In the wake of the recent tragedy in Arizona, the aftermath, and the complicated attempts to determine whether the incendiary rhetoric espoused by Palin, the Tea Party and various media personalities, I have a feeling that we may be missing the point.<\/p>\n
And the point\u2014my point\u2014is that this particular instance doesn\u2019t matter. No, please don\u2019t misunderstand me\u2014the tragic loss of lives and injuries to the victims, and the suffering to the families matters very much. What I mean is that whether in this specific instance the murderous shooter was influenced by the uninhibited words\u2014that is what does not matter. And it does not matter, because if it turns out that he was not influenced by the verbal violence (but merely \u2018deranged\u2019 from within), it is only coincidental and then the next shooter surely will be primed by words.<\/p>\n
Much has been said about the significance of words\u2014the literal significance\u2014in the media, and also recently here in an excellent blog entitled \u201cWords like bullets<\/a>\u201d. From my non-statistical sampling, I think there is general agreement that words do matter.<\/p>\n And yet\u2014are we all as cautious as we should be with our expressions?<\/p>\n Many of us have scientific training, and clearly understand how a manuscript can be rapidly rejected for making unsubstantiated claims, or because we are not cautious enough in our interpretations. We are careful to note that \u201cprotein X often<\/em><\/strong> interacts with protein Y\u201d or \u201cprotein X may<\/em><\/strong> interact with protein Y\u201d. Writing that \u201cprotein X interacts with protein Y\u201d could be, in some cases, an exaggeration that leads to rejection of the manuscript. But outside science, are we as cautious with our own words?<\/p>\n I frequently come across the \u201cOh My God\u201d or ubiquitous \u201cOMG\u201d phrase. I\u2019m willing to bet that this is also popular among sworn atheists. Another phrase that sends shivers down my back is \u201cThank God\u201d. Yes, I may be an atheist\u2014but if one thinks about it, it\u2019s even worse for a believer to utter that phrase. Why is that?<\/p>\n Well, if a woman crosses the street, and is nearly hit by a car, she may say \u201cThank God I wasn\u2019t hit\u201d. If she is a believer, then in effect, she is thankful to God for stepping in to save her from being killed. What does this say about the morals of this God who concurrently allows thousands of children to die that very day from leukemia, typhoid, HIV, malaria or simply starvation? Why thank him at all?<\/p>\n My intention was not to start a theological discussion, nor to become the \u201cword police\u201d. And I know that usually that phrase is not meant<\/em><\/strong> to be literal (although sometimes it is). But I do think that words and phrases carry baggage\u2014some of it hidden and inconspicuous\u2014but nonetheless there are associated meanings that come with words.<\/p>\n Does it matter? I think it does.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In the wake of the recent tragedy in Arizona, the aftermath, and the complicated attempts to determine whether the incendiary rhetoric espoused by Palin, the Tea Party and various media personalities, I have a feeling that we may be missing … Continue reading