intramuralist ™

I will never toe a partisan line. I will not be sucked in to purely partisan thinking — lured in by potential political opportunists, attempting to seduce us into adopting solely their point of view.

One person I believe to be excellent at not being lured is Kirsten Powers, a lifelong liberal, who became a Christian in recent years, who serves as a contributor to USA Today, FOX News, and The Daily Beast. Her new book, “The Silencing,” hit bookstands last week. Allow me to provide a brief excerpt. Perhaps you’ll see why I respect her so. Remember, she is a part of the left of which she writes… [Note: the emphasis will be mine.]

“The illiberal left isn’t just ruining reputations and lives with their campaigns of delegitimization and disparagement. They are harming all of society by silencing important debates, denying people the right to draw their own conclusions, and derailing reporting and research that is important to our understanding of the world. They are robbing culture of the diversity of thought that is so central to learning and discovery.

It’s sadly ironic that so many of the illiberal left view themselves as rational, intellectual, fact-based thinkers and yet have fully embraced a dogmatic form of un-enlightenment. Deviating from lefty ideology is equated to heresy and academic inquiry is too often secondary to ideological agendas. The illiberal left insert ideologically driven statistics into the media and academic bloodstream and then accuse anyone who questions them of diabolical motives. When researchers make discoveries supporting the wrong ideological conclusion, the character assassination and intimidation begin.

In a 2011 speech, then-University of Virginia social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who describes himself politically as a ‘liberal turned centrist,’ explained, ‘If a group circles around sacred values, they’ll evolve into a tribal-moral community. They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.’

The illiberal left likes to accuse conservatives and religious people of doing this, but ignores the central role it plays in their own determination to reinforce their ideological beliefs. Haidt pointed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was labeled a racist for a 1965 report he produced as assistant secretary of Labor in the Kennedy administration. The report rang alarm bells about the rise of unmarried parenthood among African Americans, and called for government policies to address the issue. ‘Open-minded inquiry into the problems of the Black family was shut down for decades, precisely the decades in which it was most urgently needed,’ Haidt said. ‘Only in the last few years have sociologists begun to acknowledge that Moynihan was right all along. Sacralizing distorts thinking. Sacred values bind teams together, and then blind them to the truth. That’s fine if you are a religious community… but this is not fine for scientists.’

Haidt believes that the fact that conservatives are underrepresented by ‘a ratio of two or three hundred to one’ in social psychology ‘is evidence that we are a tribal moral community that actively discourages conservatives from entering.’ Allowing for more diversity of ideological thought would lead to ‘better science and freer thinking,’ concluded Haidt. This argument doesn’t just apply to academia. It applies to any facet of society where non-liberal views are deemed out of bounds.

When people are afraid to express their opinions because they’ve seen other people treated as deviants deserving of public shaming or worse, they will be less likely to speak freely. This already happens in newsrooms and academia, where people hide their religious or political views in water cooler conversation for fear of discrimination, or ultimately just opt out of the hostile work environments altogether. ‘We are hurting ourselves when we deprive ourselves of critics, of people who are as committed to science as we are, but who ask different questions, and make different background assumptions,’ Haidt noted.

In preparing for his speech, Haidt searched for conservative social psychologists to interview, and was only able to find two, both of them graduate students, who came close to fitting the bill. ‘Both of them said they are not conservative, but neither are they liberal, and because they are not liberal, they feel pressure to keep quiet,’ Haidt reported, noting that one of the not-liberal social scientists was in the room as a participant in the conference. Haidt shared an e-mail from one of the heretics: ‘Given what I’ve read of the literature, I am certain any research I conducted in political psychology would provide contrary findings and, thereby, go unpublished. Although I think I could make a substantial contribution to the knowledge base, and would be excited to do so, I will not.’

These stories are commonplace, as is the desire for the academics to remain unnamed. Conservative and orthodox Christian professors have told me chilling stories of intimidation, harassment, discrimination, denial of tenure, and more, but they are not included in this book because all were too fearful to go on the record lest it further alienate them from the members of the illiberal left who hold their academic and professional futures in their hands.

This is not the kind of world we want. Educated people, noted Harvard psychology professor and bestselling author Steven Pinker in extolling the virtues of free speech, ‘should be acutely aware of human fallibility, most notably their own, and appreciate that people who disagree with them are not necessarily stupid or evil. Accordingly, they should appreciate the value of trying to change minds by persuasion rather than intimidation or demagoguery.’

But as this book will demonstrate, the left’s commitment to free speech is collapsing. In its place, the illiberal left is executing a campaign of coercion and intimidation. I call it ‘The Silencing.’ “

Respectfully… with great respect for Kirsten Powers and her poignant message…

AR

Ok, ok… it’s true. I have a favorite punctuation mark. In my small world of creative idiosyncrasies — in a world where some may have a fondness for the colon or comma — I believe I have admitted before that I love the question mark. Yep… you heard me. I love the question mark. 🙂

(Save when “idiot” is the last word of the sentence) The question mark is the only punctuation piece that keeps a conversation going. It’s the only mark that invites a response. And it’s the only form of punctuation that shows an obvious interest in hearing and considering the opinions of others — as opposed to engaging in continued self proclamation.

Yesterday I polled the pages of my favorite news sites, observing what headlines also utilized my favorite mark. I found the following, “questionable” headlines:

“Death Penalty: ‘Civilized’ Vengeance or Biblical Contradiction?”

“Will Nonreligious Reshape U.S. Politics?”

“ISIS Slaughter in the Making?”

“Why Do America’s Riots So Precisely Mirror Each Other, Generation After Generation After Generation?”

“Were Asian-American Businesses Targeted in the Baltimore Riots?”

“Did Louis C.K. Go Too Far?”

“Do Churches Fail the Poor?”

“Why Not Martin O’Malley?”

“Shouldn’t We Expect that Our Intelligence Professionals Tell the Truth and Be Straight with the American People?”

“Why Did Clinton ‘Enforcer’ George Stephanopoulos Get the Job In The First Place?”

“Who Killed Who?”

“Should U.S. Topple Secular Dictators?”

“Do Clippers Need Big Changes?”

“Chicago Cubs’ Win Streak Snapped?”

In each of the above editorials, an opinion is exerted but begins with a question. The opinion is thus prefaced by a means that invites other people into the conversation. Notice some of the tougher subjects addressed above — including but not limited to terrorism, child abuse, the death penalty, politics, race, religion, and the fate of the Chicago Cubs (sorry, Dad). The question allows for the foray into sensitive subject areas — subjects often challenging for people to respectfully discuss.

Notice, too, how the practice is seemingly contrary to the social sites of Facebook and Twitter. On those two sites especially, persons often express opinion via rants, raves, tweets, and fervid imperatives; the rant may be contained in a single sentence or two. Yes, we are passionate people; we have many opinions and often desire to express them. But observe how often Facebook and Twitter omit my favorite form of punctuation. Observe, also, how productive, constructive, solution-oriented dialogue seems so rare in social media.

Just a bit of an idiosyncrasy… I love the question mark… for many reasons. Isn’t it grand?

Respectfully…

AR

In 1984, the state of Massachusetts abolished the death penalty. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother killed three people and injured 264 others in Boston, Massachusetts. Because Tsarnaev was tried on federal charges — because he was found guilty on 17 capital charges — and because the jury concluded he showed no remorse — after 14 hours of deliberations, the jury decided Tsarnaev should be put to death.

Once again America is faced with how we feel about capital punishment. Is it right? Is it not? That is the question.

