I always thought that the word “maelstrom” was pronounced “male storm.” Yes, I can read, and yes, I do have a fairly adequate grasp of the English language, thank you very much. It's one of those malaprops that would be funny if it wasn't so intriguing.
Maelstrom, by the way, means “a state of turbulence and confusion.” That would be maelstrom, as in what Kirk Cameron (formerly of “Growing Pains” fame and lately as the co-creator of the pro-life DVD, “180”) created when he was put on the spot during a recent Piers Morgan interview. He simply exercised his God-given right (and responsibility, by the way) to express what he believed—sans hate, anger, or bitterness.
I wish the “victims” of his opinions were so charitable.
I don't think there's a law against that...yet. His opinion? What he thought about same-sex relationships. He wasn't asking the Hollywood groupies to become monogamous, celibate, or even join a convent. He simply struggles with the “unnaturalness” of such a union--as do millions of others, but they're not forced to give their opinion on public television.
To repeat: He was simply responding to a question. It was not his initiative, nor did he have an evil intention or hidden agenda. Somehow, however, his sincere response has been misconstrued as “hate-mongering.”
I don't like the direction our society has been going over these past thirty years (as if you didn't know). As a parent and a teacher, but especially as a common, ordinary citizen, I resent being scrutinized as to whether some word or opinion is considered hate-mongering. Defining our terms would likely be a good place to start.
Would that mean I can't have moral standards? Express a personal opinion? Value a righteous tradition? That seems disturbingly inconsistent, because I myself am constantly being barraged with immoral standards, opposing personal opinions, and a very definite unrighteous tradition.
Every now and then, someone sends a letter to the editor of this newspaper, expressing his or her disagreement with me. I have never considered such missives hate-mongering. In fact, I welcome them. Other questions come to mind, however, such as: Did the writer even read the whole column? Did he or she simply scan the column, then jump to his or her own predetermined conclusions? Many times I have been accused of implying things that I haven't even thought about, let alone written.
Now, in addition to Kirk Cameron's take on lifestyle, the latest news out of England is that they are going goofy with what we can call our married partner; that is, they are debating whether we can call our husband (or wife) “husband” or “wife.” So now if I were living in England, there's a growing chance that I could no longer refer to Gwynne, who happens to be the woman I'm legally married to, as my “wife.” Where's the broad acceptance of diversity in that? And furthermore, one of the politicians who is opposing this has had hate mail and death threats.
That's a really mature response when you don't get your own way. Whatever happened to genuine tolerance?
In a civilized society, there is room for every one and every one's opinion. This column represents that; letters to the editor represent that. Classified ads and paid announcements represent that. I don't believe I have once ever demanded every one reading this embrace my morality. I tolerate lifestyles that violate my convictions, but I would never send hate mail or issue death threats. Nor do I expect them from civilized Albertans.
At the end of the day, I aim to be witty, pointed and relevant, but for sure, I know I am sad. That would be S-A-D, as in disappointed in a free society that continues to chip away at its moral bedrock, that abuses far too many of its courageous citizens—all under the guise of the (apparent) violations of human rights.
Call it what you like--a maelstrom or a male storm--we all are humans, we all have rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment