What Would Jesus Cling To?

If Jesus Christ appeared right now and spoke to you...in Spanish...would you demand He speak English instead?

You know what? Let's save that for later.

Of the 14 punctuation marks in the English language, I have a particular fondness for the ellipsis. Why the ellipsis above all others? Well, the period never starts anything new; the question mark is too nosey; the exclamation point is constantly yelling; the apostrophe is SO possessive; parentheses, brackets, and braces never want to let go; the comma, colon, and semicolon are a little too nepotistic; the dash and the hyphen are too busy comparing length; and quotation marks are nothing more than copycats. But the ellipsis, that set of three dots, is downright...dangerous.

That's right. Punctuation can be dangerous.

To show a pause in thought - as I did above - is one use for the ellipsis. But the more common use is to represent words that have been omitted from source material without changing the main point of that material. "Satch drove his two-seat convertible from his beach house to the golf course" becomes "Satch drove...to the golf course." The point of both statements remains the same - Satch goes golfing - but the latter is more efficient, especially when the intent of the quote is needed but the column space available is limited.

However, when used deceitfully, the ellipsis can change the intent of a statement entirely. "This movie is abysmal, especially when compared to other films more Oscar-worthy" becomes "This movie is...Oscar-worthy."

See what I mean about being dangerous? Take that, wimpy old period!

Now, if you raise the stakes by changing deceit to malice, plus throw in a corresponding audio snippet, you get danger on another level. Is the following familiar to you: "...they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion...."

The quote, such as it is, is now infamous. In April 2008, during the primary phase of what I like to call the "Hundred Years Campaign," Senator Barack Obama made a comment about blue-collar, economically oppressed, small-town voters. Obama's Democratic opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton, as well as many media outlets and conservative Obama detractors, got a lot of mileage out of that quote, and some are still trying to use it against Obama today. The quote paints Obama as portraying those gun enthusiasts and Christians as being bitter.

However, ellipses don't kill people's characters - people do. The full quote about those voters reads as follows:

"It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Before he was misrepresented, Obama was trying to convey that when times are tough, when things are bad and getting worse, when solutions are beyond the scope of understanding, people seek comfort in the things they best relate to, the things that most define them, the things they know. Those things could be the empowerment of gun ownership, the inspiration of religion, the escapism of movies, the camaraderie of league night, or the raucousness of tailgating on Sundays, or any other thing that gives people any sense of certainty in uncertain times.

I can speak to this with some authority. Two weeks ago, I was laid off from my job. No kidding. My future is uncertain. I have Baby and The Girls to worry about, and my employment represents 75% of our household income and 100% of our health benefits. Given the current state of the economy, my life feels a little out of control right now. Still, there are things I cling to - like banging these keys - that represent certainty in my life, and I'll take any certainty I can get at this point.

It was Obama's full quote that also helped me put into perspective those people who wish to make English our country's national or official language. I no longer believe it to be simply an issue of language; I suspect that most people in the English-only camp are "clinging" to the language - despite the inability of some to speak it or write it very well - as their way of dealing with the illegal immigration issue, or an immigration policy they oppose, but simply cannot directly address as individuals.

At least, I thought I understood those folks. Now, I'm not so sure how much of the English-only platform is catharsis and how much is...something else.

You see, I never hear people complain that ATMs allow users to make transactions in myriad languages, even though the machines dispense American money to Americans in America. Nor do I hear people commend foreigners for learning the English they demand those foreigners to learn. But, as soon as you inject "Press 1 for Spanish" into someone's telephone conversation, people line up to join the Border Patrol.

And therein lies what might be the core issue here; not proficiency of language, but point of origin. This ultimately begs the question, Is the clinging to English embracing certainty or masking bigotry?

In a September 29, 2008 column on DelawareOnline.com, entitled STATE BEEDS NURSES WHO SPEAK SPANISH, reporter Hiran Ratnayake of The (Wilmington) News Journal writes about a growing issue in Delaware: a shortage of Spanish-speaking nurses at government-subsidized medical facilities. In short, over 22% of Hispanics do not seek medical care when necessary, thus jeopardizing their health or risking their lives - or the lives of their unborn children - simply because of a language barrier. When care is sought, the language barrier poses challenges to healthcare providers to ensure that proper care is administered.

What follows the story is a series of 244 reader posts, reacting to the article and/or the posts of other readers. I only got through about half of the posts, but more than 90% of those were anti-Hispanic, with most posters making the leap, either directly or by insinuation, that Latinos - not French, not Germans, not Italians, not Ukrainians - who don't speak English MUST be in this country illegally.

The comments range from the common ("LEARN ENGLISH or LEAVE," or some variation of that message); to the resentful ("Article should be entitled 'More evidence that Delaware has too many damn Mexicans'"); to the unintentionally funny - my personal favorite ("If you can't speak english, you can't get no services."); to the geographically misunderstood ("I guess Mexican nurses can't swim?"); to the appalling ("Let them learn ENGLISH, DIE or GO HOME.").

That last one kind of grabs you, doesn't it? "Let them learn English, die, or go home."

I don't dispute that this country has an immigration problem, and I suspect that the solution is not as easy as either extreme suggests ("send them all home" vs. "grant them all amnesty"). But I know that denying someone medical care because they don't speak English is inherently wrong. I know that denying someone medical care because someone else thinks that "only speaks Spanish" equals "illegal alien" is inherently wrong. I know that denying someone medical care, and instead issuing an ultimatum of "Assimilate or Perish," is inherently wrong.

Were our immigrant parents and grandparents treated as such? Sure, you might argue that they learned English, and I will agree with you, but only with the caveat that they learned English eventually. Were our immigrant parents and grandparents told to learn English, die, or go home? I never heard THAT off-the-boat story from my family.