Allow me first a few factual ponderings…

• Dzhokhar Anzorovich “Jahar” Tsarnaev is only 21.
• Tsarnaev and his brother murdered three at the finish line and a police officer in the manhunt.
• 15 persons had some sort of amputation because of the bombings.
• Tsarnaev’s lawyers did not refute the charges against him.
• Tsarnaev wrote, “The bombings were in retribution for the U.S. crimes in places like Iraq and Afghanistan [and] that the victims of the Boston bombing were collateral damage, in the same way innocent victims have been collateral damage in U.S. wars around the world. When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims.”
• Tsarnaev also said during questioning that he and his brother next intended to detonate explosives in NYC’s Times Square.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev intended for multiple people to be killed. He was prepared to kill again. Is it thus right to kill him?

Friends, this is a tough one. It should not be taken lightly. Four people died because of the evil behavior of two young men; is it equally evil to kill one more as a consequence for the four?

Before any utterance, allow me to preface our discussion with a bit of potential hypocrisy… If one claims to be “pro-life” and also support the death penalty, please be able to back up the combination of never killing a child but being comfortable killing an adult. Similarly, if one claims to be “pro-choice” but is also completely against the death penalty, please be able to back up why intentionally stopping a beating heart is acceptable in only one of these cases. As said, this is a tough issue.

My bottom line, friends, is that this is not an issue to be taken lightly. It’s not an issue in which any should cheer — be that when a death sentence is administered — or circumvented; there is zero place for cheer. This is sobering.

I think of those in Massachusetts who sat on that jury. As reported by the BBC… “After the death sentence was announced, he [Tsarnaev] bowed his head. A juror with gold hoop earrings took a drink from a water bottle. A moment later she started to cry. Another juror touched her to reassure her and to comfort her. Another juror with dark-framed glasses and a blue shirt cried too. He took off his glasses. He wiped his forehead and wiped his eyes. He bit his lips, distraught.”

I appreciate that those with the incredibly enormous responsibility of discerning the appropriateness of the death penalty cried… they cried.

There are no cheers; there is nothing to celebrate. This is tough place for wisdom to shine through. It’s hard to see any put to death. It was also hard to see the victims die.

Martin Richard was one of the three at the finish line who died. He was eight years old. His sister, six-year-old Jane, had a leg blown off.

Like I said, this is hard.

Respectfully…

AR

Forgive me, friends. I feel as if I omitted a glaring point from Sunday’s post. Allow me to return to our previous reference in regard to NFL icon Tom Brady in order to make a more poignant observation.

Briefly first, the basic facts regarding Brady’s current predicament:

1. Because under-inflated footballs are easier to catch and throw, the NFL sets specific air pressure levels for game balls.
2. Each team is responsible for supplying their own game balls.
3. In the most recent AFC Championship game, all 11 of the Patriots’ game balls tested measured below the minimum pressure level.
4. After a three month investigation, a locker room attendant, an equipment assistant, and Brady were implicated in the wrongdoing.
5. Brady is believed to have intentionally violated the rules — and also to have lied to the public and investigators about his role in the process.

Consequently, the Patriots have lost draft picks and been fined; Brady has been suspended. All indications are that Brady will appeal. He may attempt legal proceedings — which is always interesting when a collective bargaining agreement puts discipline in the employer’s hands, seemingly, often trumping the legal system.

Much of the public, no less, likely already had their minds made up in regard to Brady’s intention, involvement, and virtue in this matter. If one is a Brady or Patriots hater, they stand ready to pounce… I told you so… I’ve always known he was a cheater… If one is instead a Brady or Patriots lover, they are quick to marginalize… It’s not that big of a deal… he’s a good guy… It seems that neither the pouncing nor marginalizing is the wisest assessment. One judgment examines only the above behavior; the other ignores it.

I thus have two thoughts…

First, there are a few aspects about Brady we should mention before we rush to judgment (that means the pouncing or marginalizing). I could mention “Spygate,” the 2007 incident which implicated the head coach and organization, but Brady was not concluded to be involved in that wrongdoing.

Brady is, however, involved in multiple charities, including an Intramuralist favorite, Best Buddies International. At multiple levels, Best Buddies pairs people together in order to encourage and support the inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Brady calls his annual “Tom Brady Football Challenge” — where he plays football with a group of individuals with special needs — “the highlight of my year.” Private as Brady has always claimed to be, he gives those kids unparalleled access to him during that time.

