1 Thing You Can Do to Make Your World More Honest and More Friendly … October 26th, 2020

Decide What Is Truly Abrasive

This may sound like a simple task, but the statements that were once considered abrasive have altered considerably.

The actual definition of abrasive is “harsh, rough to the ear and showing little concern for the feelings of others.”

Here is a rather comical collection:

“King George is a tyrant.” In colonial days, this would have incited at least violence and possibly jail.

“Slaves should be free.”  If you had said that in Congress in 1851, you’d have been dubbed abrasive for sure.

“I love rock and roll.” Try that one in 1961 America.

“The Vietnam War is criminal.” In 1967, your father might have taken your car keys away.

“Black people should have the right to vote.” Obviously, there are people today who find this an abrasive statement.

“We should have a woman President.” Once again, that one will polish a rough surface or two.

Honestly, I think “abrasive” is a tough one.

Often there are things that need to be shared–even shouted from the housetops. If they’re not said, they can’t be heard and if they can’t be heard, the faith to change things for the better is never launched.

So how do I know when I’m abrasive? This is where it does get simple.

If I’m saying something because I was personally offended or if I have a hankering to offend somebody else just for the hell of it, you can pretty well guarantee–it’s abrasive.

But words that are said to cry out for freedom and protect the innocent may be initially considered abrasive, but history will laud them as prophetic and courageous.

Perhaps it would take an angel to discern all the subtleties in this process.

Perhaps we need a few more angels.

Sit Down Comedy … August 2nd, 2019

Jonathots Daily Blog

(4124)

Hurling insults.

It may be the only exercise that many folks are getting.

We’ve become very concerned about being offended, yet are we becoming more offensive ourselves?

An interesting question.

One of the favorite insults is accusing one another of being racist. I think we must understand the path of intolerance. It begins with”

Prejudice

“I have an idea that I hold to be true.”

Opinion

“That idea has become my foundational thought.”

Bigotry

“I believe my idea is so good that I am prepared, willing and in the midst of sharing it with others.”

Racist

“I am convinced that my idea is supported by both nature and God, and therefore means that I must enforce it, alienating some group of people.”

As you see, it’s not easy to be a racist—and no one who is truly a racist is ashamed to admit it. They are loud and proud.

I think what each one of us needs to do instead of hurling insults is take a look at where prejudice tries to wiggle its way into our lives.

There are four encounters which give us the opportunity to use our speech in different ways if we so choose—or arrive at a unity of one voice.

First there’s Platter Chatter

These are the conversations we have with friends and family over dinner or during fellowship.

Next, the Pew View

These are the scriptures, sermons and ideas promoted by our particular religious organization.

Third is the Work Week Speak

I’m referring to the “around the cooler talk,” which sometimes is not cooler. It can actually be hotter.

And finally, the Walk Talk

This is a social environment with people we do not know, so we must be cautious in sharing our ideas and beliefs in front of them.

Is your conversation more prejudiced during Platter Chatter with your family? Does your church have a view of lifestyles that disincludes some people from salvation based on their choices? How about the bigoted jokes spoken at work? Can you refrain from laughing loudly, and in so doing communicate your disdain? Or must you object? And what is the profile of your interchanges around strangers?

In trying to figure out the amount of racism you have in your life, you have to concentrate on whether bigotry has found a home inside you—whether somehow or another you’ve formed your own personal opinion based upon a prejudice that has lingered in your mind.

So ask yourself:

Is your Platter Chatter, Pew View, Work Week Speak and Walk Talk all the same? Or do you allow a little more opinion, prejudice and maybe even bigotry to appear in certain environments, which you don’t permit in others?

It’s a great way to analyze your situation, and it also makes you a bit more cautious about slinging the term “racist” around.

It’s something to ponder.

Of course, there always is the choice of going for a long walk instead of hurling insults.

The producers of jonathots would humbly request a yearly subscription donation of $10 for this inspirational opportunity

---

Subscribe to Jonathan’s Weekly Podcast

 

The O Word … May 14th, 2019

Jonathots Daily Blog

(4045)

---

THE

WORD

---

There are times that it seems the human race is determined to come up with sneakier, or perhaps less offensive, ways to attack one another. Especially interesting is the way we acquire terms which separate us and allow each individual to feel superior to another without it coming across as bigoted.

This is why I tell you:

The O word that should never be used again is “odd.”

There is no circumstance where the word “odd” is positive.

If we’re attempting to be positive, we use the word “different”—but we all know even the word “different” can be the curse of death. None of us want to be that different. We want to be normal—and have as few people in our club as possible.

• Odd is an insult.
• Odd is selfish.
• Odd is mean.

