SteveCuno.com

A friend recently asked if there is anything I hold sacred. There is quite a lot.

Partial list of things I hold sacred:

Human rights, equal opportunity, equal treatment, human freedom, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of choice ... etc. Provided, of course, the exercise thereof doesn’t impinge on the freedom of others. That is why things like theft and murder do not fall within the bounds of permissible human freedom. For that matter, neither does restricting people from lifestyle choices merely because you happen to find them repugnant. Else, I would ban eating liver and onions.

Humane treatment. This extends to fellow human creatures, non-human creatures, and the planet we and they happen to share.

Courtesy. Admittedly a hard-to-pin-down standard, but worth the effort. Also admittedly easier said than done when courtesy finds itself at odds with...

...Facts. Sometimes presenting facts means contradicting, and sometimes contradicting is rude. In such situations, when to let facts or courtesy prevail is a judgment call. Imagine yourself face-to-face with a Holocaust denier. If said denier were an octogenarian about to expire in an ICU bed, I would argue for doing him or her the courtesy of not arguing. Were the denier making a speech to impressionable youth, I would endorse letting fly an impassioned rebuttal. Even then, courtesy needn’t be dispatched: it is to be found in avoiding polluting a rational rebuttal with a personal attack.

Logic. The more I learn to recognize and root out logical fallacies, the more I am able to challenge not just other people’s conclusions, but my own. Enlightening, fun and, for the self-honest, grounding.

Things I would go so far as to deem blasphemous:

Jokes about family violence, other forms of personal violence, and bullying. Never funny.

Holocaust jokes, racist jokes, sexist jokes, LGBT jokes and all other dehumanizing or discriminatory forms of so-called humor. Say what you will about your intent, cruelty lies at their core. Worse, in the act of laughing at atrocity we inevitably desensitize ourselves to it.

AS WE DROVE PAST a group of children playing outside, my passenger who is 84 and has Alzheimer’s Disease said, “When they’re bigger, will they be … like us?” Trying not to jump to conclusions, I asked her to clarify. As I feared, she was referring to the fact that we and the kids were not of the same shade.

Given her mental condition, there would have been no use in lecturing her about human equality. Yet how I replied mattered to me. In the most upbeat, non-scolding tone I could muster, I said, “They have two eyes, two ears, one nose, one mouth, they walk upright and can speak. Seems to me they are like us.” My passenger replied, “What day is it?”

Psychologist Bruce Hood hypothesizes that early-learned prejudices and misinformation are not replaced, but only masked, by later-learned corrections. He believes that dementia erodes the mask, leaving original prejudices and misinformation to re-emerge unfettered.

Hood’s hypothesis could explain this and other racist statements this person has made of late. Years earlier she knew better. With Alzheimer’s Disease ravaging her gray matter, perhaps attitudes she picked up as a child in Missouri eight decades ago are resurfacing. Or perhaps Missouri has nothing to do with it. Perhaps she is undergoing a personality change. Or perhaps her mind can no longer process “different” as anything but “lesser.” Who knows.

In any case, when it comes to inappropriate thoughts and comments, decency demands giving the mentally helpless a pass. Other racists, however, have no such excuse.

On the Incongruity of “Mormon Feminist”

Today I spotted an article in the Salt Lake Tribune about a wonderful effort by a group of “Mormon feminists.” My use of wonderful is sincere. What they pulled off was noteworthy and laudable.

Yet I experienced a visceral reaction to the term Mormon feminist. It strikes me as incongruous. 

The Mormon Church (properly, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) gives lip service to but practices the antithesis of gender equality. All “worthy” Mormon men can be ordained to the Mormon priesthood; no Mormon woman can. Women’s leadership opportunities occur only within the church’s gender-stereotyped “women’s organizations,” and even those positions ultimately report to men. The church defends separate gender roles (like, “fathers are to preside in the home” and “mothers are to nurture”) as divinely mandated. There is more, but I think that’ll do for starters.

Saying, as the church hasn’t always said but now does, “we value women and do not believe they are in any way inferior or subservient to men” does not make it nonsexist. Nor does it establish that the church does not in fact view women as inferior or subservient. It calls to mind the patronizingly farcical “separate but equal” doctrine that the segregationist American South once tried to pass off as racial equality. Indeed, “Mormon feminist” seems about as congruous as “non discriminatory Klansman.”

“…and to the republic for which it stands…” Only when the republic behaves itself. When it does not, morality demands not standing idly by. The Founding Fathers provided a process for changing the republic’s behavior without resorting to out-and-out revolution. However, the Declaration of Independence makes clear that such an option is never to be ruled out.