It’s possible the Brady’s Best Buddies and charitable involvement is a P.R. ploy in order to soften his often stoic persona. It is also possible that his involvement is completely genuine. Again, his behavior should not prompt us to pounce… I told you so… I’ve always known he was a good guy… Or… It’s not that big of a deal… he doesn’t do it that often…

My second thought is that society continues to be stuck in the rut of judging people for what they do. I know, I know… judge not, lest you be judged. I get that; I’m merely submitting that we are not all that good at refraining from subtle (and not so subtle) judgments. We feel capable in the assessment of virtue — the good and the bad.

The challenge is that who we are — our character — is far more important that what we do. Granted, what we do is often indicative of who we are. And so as much as possible, we look for patterns. We look for consistency. We look for the so-called “fruit” in a person’s life.

When we examine the fruit produced by Brady, etc., we need to look at the totality of the fruit — and then, still, we must pause… not pounce… and not marginalize. We must also acknowledge that there are aspects of every person’s character — good and bad — that we will never know.

We cannot tell for certain the depth of Brady’s character. That means how honorable it is… or not.

(P. S. An added side note… on those youthful days when my actions were sometimes — shall we say — slightly less than stellar [??], thank God there was no media, Facebook, or Instagram… just saying. Here’s to focusing on the totality of the fruit…)

Respectfully…

AR

“Everything in moderation, including moderation,” said the infamous Oscar Wilde. While I’m not certain the quote is worthy of being a life mantra (especially when it comes to love… and uh, bacon), there’s a reason most of us are not attracted to the extremes; they go too far. The extremes never find the wisdom in balance… be that between flooding and drought, lawlessness and tyranny, or starvation and gluttony, for example. Our challenge is the lack of discernment when moving toward the extreme.

Today’s observations are prompted by a recent, fascinating conversation. While alluded to here previously, I am wondering anew if the public conversation deserves more scrutiny.

My observation begins with the awareness that in recent years, there has been a ramped-up rhetorical push for so-called “equality.” Name a subject; someone somewhere has tied the concept of equality to the issue… social equality… civil equality… racial equality… marriage equality… immigration equality… income equality… economic equality. The word works because so few of us wish to embrace “inequality” — or something perceived to be lesser or inferior. The word “equality” thus seems to be quickly, rhetorically attached to any initiative, movement, or campaign in order to drum up more momentum and support.

The “equality” movement has morphed into a question of “fairness” — a similar, rhetorically-pleasing concept. There’s just one problem: for any who have ever educated a child, we know that life is not fair. And while “equality” and “fairness” may sound good, they are not always attainable, sustainable, or true.

While “all men are created equal,” being “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” we were also each endowed with different gifts, strengths, and weaknesses; we are not the same. A key aspect of maturity means recognizing our unique wiring — and then using that for good. We instead seem to spend so much effort and energy comparing ourselves to other people — which serves as the basis for any “equality” or “fairness” debate.

Such brings me to the recent conversation. In an interview with ABC Radio, British philosopher Adam Swift offered what I believe to be shocking insight. The University of Warwick professor — who previously held visiting positions at Harvard, MIT, and the University of Wisconsin — spoke of how we are “unfairly disadvantaging” children. Remember that Swift is considered highly intelligent; he is widely respected in academia; he is teaching college kids. Swift’s unfair comment was in regard to how parents reading to their children are “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” [emphasis mine].

I’ll continue…

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally.”

He goes on…

“One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society, then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family, there would be a more level playing field.”

Abolishing the family… the family equated to a “source of unfairness.” Swift says he became interested in this question because he was interested in “equality of opportunity.”

I have two more thoughts:

1. Sometimes we still don’t realize that life is not fair. And…
2. Sometimes we lack discernment when moving toward the extreme.

