Business Insider gives some idea of what the reality is.

Speaking of prostitution, this article by Gary C. Burger makes the claim: ‘Let's be frank, a lot of people who say, "You shouldn't try to legislate morality" aren't really thinking of all the merits of various legal and ethical systems. ... From my experience it comes down to this: the most cited reason is a selfish and self-centered demand of a guarantee of personal sexual freedom. I'm not kidding; it's often all about sex!’  Yes, sexual freedom is one of the things that have been outlawed based on religious principle. Look at issue of same-sex marriage. Many states have outlawed not only same-sex marriage, but homosexual relationships period. According to this article by Charlie Jane Anders, Georgia has banned all sex toys. North Carolina has banned adultery, as well as lying about being married in order to share a motel room. Pennsylvania has a law saying oral and anal sex are illegal. You cannot cohabit with an "ancestor or descendant."

So, because the Bible doesn’t like it, nobody is allowed to do it? You may or may not agree with these acts, but telling people they can’t do it because you don’t like it? It’s like the meme that’s gone around Facebook: Banning something because you don’t like it is like getting mad at the person in line ahead of you for ordering a chicken sandwich because you don’t like chicken sandwiches. It’s like telling the person in the booth next to you at Perkins that they can’t order pie because you’re on a diet. It’s nonsense.

Yes, you can legislate morality if you consider morality as we’ve defined here. However, religion does not belong in legislation. If you want to avoid something because of your religion, great. Do so, by all means. You do not, however, have the right to tell me I can’t do something simply because you don’t think I should. So long as my actions have no bearing on your life, you have no rights. As C. W. McCall put it, if you ain’t contributing to the way I’m living your support don’t mean a lot (or in this case lack of support). Live your life the way you want, and let me live mine the way I want.

To See or Not To See, That Is The Question

In case you hadn’t heard, the American Family Association is trying to force their narrow minded ideals on visitors to the Overland Park Arboretum. Apparently the AFA, on behalf of a woman with nothing better to complain about, has taken offense at one particular statue. Specifically, the statue is of a headless woman wearing nothing but a button shirt, open, bare breasts, taking a “selfie” of herself.

The story goes that Joanne Hughes (I’m giving her name because it’s emblazoned across the AFA website) was walking through the arboretum when Joanne and family “were shockingly confronted with a bronze sculpture of a headless woman with aroused, naked breasts, taking a picture of herself” (direct quote from the AFA web site).Because they are apparently afraid of the human body and only procreated through a bedsheet in total darkness, Mrs. Hughes filed complaints to have the statue removed so that nobody would have to be affronted by such a spectacle. Needless to say, the OP city council said, “BAH!” and left the statue. The AFA has tried to collect signatures for a petition and has yet to be successful in garnering the required number. I guess not enough people are that worried over a sculpture of a headless naked woman.

What I find amusing is that there are other statues there which could be considered offensive as well, but aren’t. There’s a statue of an obese woman wearing a mini skirt and behind held aloft by a thin man. The woman’s bare backside is clearly visible to anyone walking down the path.

Another is of a nude infant male, anatomically correct, standing in an oval design.

Neither of these are mentioned, just the one of bare breasts. I have a whole rant about breasts in our society, but that’s for another day. Suffice it to say complaining about bare breasts but not a naked baby or a bare behind is, in my opinion, rather petty. The above complaint is supposedly about protecting children from such obscenities, but this is obnoxious. Choosing one statue to complain about while ignoring others shows a narrow-minded fixation which makes me wonder what her problem with breasts is.

Now, to be fair, I know not everyone considers such things as “art.” There are many things I don’t consider “art” but I’m told by those who supposedly know better that it is. However, my opinion is for me. I don’t see that I have any right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot like. And I know not everyone wants to see nudity, even if it is a sculpture or painting or such and not actual real live nudity. And that’s fine. I can appreciate that. But forcing your opinion onto everyone is not the way to handle it. Instead of demanding this statue be removed, trying using it as a teaching tool. If you’re worried it will encourage children to do the same thing, use it as an example of what not to do. Just don’t tell me what I can and cannot see. Let me decide for myself what is offensive to me.

If you’re concerned with your child learning to be “of immoral character,” use it as an example of how not to behave. Rather than be afraid your child might see bare breasts, teach them the human body is not sinful or shameful. And if you can’t manage any of those, then simply avert your eyes when you walk down that path. You can have your beliefs and your version of what you consider to be moral. Teach your children to be afraid of nudity.

Peace On Earth, Good Will Toward All

Most people have heard the story of the Christmas Truce during World War I, in which some troops on both sides of the trenches stopped fighting and enjoyed a holiday evening in peace and harmony with each other. Lesser known is that this was not unprecedented. It was reported that a similar event happened in 1870 during the Franco-Prussian War. A French soldier stepped up in front of everyone and began singing “O Holy Night”, which led to a temporary cease-fire between the troops in that area. It didn't last, of course. Peace rarely does. The officers, who were not at the front lines, did not approve of such things as fraternizing with the enemy and not killing each other.

