Ruminations, Haunts, and Errors

A national cultural crisis erupted recently as Jim Dobson’s Focus on the Family warned that SpongeBob Squarepants is gay and thus could lead to terrible consequences for our nation’s youth. A lot of this resulted from various misunderstandings on the part of FoF’s crack investigators, but it really boiled down to their view that tolerance, acceptance, and a realistic view of the types of people that exist in the world are simply not the sorts of things we should teach our children.

Okay, rant mode off.

Anyway, as a result of this hullabaloo, in my musings I have cobbled together a set of guidelines that I’d like to see people use when determining how to deal with things they don’t like, i.e. when it might be appropriate to request changes. To wit, is it okay for an individual or group to demand or enforce a change based on…

• What a person is?. Nope, off limits. White, brown, or yellow? Gay or straight? Smart or stupid? If you don’t like it, tough, just deal.
• What a person thinks?. Still off limits, at least to the extent that it stays within his/her mind. Even vile, evil thoughts are only destructive when turned into action, and there’s no way to stamp out ‘bad thinking’ without tramping on unusual-or-scary-but-evenutally-good thoughts.
• What a person says?. Still generally off-limits, but with some limitations. Speech that’s just an expression of opinion (see above) isn’t a problem as long as those who disagree can (1) avoid seeing/hearing the speaker and/or (2) similarly express their opposing views. When/where restrictions carefully designed to ensure the ability of an individual to avoid unwanted concepts are acceptable, as are those narrowly intended to prevent personal harassment or fire-in-a-crowded-theater incidents.
• What a person does with consenting persons?. Generally off-limits. Since the right or ability to do something does not convey the right to make others aware of it, some ‘where’ restrictions are acceptable as long as they are not onerous (i.e. the privacy of one’s home should be respected). Also acceptable are rules and regulations regarding what constitutes true consent and who is able to give it.
• What a person does with/to random people?. This is the only area where society trumps the individual. An orderly society requires ‘rules of engagement’–that’s what defines orderly in the first place–and these can be as permissive or restrictive as desired so long as they respect theconcepts above and allow malcontents to leave.

Would attempting to ensure everybody follows these rules of interaction itself violate them? Hmm…