Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Please - No PDR

Today's post is about something we've all run across and of which I have an enormous dislike.

Before that, however, if you'd like to see my other writing (including books), please click here


The PDR is taken from what's been referred to as PDA - Public Displays of Affection. I have mixed feelings about affection in public. I suppose it's okay as long as everyone's clothes stay on.

PDR, however is different. It's Public Display (or Discussion) of Religion. I suppose I don't mind Christmas displays or Easter observances that don't hit viewers over the head, but some people apparently believe that you and I are vitally interested in their religious views.

I'm not. At all.

I was brought up in a society where it was considered rude to ask someone their religion. That was private (of course, what someone paid for a house was private too, and that seems to have gone away, too). If someone's from a specific country, I might make reference to her/his religious background, but other than that, I'm more concerned with someone's character than where they go to a mosque, temple, synagogue, or church.

Two recent incidents, however, suggest that if I'm not in the minority on this, I'm in a diminishing majority. Recently, I was involved in a minor business transaction with someone and he asked me if I was a Christian. I said I don't discuss religion or politics.

As a side note, I discuss a lot of the latter on my radio program, which you can find at http://www.GoingBeyondRadio.com/JeffBushman.

He was a bit insistent, but so was I and he eventually got the message that I wasn't answering his question. But the fact is that the question was rude and an imposition. What business was it of his, what my religion is, or if I have one? I understand that if I'd answered in the affirmative, he'd have established a type of rapport, but it's still rude. It's even ruder after the first time I said I didn't want to discuss it.

There's the milder form of the same thing when someone tells me that "the Good Lord will take care of that." Oh, please. I don't doubt the sincerity of your beliefs, but why impose them on other people?

There's also the more harsh version of publicly displaying or discussing religion, and I got a dose of that recently, too. I'd given a ride to a lady and as she was getting out, she offered me a "God Bless You." I said "thank you," and didn't point out that I hadn't sneezed (great self-restraint). She seemed hesitant to get out and I wished her a good day. She then told me that Jesus had died for my sins (which was somewhat prescient of him, if true, since I hadn't committed any yet). I said, "that's nice, thank you. Have a good day."

She then, in a louder voice told me that he shed his blood for me.

Also, at the risk of being accused of wanting to war against Christmas, if it's November or December and you want to wish someone a happy holiday, do so. Please don't wish me a Merry Christmas or a Happy Hannukah. I don't want to assume I know your religious beliefs, and you shouldn't assume you know mine. More than half of the people in this country are agnostic, atheistic, or a member of a religion other than Christianity.

Hearing Merry Christmas is a small thing, but it's still an (admittedly unintentional) act of presumptuousness and rudeness.

PDR is wrong, unless someone invites it. If you feel you must evangelize, ask if someone's interested and if they're not, please follow the simple rule: STFU. If you don't know what that stands for, my guess is you could Google it.

Thanks for reading this and Allah/God/Buddha Bless.

Monday, July 1, 2013

Voting Rights

As promised, and now that some time has passed, let's discuss what the U.S. Supreme Court did with regard to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Before that, however,if you'd like to see my other writing (including books), please click here


Getting back to the decision, the Court didn't kill the Voting Rights Act, but they did emasculate it to some extent. Prior to the decision, several states (mostly in the deep South and Arizona), and parts of others, had to get clearance from the Justice Department before implementing changes in their voting rules or laws.

The decision said that because much has changed since 1965, the pre-clearance section was unconstitutional.

While that makes no sense (what harm would it do anyone to get pre-clearance?) to me, neither - I think - is this a disaster for voting rights of minorities.

If it's still illegal - and it is - to pass a law that restricts the rights of African-Americans or Latinos to vote, people can bring suit and seek an injunction to bar the law from going into effect.

The reality is that states do try to restrict voting rights. Whether a state requires identification or closes polling places in minority areas, that works to restrict voting rights of racial minorities and/or poor people. Typically, these laws are passed by Republican legislators to reduce the number of votes in favor of Democrats.

But that doesn't matter.

If you restrict the right to vote, you're wrong, and should be subject to legal action based on the Voting Rights Act.

Another decision made recently by the Supreme Court established that an Arizona law requiring identification to vote in federal elections was contrary to the constitution, because it interfered with the federal law requiring less.

What next? Who knows? But this issue is not dead.

By the way, please listen to our radio show. We're live on Wednesday evenings, starting at 9:00 PM, Eastern time. You can hear us at http://www.GoingBeyondRadio.com (not case sensitive). If you miss the show, you can hear the recording afterwards at http://www.GoingBeyondRadio.com/JeffBushman. You can also download us through the smart phone application (app), Stitcher.

Thanks.