Respectfully…

AR

 

My desire is to always advocate for integrity — to embrace and promote what is good and true and right — in society, sports, politics, you-name-it. While willing to wrestle with all issues and events and never shy from a scenario, sometimes we must be more intentional in focusing on what is good.

And so when I came to my keyboard this day, originally contemplating how to entwine the current stories surrounding quarterback Tom Brady and candidate Hillary Clinton, there was a bit of an internal struggle. (Put all Patriot and partisan hats aside, friends; I’m seeking objectivity.) I am fascinated that both Tom and Hillary are (1) revered by many, (2) have attained positions of unparalleled influence, (3) are highly intelligent, (4) have been caught in lies, and (5) are now not forthcoming with the truth. Why are they quiet? Is the truth worse than the lie? And does the intent of their deception in any way disqualify them from the future position they each desire to hold — be that behind the walls of Canton’s famed hall or on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

While it’s no secret that I am not a New England fan, hater, nor a desirer of another “Bush” or “Clinton” in the White House again soon (I desire fresher ideas, friends), remember that the Intramuralist always advocates for integrity. We are seeing some cracks which should prompt the at least posing of questions regarding character — as opposed to marginalizing the lies because of our fandom. I know that’s a tough position — especially when you admire the person so much (… said by this lifelong Pete Rose fan).

Yet as stated at the beginning of today’s post, sometimes we must be intentional in focusing on what is good, and after my morning yesterday, the questions regarding quarterbacks and candidates easily went away.

Yesterday was the Special Olympics in our area. In a large high school stadium, athletes from across the city came to compete in various track and field events. It was clear from the onset, that this was special. So much about the event was different than the typical games we all play — in society, sports, politics, you-name-it. And so much about this was good…

• Age and race did not matter.
• Speed and style did not matter.
• All athletes were celebrated.
• All athletes were congratulated.
• All placements were celebrated.
• And it was also ok to identify the specific placement of each athlete.

Nothing zapped the joy of these athletes. It was a day in which they felt special — knowing and feeling their life was nothing lesser. This was good.

Two moments struck me as especially profound, no less. First was when the national anthem began to play and the athletes and crowd stood together, with the majority singing along… when’s the last time you were some place where the crowd sang loudly and proudly along?

And second was the race of the young boy — maybe 11 or 12 — as he approached the finish line. Still some 10-15 feet away from the end, the boy began wildly waving his arms and running a bit more haphazardly. At first, I thought he was in pain, crying, and somehow upset. And then I saw his eyes — and saw how happy he was — all because he was about to finish in 4th place… 4th place.

Did I mention we must sometimes be more intentional in focusing on what is good?

Respectfully…

AR

Several years ago I sat in the stands after traveling the four plus hours to a baseball tournament for one of my sons. During our fourth or fifth game of the extended weekend, I remember one parent wanting to vent with me; she was irate her son had to sit out that game. I got it. I understood. I also desired to listen well, wanting to encourage her, and do nothing to diminish her perceived plight. Her situation was hard for her.

Note: up to that point — game four or five — my son had only played one inning… one inning of one game.

After traveling that far for that many days, I would have appreciated my son playing more. Granted, he’s a pitcher, and sometimes pitchers — especially in relief — play more sporadically, dependent on how a specific game evolves. His one inning was a good one — and that made me thankful. I haven’t always, however — and am still not always — good at being thankful for “one innings,” so-to-speak.

I will admit, no less, that I am consistently struck by the number of times so many of us (myself included) miss out on the beauty of those one innings because we’re so focused on some other aspect of our circumstances that’s frustrating or hurtful; we become so emboldened by the perceived plight within our circumstances — an irritation or inconvenience, a heartache or hurt, a passion or personal desire — that we become blinded to any plight of another; we’re actually unable to see what’s happening to another, because our own emotion and/or passion often blinds us. It’s thus also a seemingly subconscious way of making life, unfortunately, “all about me.” Sometimes, I believe, because we are so anxious or irate, we assume another’s plight couldn’t be harder.