“…one nation…” Fine, however, certain states seem to take exception to that one from time to time.

“…under God…” Nope. See Amendment One, which happens to predate the Pledge. Also see the Pledge as it was originally written, before this morally repugnant presumption was added to it.

“…indivisible…” See the above-referenced “to the republic for which it stands” and “one nation.”

“…with liberty and justice for all.” Ahhh. Now there is an ideal worth pledging allegiance to. 

So here is my proposed rewrite of the Pledge: “I pledge allegiance to liberty and justice for all, and to the United States of America inasmuch as it stands for and promotes those values; and inasmuch as it strays from them, I pledge to do my utmost toward correcting its course.”

That’s a pledge I could cheerfully stand and recite, hand on heart.

I also suggest a footnote stipulating that “all” refers not just to humans, but to our fellow creatures, and to the environment we and they share. I wouldn’t require recitation of the footnote provided it was routinely taught, remembered and invoked.

Why I don’t respect all beliefs, neither do you, and why it’s better to admit it.

People often say, “I don’t accept your beliefs, but I respect them.” 

Nobody who says that means it.

For one thing, I doubt you truly respect the beliefs of, say, Charles Manson, David Koresh or Osama Bin Laden.

But even if we added a caveat, like, “as long as the belief doesn’t interfere with the rights of others,” you still don’t really, truly mean it.

Here is a more defensible and, I think, honorable statement: “I respect your right to believe as you wish.” Note the difference. Honoring one’s right to a belief is not the same thing as honoring the belief itself. If you hold a belief that I find nutty, I reserve every right to disrespect it, even while standing for your right to believe it.

If you believe that anyone who disses Mohammed should be put to death, it is your right to think so, but that belief merits not one iota of my respect. I need hardly add that the exercise of that particular belief constitutes the ultimate infringement upon the rights of others.

If you believe that God objects to blood transfusions, I cherish your right to think so, but as beliefs go, I happen to find this one heinous. I’ll even respect your right to decline a potentially life-saving transfusion for yourself. But should you try to keep others — like, say, your kids — from having one, I will cheer when a court gets in your way.

If you believe that God doesn’t want you to shop on a given day, fine, stay home, but a-shopping I will go. If you try to effect legislation to keep facilities and stores closed or, as some societies do, to punish me for shopping on that day, you are interfering with the rights of others.

If you choose to believe that a wafer becomes the flesh of Jesus after you eat it, I respect your right to think so. But I’d be lying if I said I respect that belief. It’s just plain silly. And not a little gross.

If you believe it is government’s or religion’s right to force women to wear a burkha, more power to you — just as long as you don’t try to exercise this imagined “right.” Meanwhile, I reserve the right to despise how you think.

Should you choose to believe that the 9/11 attacks were God's punishment brought upon the U.S. by feminists, atheists and the LGBT community, that the Church of Scientology has the truth, that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh know more about climate science than the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, that God opposes interracial and/or same-sex marriages, that the alignment of stars and planets reveals the future and insights into your personality, that God spoke to Joseph Smith, that there was an Atlantis, that aliens built the pyramids — and so forth — I shall respect your right to think so. But respect the belief itself? Not without good evidence. Which, to date, none of the above has.

Come on, be honest with me. And with yourself. Surely by now I have touched on at least one belief that you respect no more than I. With that in the open, we can get on with the business of according a full complement of human rights to everyone. Including those we think believe nutty things.

There is something noble in that. There is more integrity in guarding one’s right to a belief you disrespect, than in claiming to respect that which you do not.

Why Your Favorite Political Candidate Bears a Striking Resemblance to a Bar of Soap

Though I make my living as a marketer, and hold that marketing is in many cases beneficial, I am the first to concede that there are areas where it should have no place. Politics is one of them. 

When marketing persuades you to try a brand of soap, you risk a few dollars. When it persuades you try a brand of political candidate, you risk far more. Things like, oh, I dunno, war, mayhem, economic woes and social injustice, perhaps.

Trouble is, eliminating marketing from politics or any other area is easier said than done. Even if you were to ban paid political advertising (which I am not convinced is a good idea anyway) or try to regulate it (good luck pinning down standards and closing loopholes), you would fall short. Paid advertising is only a subset of marketing. Every platform plank constitutes marketing and brand-building. So does winning over or offending reporters and commentators. So does every speech. So does a candidate’s gender, race, appearance, grooming and dress. So does choosing to stump Iowa and not, say, Utah.