My point is this: the Power of Peace is strong. When enough people decide to stop fighting and start getting along, miracles happen. The men were tired of fighting, tired of killing, tired of losing loved ones, and took it upon themselves to put an end to it.

This isn't about religion. This is about Peace. Most religions in the world today call for some sort of Peace. During this holiday season, it’s hard not to hear the phrase “Peace on Earth, Good Will toward Man.” Why is it, then, that with so many calling for Peace, we don’t have it?

The answer is simple: Intolerance. People say they want peace, yet are unwilling to tolerate anyone or anything they don’t agree with. I’m not pointing fingers at any one group or person. I've been guilty of it myself, although I try to be tolerant. Sometimes it is difficult. You believe someone is living the wrong way and it is your duty to correct them. Only, it isn't. Your duty is to love one another. Treat others as you would be treated. The Golden Rule isn't “Do unto others before they do unto you,” it’s “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Although the former would work as well, provided what you’re doing is treating them as you would wish to be treated.

Peace is not easy. Too many people have their own opinions of how things should be. Our society has become so ego-centric that many find it impossible to consider someone else first. “I’m right, they’re wrong, why should I give in?” Only, it’s not giving in. It’s getting along. Consider if everyone started getting along and stopped fighting over such silly things as political parties and sexual orientation? Instead of fighting over which religion is the right one, we agree to let each person worship (or not worship) as they see fit.

Let there be peace on earth
And let it begin with me.
Let there be peace on earth
The peace that was meant to be.
With God as our Father
Brothers all are we.
Let me walk with my brother
In perfect harmony.

Let peace begin with me
Let this be the moment now.
With every step i take
Let this be my solemn vow.
To take each moment
And live each moment
With peace eternally.
Let there be peace on earth,
And let it begin with me.

This song, written in 1955 by Jill Jackson and Sy Miller, sums it up nicely. Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me. Now. In this moment, and each following moment. Let me live in harmony with my brothers and sisters instead of fighting. As John Lennon put it, you may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. I hope someday you’ll join us and the world will live as one.

Christian Nation? Guess again....

I would like to preface this by saying I am not attacking any religion. I am not saying mine is better than yours. I am simply making a statement. I cannot help that you infer something other than what I imply.

Today is September 11. The twelfth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, as well as the plane that was reportedly bound for the White House before being brought down in Pennsylvania. I do not know who was behind it, although I have my thoughts. Some say it was Muslims, some say it was our own government, some say it was a third party. I don’t know, and for the sake of this rant, it doesn’t really matter.

My rant today is in response to all the people proclaiming that this is a Christian nation and how we need to get back to God.

No, we don’t. This is not, nor has it ever been, a “Christian” nation. I’m not arguing about the theological beliefs of the founders. Each one had his beliefs, and that’s great. What I’m saying is that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to realize not everyone has the same faith, or the same beliefs. Even those under the same blanket umbrella term have varying beliefs. Even different people sitting in the same church have differing opinions of what they are supposed to believe.

Again, I’m not bashing Christianity. I don’t agree with it, can’t believe in it, but then I don’t HAVE to. That’s the point I’m getting at. This country was founded with the concept of Freedom of Religion. Each of us is allowed to believe what we want. Where we run into problems is when members of certain sects try to force everyone to follow the same belief system. The First Amendment  prevents this from happening completely, although it does take place in far too many local areas.

Examples of this are the “Blue Laws” or “Sunday Laws” found in many areas. These were created by secular governments at the behest of religious lobbyists who believed everyone should take off the “Sabbath Day” (despite Sunday not being the real Sabbath Day). It didn’t matter if everyone in that area held the same beliefs or not, they all had to live by the same religion based rules. And yes, these are allowed because the First Amendment specifies that the FEDERAL government will not make any laws regarding religion, but says nothing about local or state governments.

But I digress. This is not a Christian nation. This is a nation founded with the idea of having Christians and Muslims and Jews and whomever else living together in peace. People would be allowed to worship as they believed so long as that worship did not infringe on someone else doing the same. For example, it doesn’t matter to me if you think Sunday is the Sabbath, or Saturday, or Wednesday. Just don’t tell me I can’t go shopping on that day because it violates your religion. You don’t have to agree with mixed race couples or same sex couples, but don’t tell me who I can and cannot be in a relationship with just because it violates your religion.

If you want to pray to your god, or God, or Gods, or whomever, to get this country great once more, I’m fine with that. If each of us who have some sort of religious belief did that, it might actually happen. If you don’t have any religious beliefs, I’m fine with that too. Don’t mock me for having beliefs, and I won’t mock you for not having them.

I’m digressing again. Back on topic…. This nation was created by men who knew people would argue over who believes the truth and who doesn’t. They specifically designed for each of us to be allowed to worship or not worship as we choose, in peace, without fear of attack by narrow-minded people who can’t handle the thought that someone else might be different. Some of them were Christian, sure. Not all of them. That didn’t stop them from setting down the point that everyone is free to believe what they want. 

So no, this is not a Christian Nation. Nor is it necessarily a Religious Nation. It is a nation of individuals who were supposed to be able to live together in tolerance, if not peace and harmony. What a shame we can’t have that.