As referenced in Tuesday’s post, I remember well the month my infant son was in the cardiac ICU ward. Those days were hard — sweet in some ways, but awful, actually, in others. My heart hurt, and while my faith never wavered, the reality was still scary and sobering. And yet, when I’d walk the halls, awash in my own concern, I remember moments when I’d notice the manifest fears in the faces of those who paced the same hallways… downcast… swollen eyes… persons who obviously hadn’t had a good night’s sleep in weeks, months, maybe years. Then I’d see the children… some facing overwhelming, mind-boggling, physical and emotional challenges. It’s totally gut-wrenching seeing a child in pain.

I learned then that it’s keenly vital to look at the faces of another. If we don’t, we will never fully consider their plight… we will never weigh the challenges of their reality… and we will then far too easily make life “all about me.”

Take a brief glance at the most current, current events — from the Baltimore unrest to the terror attack in Texas to the “Clinton cash” to “Deflategate,” etc. In each there are many who are only able to see their own perspective or plight. As I shared on the baseball diamond, I get it. I understand. My point is not to diminish that person’s plight; my point is that sometimes we are so focused on our own valid passions and challenges, that we can no longer see any belonging to another.

After an hour at the weekend baseball tournament, the other parent seemed to calm down significantly. She seemed a little less stressed that her son was not playing. I felt, too, I was able to listen well and steer her to find some positives in the situation. We focused on how well her son had played in the days prior — without marginalizing her current concern.

I also chose not to remind her of my son’s lack of playing time. It wasn’t necessary. I didn’t want to miss the beauty of one inning.

Respectfully…

AR

My youngest son was born missing a wall in his heart. Before the wall could be fixed, he became critically ill, as at five months old, he contacted a severe respiratory virus that threatened his life. We found ourselves spending most of March of 2002 in the cardiac ICU ward at Children’s Hospital in Cincinnati. It was a sobering, challenging, gut-wrenching time.

While my family and I will forever be thankful for those who walked beside us then — the guests, gifts, helping hands and prayers across the globe — there were also many moments spent alone — often quietly only with our son, who was unable to respond.

Food was not permitted in the ICU wing, so one of those lonely Sunday evenings I remember strolling into the visitors’ lounge, attempting to pick at some semblance of dinner, even though my heart was totally elsewhere. I wasn’t actually alone in the lounge that night; already visiting were five very large, probably 250 lb. plus African-American men.

The five were talking amidst one another, in a fairly lively manner, with ESPN tuned into on the corner television. I sat alone at the table, picking at my food. They made no effort to speak to me — nor me to them.

With the top of the hour came the sports network’s lead story: an NBA coach had made a racially inflammatory comment; his comment was directed toward the hiring of African-American coaches.

The waiting room went silent.

Together we watched the in depth reports — sitting still even as ESPN moved to the next story. All lively conversation from my fellow lounge visitors had quickly come to a halt. Here I sat… me the only Caucasian in the room… seemingly half each man’s size… amidst a group which was understandably, obviously disturbed by what they had just heard.

I realized then that often we are only good at communicating with those who look like us. We often only attempt to communicate when we’re fairly certain the other person is likeminded — and that likeminded calculation is typically driven by an instant assessment of outward appearance; our communication is often based on outward appearance. And even though our outward appearances were strikingly different that day, I knew I needed to speak to those men.

“You know why that guy says things like that?” And with those brief words acutely cutting the silence, I could tell I stunned each of the five, as I had their immediate attention; they stared straight at me — silent — undoubtedly unsure what was about to next come out of my mouth.

I looked them square in the eye. I paused. And then I boldly said, “Because his team ain’t winning. When teams aren’t winning, people say stupid things.”

“Amen!” went the room, and instantaneously the liveliness returned, as did the chorus of smiles and extended amens, as we now all chatted together. We talked about professional basketball. We talked about Shaq and Kobe and Michael’s return from retirement. If my memory serves me correctly, we even went on to discuss the upcoming NFL draft. But then, a most beautiful thing happened…

After 10 or so minutes of discussing current sporting events, we moved on to the more significant. We began to share why each of us was sitting in that waiting room. The reality was that we were in the ICU ward because someone we loved — a child, no less — was critically ill.

