Please read me. Feedback is also appreciated.

I haven't posted anything to this blog in ages, so guess what?
It's controversial issue time!

I had originally planned to do this in separate posts, but I figured, hey, why not just do it all at once?
This time around, I encourage you all to actually respond.
Because you're either going to agree with me or not (as if there was a third option!). Say so.


Part one: Language.

I am referring here to, ah... "bad language." Not just language in general.
This is slightly awkward, but it needs to be said, and I promised someone I'd post it, so bear with me.
Right, now. Basically, there are two strong opinions on this:
One. "Words are words. There are no evil words, I'll say what I want, thanks."
Two. "Swearing is evil. Superevil. Never do it. Ever."
Well, I'm not exactly of either of those opinions. I agree with the assessment of the first, but take the conclusion of the second.

Now, really, are words inherently evil? There's not really any way to tell. It's complicated by the fact that it really depends on what language you're speaking, and culture. Some people consider things more offensive than others.
But it's so easy to get caught up in that, when really, that's not the issue.
These are the issues:
One.
It doesn't matter what you're saying, or how you choose to say it. It's the meaning that counts, and some things you say makes the meaning clearer. So there you go. Calling someone an idiot is mean. Calling someone a {insert rude name / swearing here} is also mean. Should you really do either? And, yeah, some words are stronger than others. That's just the way it works when you insult people. So there you have it. The issue isn't what you're saying in cases like this, it's what you mean -- which is made very clear by what you're saying.
Two.
There are other cases, of course, in which people will not stop swearing, and they use it to refer to both negative and positive things. Well, that's just confusing. It's also silly. Don't you have anything better and more descriptive to say? Get a new vocabulary.
Three.
Regardless of any of that, it does offend people. And that might be what counts the most. Why would you intentionally try to offend people or make them feel uncomfortable? That's just plain selfish.

So that's that then.
Moving on.


Part two: Authority.

I've been thinking about this for a long time. Maybe longer than the first one; I don't remember now.
Anyway, then we were talking about this in church one Sunday, and I thought, "Oh, here's a good opportunity to do that post, then," but never ended up doing it.
Well, here I am, then.
Now, we're taught to respect authority, and it's really easy to do right now for some people. For others, they really don't pay any attention at all.
Authority figures can be wrong. But they should be respected anyway. Not only are they people, but they're people who are in charge.
Many reasons to respect them right there.
Now, you might be thinking "This doesn't apply to me at all."
Wanna bet?
Remember that thing they call the "election"?
Yeah.
It's looking like we'll have a democratic president this time around. They're going to think really differently than you and I (I'm speaking to my conservative audience here, which is basically everyone anyway) do. They'll do things we think is wrong, and we're not going to like it.

But respect whoever it is. Because they're the president. In charge. Authority.
It doesn't matter who you agree with.
We were reading in Romans, where the people there in Rome (no really?) were being told to respect authority. They had to deal with a lot worse than what we're going to have to deal with.

I don't mean just, "Yeah, yeah, you're a person, so I'll at least refrain from wanting you dead."
I mean actual respect. As much as you'd treat any person in authority with.
So, to use a corny illustration, what if you had to stop an assassin from shooting the president? Would you take a bullet for them, even if you despise everything they stand for?
I think the answer to that question should be yes, as strange as that might sound to you.


Hmm, I seem to have forgotten what part three was. Maybe it never existed?
Moving on to something more lighthearted, but still controversial.

I love the Harry Potter books. It's getting to be a bit silly, actually. I've read them several times, and trust me, I don't normally reread things.
They're just really great books.
And it's weird, because they aren't even written that well. I'll go through and think, "Wow, there are a hundred better ways she could have said that." But still. There's just something about them that keeps me coming back.
If you haven't read them yet and don't really know much about them, I'd encourage you to read them, at least the first one.
For those of you afraid of all the weird lies you've heard (fortunately they've died down), don't worry.
The books are not about witchcraft.
They're not about satanism, and they're not about wicca (which, contrary to popular belief, are two entirely different things that are hardly like the popular stereotypes at all).
They're about silly, fairy tale magic. Like in Disney movies, where the fairy stepmother turns dwarves into pumpkins or whatever. Admittedly, it gets a bit darker than a Disney movie towards the end, but I can assure you that it's nothing evil or demonic, or whatever you've been told it was.
I hope you realize that these same rumors were spread by people who think Dungeons and Dragons is a satanist plot to corrupt people's minds and Pokemon is a similar naturalist plot to corrupt people's minds and make them buy more stuff. Of course, you may be in agreement with those, too. I think I had another excellent example but I've forgotten it.
It also may interest you to know that one of the major bits of "news" that was passed out regarding the books making children practice witchcraft was a silly spoof article. Actually, there may have been several like this.
Anyway, the point is, these people haven't even read the books.
I have, and I can tell you they're not like anything you've heard at all.

Oh, and I suppose I should address Rowling's controversial "postmortem" comments as well.
I have no idea what she was talking about.
I would not be surprised at all to hear that she had made that stuff up on the spot just because she liked controversy.
Seriously. It's like, "Umm, we are talking about the same books, right?"
Very strange.


Anyway, this post was shorter than I had thought it would be, but oh well.
I really do want to post more often, but... I don't.
I need to get back into some kind of regular routine, I suppose.


:::Source = Paul M-unit 19.91 MKII