Differing Points of View

The preacher might have begun: "All of us are going to die."
The preacher might have begun: "All of us are going to live."
The preacher might have begun: "All of us are alive."

Each statement tells the truth.  Each statement could lead in a different direction.  Each statement could be made in various tones of voice, such as anger, thundering, pedantic, bored ("so what?"), excited, happy, sad, resigned.

Try them:  say each statement in at least four different tones of voice.  If you record it on your iPad or iPhone, you can listen to how a statement comes across using differing tones of voice.

Each statement is true, but the tone of voice in which it is spoken may make the statement somewhat untrue.

Sadly, we don't have the tone of voice Jesus used when he told parables, taught crowds, reviewed things for his followers or pressed on with his journeys.  Was he being humorous or scathing?  Sarcastic or dead serious?

Tone of voice matters.

When you greet a stranger in your church, synagogue or mosque, you might say, "Pleased you are here", but your tone of voice, your body language and your follow up actions tell the truth.  Your words . . . may not.

What do you think?  Leave a comment and let us know.

Thinking About Freedom - 1

When Roe vs. Wade was new, I was asked to engage with a Roman Catholic priest in a debate about the issue of abortion.  He was on the anti-abotion side, so I was tasked with taking the pro-abortion position.  In debate, of course, a person does best of she/he can take either side of the question.

I was pretty sure I did not want to be a party to abortion, but I was also sure that the freedom to have a medically sound abortion was important to a lot of women.  So I engaged.  In some ways that advanced my thinking, feeling and commitments.

Let me say, first, that I highly value living in a country that is pluralistic and that provides the liberty to practice one's faith or religious beliefs.

Second, I did want to be a party to giving the poor a break.  Illegal abortions were killing poor girls and women at an alarming rate, while upper middle class women and their daughters could "afford" competent medical interference with pregnancies even when they professed to believe it was wrong.

So giving the person most impacted by the pregnancy, the pregnant woman, seemed then and seems now to be the best possible compromise.

There can be no question that the anti-abortion voices have said it all, published the scary films and videos, shot abortion clinic workers and so forth.  Few people are uninformed about the "evils" of abortion.

Somehow the message about freedom is not getting the same press.

For instance, Hobby Loby wants (and has gotten) and exemption from paying for medical insurance that would pay for an abortion.  The freedom angle is this:

• a woman could choose not to work for Hobby Lobby (or any organization that won't pay the full amount for medical insurance)
• a woman could choose for herself not to get an abortion if she worked for such an employer

Whose conscience has priority?  The profit-making employer or the individual employee?  The way our system is currently working the employer holds the conscience card as well as the profit.

The same is true for religious organizations like the Roman Catholic church.  Can they not trust their staff people to obey the teachings of the church?  Can they not trust their staff to have compliant consciences?

Apparently not.  The "big guys" will dictate to the little women of the world.  It's complex, I understand, but individual freedom continues to come in second place.

What do you think?  Leave your comment and let us know.