I realized that when I had first walked into that room, there was no attempt by any of us to discern the heart of the other; we were distracted by our own passions. No one was mean or disrespectful; we just made no attempt to sincerely communicate. Most likely we had made a few judgments about each other based on outward appearance. When then faced with the racial disrespect, those subtle judgments began swirling in our minds — even in our silence.

If we are going to communicate in a healthy way, friends, we must refrain from such external judgment — judgment which too often hails from every ethnic, income, intellect, political, and demographic group. Judgment will always obstruct the most important communication… whether that happens in Baltimore, Maryland or the hospital waiting room.

I was able to eat a little bit more of my dinner that night. I left shortly thereafter with high fives, hugs, and a shared commitment to pray for one another’s loved ones. I was thankful to talk about what was most important.

Respectfully…

AR

Last week we again witnessed society’s growing sensitivity to name calling and identification. We watched the unrest in Baltimore. In reaction to the deep disturbance, both Pres. Obama and Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake utilized the word “thug” to describe the protestors who were violent. After a negative reaction by some to the use of that word, the Mayor apologized, tweeting, “I wanted to clarify my comments on ‘thugs.’ When you speak out of frustration and anger, one can say things in a way that you don’t mean.”

The President, however, doubled-down on his words, with White House Press Sec. Josh Earnest reiterating after the outrage, “Whether it’s arson or the looting of a liquor store, those were thuggish acts.”

The definition of “thug” is as follows: “a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.” A “ruffian” (personally, I kind of like that word) equates to “a tough, lawless person; roughneck; bully.”

Not all protestors were violent; in fact, from the Intramuralist’s limited perspective, I believe the clear minority of protestors to be violent. Those who were violent, however, were cruel, vicious, and lawless. By definition they acted like “thugs.”

I realize that such identification carries with it a negative connotation. There’s a negative association with the word that makes many of us uncomfortable; we don’t like it; it speaks to something less than the ideal — something possibly negative. Obviously, if the violent protestors can be defined as vicious and lawless, that then diminishes the validity of their passion and point. No one wants their point or passion diminished.

The violent protestors and their defenders, no less, are merely practicing what much of society seems to have already, subtly accepted. We continue to avoid certain names or identifications — intentionally avoiding any implications or distinctions within the definition. We even go so far as to substitute other words, acting as if the identifications are equally accurate — and thus, equally good and true.

A further example is found in today’s seemingly, increasingly sensitive approach to identification found within organized religion. Many of us are uncomfortable with specific name calling, identification, or descriptions. Perhaps it’s why the White House has avoided the word “Islamic” or “Muslim” when describing the radical, violent terrorists. The majority of Muslims are not terrorists, but the current groups plaguing the world are Islamic; they don’t want any negative association tied to the religion.

We seem to have similar trouble discussing Christianity. We used to be more comfortable identifying a person who has placed their hope and faith in Jesus Christ as a “Christian.” Now, though, we often utilize the word “spiritual” instead for entire people groups — groups which sometimes have nothing to do with Jesus. We seem uncomfortable identifying any faith that might be perceived as lesser — as anything that may diminish the validity of the potential wisdom or truth.

I thus appreciated the words this week of The Daily Beast’s Barrett Holmes Pitner, who wrote that use of the word “thug” is “a way to diminish and thus disregard black life instead of respectfully exploring the experiences of black Americans.” I agree with the diminishing. The use of the word “thug” diminishes much; it diminishes the point the protestors are attempting to make. The reality is also true that if any person acts in such a vicious and lawless manner, their point will be diminished.

The problem with our words — and the associated identification, friends — isn’t the use of the words; it’s the intentional avoidance… and the avoidance due to what may or may not actually be true.

Respectfully… always…

AR