Common Sense: Respect Is a Two-Way Street

As a society, we surely spend a fair amount of time discussing and arguing about what the appropriate behavior is for all manner of issues. Unfortunately, much of the time, this has devolved into little more than picking a side, then finding the argument to support it. Facts, logic, reason, and fair-mindedness be damned. Raise your hand if you have had it up to your ears about being told what the proper thing is to think, say, or do.

When Free Speech Becomes Selective

During the month of June, Major League Baseball (MLB) continued its annual practice of holding a series of Pride Nights to honor the LGBTQ+ community. All teams but the Texas Rangers join in. The San Francisco Giants held their night this week. It has caused quite the stir.

Several Giant players hand-wrote Biblical passages on their Pride Night hats. None were focused on sexuality, just the supreme authority of God. None of the players had anything critical to say about the LGBTQ+ community. That did not satisfy the politically correct folks at MLB. The league issued guidance warning against any further writing of Scripture on the hats. To do so, MLB has deemed it disrespectful and hurtful to the LGBTQ+ community.

Really? I have supported gay marriage since the 1970’s, so what follows is not an attack in any way, shape, or form of that community. The criticism is aimed at MLB and all the loud supporters of “free speech” (not to mention freedom of religion) who would silence the voices of those with whom they disagree.

One Standard, Not Two

MLB has not always been so focused on upholding protocol. During the Summer of 2020, with the protests focused on racial inequality, players knelt during the National Anthem to show their agreement that our nation was systemically racist. In fact, Giant manager Gabe Kepler joined in the kneeling.

As those who know me the best can attest, I am a free speech fanatic. In my world, it is fine (not to mention constitutionally proper) for MLB to pay tribute to the LGBTQ+ community. It is also fine for the Giant players to write Bible Verses on their hats. And, it is your right not to stand for the National Anthem. I do not agree that it is the right thing for you to do, but I recognize and accept your right to do as you see fit.

Bottom line is pretty darn simple. You live your life, and I will live mine. That’s how you live your life, which might offend me, but it does not grant me the right or privilege to stop you from getting to decide. Only one caveat. The same privilege exists for me. Offending you does not create an opening for you to impose your preferences on me.

History, Offense, and Consistency

On the topic of rules, what is the basis to determine whether a statue or historic marker simply highlights something that happened (good or bad) so should remain in place, or if it is the legitimate cause of offense and must be removed? The answer may not be as obvious as you would think.

This past week, a federal judge ruled the Trump Administration needed to restore historical markers and other items that had been removed as part of reducing the presence and influence of DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) aspects to our history. Seems that to do so is to remove proper recognition of matters and people of historical importance.

Where was this logic when statues were being ripped from the ground or toppled during the summer of 2020? Let us not forget that among those targeted for such treatment were George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Once more, count me in the group that would support leaving things in place in both instances.

The White House and Selective Outrage

So, let’s close on what is hopefully a humorous angle on noticing rules and their application seem optional to some folks. This past weekend, the White House held a UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) event as part of President Trump’s 80th birthday celebration. In my entire life, I have never spent one second watching a UFC event, so I am not exactly a fan.

However, watching the Clinton and Biden alumni, along with their pals in the legacy corporate media, clutch their pearls in horror over not treating the White House properly made me laugh out loud. You mean like having bare-chested transgenders on the White House lawn under a President not remotely cognitively capable of performing the duties of the office (Biden)? No, I know what you were thinking about. The respect for the Office of the President and the White House was evidenced by Bill Clinton when he was receiving oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office.

Call the UFC event tacky. I couldn’t care less. At the same time, please spare me recoiling in horror over the office or residence being lowered in standards.

Common Sense: Respect needs to be a two-way street. That respect starts with a mutual commitment to honor the right of the other to live their lives as they see fit.