Odd is purposely setting someone to the side because you have determined that they are just not a good fit. Odd is what civilized people say to avoid the word “queer.” Odd is what bigoted folks proclaim so they don’t have to use racial epithets.

For instance, it’s the assertion that there actually is “a black thing, a white preference, a male predilection or a female intuition.”

Once we can establish that something is odd, we no longer need to deal with it, because ironically the word “odd” rhymes with “God,” and places us in the position to do His work by deciding who are the heads and who are the tails.

Odd has a three-step process:

1. You are weird to others.
2. You are peculiar to the Earth.
3. Therefore, you are unacceptable to me.

Although we may insist that we can point out an oddity without judging its equality, the fact is, any time we assume that the actions of another person are unique, in no time at all we will view them as errant.

The producers of jonathots would humbly request a yearly donation for this inspirational opportunity

 

 

Neutral … January 16, 2013

(1,762)

In the often-comical pursuit of trying to create  dialogue and social interaction that does not offend anyone, we have actually ended up being one of the most offensive generations that has ever walked the face of the earth. By the time the commentators finish parsing words, studying body language and playing video tape which has been edited to reinforce their points, they are able to turn almost any conversation, speech or private moment into the abomination of desolation or an obvious affrontation to some beleaguered and misunderstood portion of our society.

So everybody is heading for the low ground.

There was a time when we actually did try to climb the mountain of wisdom in order to find the high ground where we could see better. But now it seems more prudent to those in control to find the lowest point of disagreement and camp there, hoping never to be challenged or questioned.

It happened to me yesterday. Some dear soul who had caught my show requested that I come to present my ideas, music and creativity in front of another audience of her organizing. The lady was thrilled with what she had seen, and wanted to make sure she could include all of her friends in the experience. I told her I was more than willing to go anywhere and for her to let me know how I could be of assistance.

Well, less than twenty-four-hours later she called me and said that she had talked to the “powers that be.” They were more than willing to invite me to come to their auditorium to perform–if I would comply with a few simple rules. (Honestly, friends, I don’t know how the words “simple” and “rules” ever got hooked up. It is not a good marriage–because rules are never simple and simple rarely demands many rules.)

Basically, the main concern by her  fellow-workers was that they wanted to be assured that I would come in and offer a “neutral” program. Many of the people in their constituency are of different political persuasions, faiths, ethnic backgrounds and general dispositions. They needed some guarantee that what I would share would not be offensive, but “in the wheelhouse” of everyone’s comfort zone.

Let me tell you something about neutral. Neutral by definition is a decision not to get involved and neither go forward or backwards. It is not exactly where anyone desires to be, but rather, a profile thrust upon us by fear of being overly passionate or too advanced.

I don’t mind being neutral. I just don’t know whether I can offer the same package of potential and emotional explosion by carefully removing all the meat from my offering, only to display the remaining skeleton.

But as I said, it’s not hard to do. The United Methodist minister, for instance, is more than willing to sacrifice miracles, supernatural events and any controversial subject that might have been brought up by Jesus, in an attempt to create a faith which can be intellectually absorbed through the pores from the hymn book.

On the other hand, the Southern Baptist will gladly and almost reverently take away any of the compassion, open-mindedness and non-judgmental approach of Jesus in favor of the bleeding savior who died for the world’s sins because “we’re all so very rotten, you know.”

It seems to me that the problem with religion is that it chooses to either be weak or to be mean.

So what I told the lady I would do for her gathering is simple. I’ve already found a neutral message. It’s not, however,  neutral in its energy and impact. It’s neutral because it is the only message that cross-sects all of humanity–simultaneously making sense and also convicting the hell out of all of our souls.

That message is “NoOne is better than anyone else.”

It is not obtuse to the atheist OR the pentecostal, yet individuals within those groups may find it humorous or implausible. I am willing to work with any philosophy, political party or clump of clods who will accept that the only way we’re going to get along on this planet together is when we stop feeling either superior or inferior to each other.

It’s not so much a neutral message as it is the only message.

So if my Buddhist friends have trouble with it, I offer them the platform to give me a more concise and on-point directive.

If the agnostics think it is irrelevant, I’m all ears to their findings.

And if the Muslims, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, atheists and “whoevers” wish to banter with me about the specifics of this holy sound bite, I am prepared to be instructed and informed–just not deterred.

So there is my neutral message: NoOne is better than anyone else.

I’m sure someone on MSNBC or Fox News could find fault with it, and if they couldn’t decimate the content, they could certainly delve into my character and find reasons why I am unworthy to front the notion. I don’t care. I will not play the game.

I learned a long time ago–the only way to become a fool is by participating in foolishness.

The producers of jonathots would humbly request a yearly subscription donation of $10 for this wonderful, inspirational opportunity