Where The Road May Turn
This is kinda rambly...
I admit, I don't keep up with the legal state of things in America. I don't watch the news or read the paper. I am woefully uninformed, by choice. Ignorance is bliss, thank you very much. (I know, that's a can of worms all by itself, isn't it?)
So, I don't know what the rules about sexual harassment are these days. (Whoa! Topic switch! Bear with me...) I do know, however, that the rules in the military are based, not on the intentions of one, but the perceptions of the other. If you compliment my blouse and I think you were looking at my cleavage, I can report you. On the other hand, you can say "Nice boobs!" and if I am not offended, you have done nothing wrong. While I agree that this has the potential for disaster given the wrong person, I also like the way it works.
I have never understood why people get so upset about flag/cross burnings. The people doing it are only destroying a piece of material or wood... right up until someone else gets offended. Following the sexual harassment logic, they are only destroying an important symbol if you let them, no matter what they intend.
As human beings, most of what we do is based on our own perceptions. There are entire religions founded on the idea of getting away from that. But the majority of humans must deal with things as they apply personally, whether that means a direct effect or an implied attack against your morals and those who share them.
It's those implied attacks that make life interesting. Bear, who was a debater in high school, has quoted something to me a couple of times. For the life of me, I can't remember precisely how it goes, but it's something like "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." This is another rule I like, although it does not entirely synch with the previous.
Put together, these two rules of thumb (since that's all they can ever really be) help to manage the sticky situation that arises when you try to give equal rights to everyone, laudable, but extremely difficult. One covers intentions, the other perceptions. You can swing your fist right up to my nose. That is your right. If I think you're threatening me, you are wrong.
Meandering back to topic, I don't agree with the people who perceive the court ruling as an attack on their religion. I think they are silly for doing so. However, their perception is important. We must also take into account the perceptions of those who do not wish to say the pledge, though. And that's where it gets hairy. Who's threatening whom?
I admit, I don't keep up with the legal state of things in America. I don't watch the news or read the paper. I am woefully uninformed, by choice. Ignorance is bliss, thank you very much. (I know, that's a can of worms all by itself, isn't it?)
So, I don't know what the rules about sexual harassment are these days. (Whoa! Topic switch! Bear with me...) I do know, however, that the rules in the military are based, not on the intentions of one, but the perceptions of the other. If you compliment my blouse and I think you were looking at my cleavage, I can report you. On the other hand, you can say "Nice boobs!" and if I am not offended, you have done nothing wrong. While I agree that this has the potential for disaster given the wrong person, I also like the way it works.
I have never understood why people get so upset about flag/cross burnings. The people doing it are only destroying a piece of material or wood... right up until someone else gets offended. Following the sexual harassment logic, they are only destroying an important symbol if you let them, no matter what they intend.
As human beings, most of what we do is based on our own perceptions. There are entire religions founded on the idea of getting away from that. But the majority of humans must deal with things as they apply personally, whether that means a direct effect or an implied attack against your morals and those who share them.
It's those implied attacks that make life interesting. Bear, who was a debater in high school, has quoted something to me a couple of times. For the life of me, I can't remember precisely how it goes, but it's something like "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." This is another rule I like, although it does not entirely synch with the previous.
Put together, these two rules of thumb (since that's all they can ever really be) help to manage the sticky situation that arises when you try to give equal rights to everyone, laudable, but extremely difficult. One covers intentions, the other perceptions. You can swing your fist right up to my nose. That is your right. If I think you're threatening me, you are wrong.
Meandering back to topic, I don't agree with the people who perceive the court ruling as an attack on their religion. I think they are silly for doing so. However, their perception is important. We must also take into account the perceptions of those who do not wish to say the pledge, though. And that's where it gets hairy. Who's threatening whom?