Cling to language all you want, but please, don't cling to hatred. Forfeiture of our basic humanity will not solve the immigration issue.

So, if Jesus Christ appeared right now and spoke to you...in Spanish...would you demand He speak English instead?

I told you that ellipsis could be dangerous.

God, Guns, and Gays: An Unlikely Ménage à Trois

Pop quiz! According to Amazon.com, the inside flap of WHOSE book includes the following text:

"In ten practical, down-to-earth chapters, [the author] gets back to basics, mining the insights of our founding fathers and applying their wisdom to the problems of today: immigration, the culture wars, the war against global terrorism, national (and personal) debt, even the epidemic of obesity that is killing more Americans than terrorists do."

If you answered "Chuck Norris" then go to the head of the class. Norris' book is called Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America. Seriously. As for the rest of you, meet me after school to clap erasers.

While I don't place any more value in Chuck Norris' solutions for this country than I do in Nancy Pelosi's martial arts techniques...embrace the visual...I am concerned that people will listen to him simply because he is Chuck Norris, especially since I read an answer he recently gave during an interview with Reed Tucker of PAGE SIX MAGAZINE (September 7, 2008).

Tucker asked, "Do you think people are born gay?" Norris answered, "Yes, I believe many of them are. I don't think all of them are. I believe that they have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the gay community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were gay. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."

This notion of homosexuals supposedly "making a big issue" of their lifestyle has always perplexed me. When people make accusations like Norris', statements that usually include the word flaunt, I often wonder how, exactly, they define "flaunting homosexuality." A public display of affection? A bumper sticker? A public gathering in support of the cause? Regardless, the message seems clear: live and let live, just don't flaunt it.

Then I came across a September 6, 2008 story by Bill Vidonic for the online edition of the BEAVER COUNTY TIMES and the ALLEGHENY TIMES (www.timesonline.com). The piece reports how John Noble, a Beaver County (PA) man, was arrested - some claim falsely - near an outdoor rally for presidential nominee Barack Obama. The arrest occurred because Noble showed up with a gun strapped to his hip. He did not violate Pennsylvania's open carry law, he claims he has worn his gun in public before and always without incident, and he declared that, according to the piece, "...Obama's constitutional rights didn't take precedence over his."

Listen, I'm not a gun guy, but I respect the Second Amendment. In fact, I feel kind of sorry for Mr. Noble. I mean, all he wanted to do was...oh, what's the word? He just wanted to demonstrate something that is important to him...you know, make a big issue out of it...and yet, he was punished for it. What IS that word?

Anyway, I came across another story, this one involving police. According to reporter Julian Walker of THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT (www.pilotonline.com), in a September 25, 2008 story, Virginia state troopers who volunteer as chaplains for the force were told that at "sanctioned government events," they were no longer allowed to invoke the name of Jesus Christ; any public prayers may be spiritual, but they must remain non-denominational. In private prayer matters, though, the troopers can still speak of Christ. As a result of the rule change, six of 17 affected troopers resigned their posts as chaplains only (they remain troopers with no change to their trooper status, as their religious work was always voluntary). According to Walker's story:

"One of the six chaplains who resigned that post, 13-year trooper Rex Carter, said his faith had compelled him to conduct religion-related duties. 'There were several of us who felt that because of our convictions...about what the Bible says, we couldn't agree to go along with a generic prayer policy,' said Carter, who works in Southwest Virginia."

Listen, I'm a Catholic, born-and-raised; I come complete with 12 years of parochial school, memorization of every prayer and hymn you've ever heard, and all the guilt you can eat, so I get it. I understand what these poor troopers are going through, being denied their chance to...rats! What is that word? It's like they're being told they're not special, that no one is special, that they are what they are. Oh, my awful memory.

I kid, of course, because I love. The word is FLAUNT.

Mr. Noble wants to flaunt his right to carry a firearm in public. He probably even has a bumper sticker with a pro-gun statement on it - something like Body Piercing by Smith & Wesson or If You Can Read This, You Are In Range. He might even attend gun shows or NRA rallies.

The troopers who forfeited their pastor roles want to flaunt their love of Christ. In fact, I bet at least one of them has one of those fish things stuck to his bumper, or one of them might wear a crucifix pendant every day, or one might even promote creationism. And hey, they all get to have mini-conventions every Sunday.

You know, the more I type, the more I realize that the gun people and the God people are really no different than the gay people. Just as gay people want to show their love of each other through public displays or bumper stickers or large gatherings, so too do gun people and God people want to show their love of guns and God the same way.

It begs the question, Why is one person's outward display called "flaunting" while another person's outward display is called "Second Amendment rights," and a third person's outward display is called "Ash Wednesday?"

The answer is hypocrisy. The gun guys and the God guys don't think the same standards apply to them as they apply to the gay guys. Don't believe me?

Imagine the reaction if someone said, "I believe that gun owners have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the gun-owning community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were gun owners. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."

Better yet, read aloud...seriously, if you can, read right out loud...how it would sound if someone said, "I believe that Christians have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the Christian community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were Christian. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."

So, if you say such a thing about the gun guys, you make them victims of attempted rights-stripping; and if you say such a thing about the God guys, you make them victims of attempted religion-assaulting; but if you say such a thing about the gay guys - as Norris actually did - you imply that no group should be treated special? You demand parity from a group that whole religions discriminate against?

With the goal of refuting their own intolerance towards their fellow man, people might say, "No one is special," or they might say, "Live and let live," or they might say, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." What they are really saying is that despite societal evolution, intolerance hasn't changed...people have just gotten better at masking it.