Nor does it help that the voting public is largely uninformed.* Apathy aside, with today’s glut of issues, information and misinformation, it could hardly be otherwise. So it is that, despite rhetoric about issues and “the good of the nation,” we as a public tend to vote for the brand with which we identify.

Just as we use our wallets to vote for a brand of soap.

I am not the first to make these observations, nor am I the first to find them not a little troubling. 

Though eliminating marketing from politics is easier said than done, there is something to be said for at least seeking to reign it in. Now, if only someone had a clue as to how to go about it. Self-regulation would be nice. So would flying pigs.
_________________
* The voting public is largely uninformed — A safe statement indeed. Most people believe themselves smarter and better informed than the average. Never mind that it is a statistical impossibility for all to be right on that particular point.

A Marriage by Any Other Name

A friend just told me he does’t oppose same-sex unions as long as we don’t call them “marriages.” The word, he explained, is sacred to him. Call them “civil unions” and he will be perfectly happy.

Nonsense. Of course he opposes same-sex marriage. But rather than admit that his is a religion-based objection with no legal leg to stand on, he has moved his aim from the practice to the word. It is a stunning display of trying but failing to appear politically correct, and also of the “I’m Not / I’m Just” Fallacy.

Nonetheless, I have decided to build upon his precedent:

• I have no objection to putting pumpkin filling in a pie shell, provided you don’t call it “pie.” That is my sacred word for fruit-filled crusts. Call it a “pumpkin pastry” and I’ll be perfectly happy.

• Don’t call pressing numbers on a touch-screen “dialing,” because that is my sacred word for turning a mechanical round thing with holes in it. Call it “keying” and I’ll be perfectly happy. No, wait. “Keys” are on typewriters and pianos. Better calling it “data-ing.”

• Don’t call an automobile a “car”; that’s what runs on train tracks. Also, avoid calling the Smart Car a “vehicle”; vehicles are long and have trunks. Don’t call iPads “tablets”; tablets have paper you can tear off. Oh, wait. Paper pads aren’t “tablets,” either; tablets are made of stone. I guess we’ll have to call iPads “flat computers.” Don’t call lifts “elevators”; that was the Otis company’s brand name. Don’t call any fish in your aquarium a “pet”; you don’t pet it. Don’t call toy poodles “dogs”; though they are arguably toys, dog is my sacred word for a big, slobbery variety of canine that sheds. Don’t call Hawaiian pizza “pizza.” Don’t call raisins “dried grapes.” Don’t call French fries, French toast, French dressing or French kissing “French”...

With a little imagination, think how busy we can keep our legislators passing laws so that our language won’t do what languages do. Namely, evolve. And in the case of refusing to call all marriages “marriages,” we can use a legally mandated word distinction to dehumanize while appearing to grant human rights.

Dealing with the Holiday Non-Enthusiast

Sometimes I exercise my right to engage in poor judgment by admitting aloud that the Christmas season is not my favorite time of year. This post is about the reactions I generally endure, and how they make me feel.

For now, I won’t go into why I don’t care for the season. Suffice it to say that my feelings have nothing to with religion (the season treated me badly even when I was a believer) nor with commercialism (I quite like the boost Christmas gives the economy).

Most people react with an instant scolding. Obviously something about me is broken. I damn well better fix it, and fix it now. All I have to do is flip the “I Like Christmas” switch back to its ON position. Whereas that’s annoying, the other, equally frequent reaction is downright hurtful: someone calls me a scrooge or a grinch. I am neither. Scrooge (or the Grinch, take your pick) was a soured, cold-hearted miser. I, by contrast, am a halfway decent, warm-hearted fellow. Some might even go so far as to call me generous and kind.

News flash: I am not the only moral person who doesn’t much care for the holidays. I just happen to be one of very few who publicly owns up to it. (Perhaps now you can see why so few do.) Each winter, an estimated one in ten people you know suffers from Seasonal Affect Disorder (SAD), a clinical depression brought on by cold, overcast months. Since the environment that shaped our evolution was warm year-round, the occurrence of SAD makes a certain amount of sense. People who are subject to SAD, as I am, and who also happen to be plagued by dysfunctional Christmas pasts get to handle an annual double whammy of emotional turmoil. It isn’t easy.

Which brings me to a recommendation. Next time you hear me or the likes of me express holiday season angst, resist the urge to lecture or solve. Instead, try understanding and validating. Perhaps, “Though I can’t fathom how you feel from my own experience, I can see that this matters to you.” Or, “Not caring for a season that is in-your-face for several months each year must be hard.” Or even, “Thanks for letting me know. Anything I can do—or not do—to help?”

Any of those would be a nice change. For lots more people than you might imagine.

Mind you, I take no offense when someone offers me Christmas greetings. Or Hanukkah or Ramadan greetings. Good wishes are good wishes, even when wrapped in a holiday one doesn’t acknowledge or care for. As such, they should be graciously received.

So if you see me in the next few months and you want to say “Merry Christmas,” don’t be shy. I promise simply to thank you. Who knows? I might even wish you the same. But if I happen to trust you enough to bare to you a bit of my holiday soul, I hope you’ll resist any urge to scold.

Originally written and posted on November 5, 2010. 

Introducing (I think) 
the “I’m Not, I’m Just” Fallacy

If you’re into rationalizing — not to be confused with rational thinking — you might try what I hereby call the “I’m Not, I’m Just” Fallacy.

As far as I know, I coined the term. It came to me as my mom, busily engaged in her nightly routine of cleaning the stove top — with a toothbrush — explained, “I’m not a compulsive cleaner; I just like a clean house.” In that moment, I realized that most of the time when someone says, “I’m not … I’m just,” the “I’m not” part is baloney. 

Consider: 

• The bullying boss who says, “I’m not mean; I’m just misunderstood.” 
  
• Me, when I say, “I’m not a picky eater; I just don’t like sauerkraut, lamb, carrots, celery, raw onions, sushi, pineapple on pizza, Tabasco, caraway seeds, imitation maple syrup...”
  
• The physics professor who, when a now-famous female physicist was his student, told her: “I’m not sexist; I’m just refusing to recommend you for the Ph.D. program because science is no field for a woman.”
  
• The showoff who says, “I’m not trying to impress you; I’m just telling you how much I spent on my car, home, boat,...”
  
• The overtly religious men I have known who, caught leering and commenting, have said, “I’m not lusting; I’m just enjoying the beauty of God’s creatures.” 
  

Here are some more:

“I’m not intolerant… 
…I just think I have the right not to see people do something I disapprove of.”
…I just believe that we can’t expect God to protect our great nation if we don’t stand up to homosexuals, divorce, atheism and feminism.” 
...I’m just saying the majority should decide.”
…I just wouldn’t vote for a Mormon/Muslim/atheist/whatever.”
“I’m not a racist…
…I just don’t want my kids to marry outside their race because other people (not me, of course) will treat them and their kids poorly.”
…I’m just tired of all of them breaking our laws.” 
...I’m just saying they should go back where they came from.”
...I’m just saying I don’t want them moving here and taking our jobs.”
“I’m not antigay… 
…I’m just saying it’s unnatural.”
…I’m just defending marriage.” 
…I’m just worried about the example they set for children.”
…I’m just saying it’s a sin.”
…I just believe that AIDS is God’s punishment for gayness.”
...I’m just saying their goal is to recruit, even though they don’t admit it.”
“I’m not sexist…
…I’m just the head of the household.”
…I just believe a woman’s place is in the home.”
…I just believe that women shouldn’t be priests.”
…I’m just saying that men will be men, but the women they’re being men with are sluts.”
...I’m just saying that women are more intuitive while men are more logical.”
...I’m just saying that vaccinating young women against cervical cancer will encourage them to be promiscuous.”
“I’m not against freedom of religion… 
…I’m just saying our government shouldn’t permit a mosque near Ground Zero.”
…I’m just saying there should be prayer in the public schools.”
…I’m just saying that the United States is a Christian nation.”
…I’m just saying that the Constitution guarantees freedom of, not from, religion.”

I freely admit that no one — skeptics and scientists included — is immune. To commit the “I’m Not, I’m Just Fallacy” from time to time is to be human.

Fairness also demands conceding that the “I’m Not, I’m Just” Fallacy doesn’t always apply. There is no “I’m Not, I’m Just” Fallacy in the statement, “I’m not being dogmatic; I’m just saying that ample evidence supports the Theory of Evolution and none supports Creationism.” Nor is there any “I’m Not, I’m Just Fallacy” in the statement, “I’m not saying there are no intelligent extra terrestrials; I’m just saying there is no evidence that any have visited our planet.”

Which means that, at times, it can be hard to tell when someone is truly committing the “I’m Not, I’m Just” Fallacy. But then, that needn’t concern us. The greatest value in understanding the “I’m Not, I’m Just” Fallacy is in its application to self. That’s where changing the world begins, anyway.