James M. Redwine

love

Suffer The Little Children

by Leave a Comment

In the JPeg Osage Ranch Bunkhouse. Photo by Peg Redwine

Some of you know and remember I recently was sent via the National Judicial College to work with judges in the country of Georgia that is located where the border of the Old Spice Trail used to be. Peg and I had an interesting and fulfilling time there and whether we taught the Georgian people anything worthwhile, we learned a great deal. One very happy and useful thing we learned was Georgians celebrate two Christmases.

Because about half of the country dates the birth of Jesus using the Julian calendar, December 25th is Christmas for them. The other half recognizes the Gregorian calendar for the Nativity so they celebrate Christmas on January 07. The calendar established by Julius Caesar was gradually abandoned in most countries in favor of the calendar adopted by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. Many, but not most, Christian churches still use the Julian date of December 25 for Christmas. Regardless, whatever one finds in the heavens (wise men indeed), it results in what every child dreams of, two Christmas mornings. As for me, as a family court judge and one-time family law attorney, I see two Christmases as a potential blessing. I suggest parents who cannot seem to put their children’s interests ahead of their own might be able to use both Christmas days.

Each of the various Christian sects may define Christmas and how it is celebrated a little differently.  But hope, love, joy and generosity are a part of every church’s Christmas doctrine. And because Christmas is rooted in the story of Jesus’ birth, children have always been the main focus for most people.  We might decry the commercialism of Christmas, but we recognize this is supposed to be the most special time for every child of every family. However, one thing that is more certain than the arrival of credit card bills in January is the special acrimony that raises its ugly head in court in the weeks leading up to Christmas; Advent, where is thy joy?

There is something about the season that should bring out the best in loving parents that can sometimes bring out the worst.  One sad statistic that Domestic Relations Courts can foretell with unerring accuracy is a sharp rise in divorced parents fighting over where and how their children will spend the Christmas holidays. One parent may want the children to spend every second of Christmas Eve and Christmas Day with that parent and that parent’s family.  Another parent may want to control whether some new significant other can even be in the same house with the children.  Perhaps a parent will want to remove the children from the state for the entire holiday.  Parents may try to control every aspect of the other parent’s lifestyle when the children are with the ex-spouse.  Believe me, we have not skimmed the curdled milk off the top of the many permutations of how parents set out to ruin their children’s Christmas.

Of course, in most situations, if both parents simply applied their Christian principles to the sharing of their children, these destructive behaviors would disappear.  Unfortunately, there are some truly bad parents from whom children must be protected.  Fortunately, they are extremely rare.  For most situations, children are happier, healthier and more successful when both of their parents and both extended families are there to give love and support.

The Dutch philosopher, Benedict de Spinoza (1632-1677), posited that each human does, and should, strive to advance their own interests.  When the interests of two people collide, both people will achieve more of their desires if they compromise.  Spinoza believed that this pattern of competing self-interests is the basis of civilization. Instead of denying our own desires, we should recognize that we are more likely to achieve what we want if we assert our desires while accommodating others.

In Sunday School or when our parents were explaining why we could not have everything our own way, this was called The Golden Rule.  If you want justice, you should do justice.  If you want all of the toys, you must realize so do your siblings.  More importantly, you should learn that if you and your siblings fight over who should get one hundred percent of a toy, the toy may be destroyed by your fighting.

According to Spinoza and virtually every rational human since we began forming groups of humans, this is how societies are built and prosper.  Of course, societies and families collapse when people do not compromise and refuse to acknowledge the desires and needs of others. In other words, self-interest is not a bad thing.  It helps motivate us to advance as individuals and groups as long as we accommodate the self-interests of others.

So when parents of minor children no longer live together, it can make their children miserable, especially during Christmas, if one or both of their parents or members of the extended families demand to control one hundred percent of the children’s lives. Most states have addressed these issues by promulgating Parenting Time Guidelines.  These guidelines can be helpful as an ultimate fallback position, but the children can still be torn, confused, frustrated and angry.  The best guideline remains The Golden Rule.  If the parents would put themselves in the place of their children or the other parent or the other parent’s family, the one size fits all guidelines would not come into play.

As a family court judge who has from time to time seen the destructiveness caused by pride, jealousy, hurt feelings and stubbornness in domestic relations cases, I respectfully suggest that both parents are always happier if their children are happy. And my experience has been that children have a much happier Christmas if the people they love most, their parents, put the children’s interests first. Perhaps if we just all start using the Georgian Christmas dates both parents could be happy. On the other hand, maybe then they would just have another time to fight about.

There is no need to cut the children in half.  Recognition that one’s own self-interest will be advanced by accommodating the self-interest of others is all that is required. And, perhaps a quick reference to Matthew, Ch 18., vs. 1-5 might be of help before any discussion is held as to how the Christmas holidays should be arranged concerning the children. Merry Christmas!

Safe Language

by Leave a Comment

“Love” and “hate” have become meaningless. Not too long ago, say before the pervasiveness of cable TV, most humans, especially male humans, reserved “I love you/it/them, etc.” for those few special people and things we actually did love. “I hate you/it/them, etc.” was only applied to those rare persons and things we had a personal reason to hate.

Now everyone “loves” everything from certain soft drinks to ball teams and “hates” everything else. Love and hate are applied like a coat of paint to everything that we used to “like” or “dislike”.

And when it comes to commenting on the words or actions of others, say public officials, the national news media no longer takes the effort to produce facts which might prove a statement careless or incorrect, now the shortcut is to assert all statements are “false” or “lies”.

This deterioration in communication is probably due to our human need to keep others in those places we believe they should stay. And since we may no longer beat down our opponents with ad hominem appellations, i.e., politically incorrect terms, we just say they speak with forked tongues. This development was an unintended consequence of the p.c. movement.

No one may be publicly denigrated or even described by gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, physical attributes or age without exposing the speaker to a cacophony of boos from the political correctness police. I say good! As one who grew up in a legally segregated state at a period in history when only Anglo-Saxon males were judged worthy, I say America has taken several steps forward since World War II. It is instructive that our notions of acceptable speech now make it unwise to set out, even in a newspaper column condemning prejudicial slang, examples of such hurtful words as …. Well, you may supply your own.

However, we humans appear to be incapable of not ascribing bad motives to those with whom we disagree. And now, since we cannot rely upon demeaning terms as short-hand for those we despise or even just disagree with, we have turned to saying we hate them, they are liars, their premises are false and their motives are suspect. For some sociologically implausible rationale, it is reprehensible to refer to persons by catch phrases but perfectly fine to assert they are motivated by avarice and evil designs or have the morals of Wylie Coyote.

The national news media of today would never use politically incorrect terms for public officials but also seldom report what the officials say without gratuitously stating it is false. Setting out the facts and leaving it to the viewer or listener to come to her/his own conclusions does not seem to occur to the national media. One need only turn on the nightly news on any given evening to see how we have progressed in politically correct speech and regressed in consideration for differences in opinions.

Another interesting phenomenon has been the gradual merging of male and female speech. Until social pressure forced men to speak less paternalistically and chauvinistically, women were rarely heard, at least publicly, engaging in demeaning terminology. However, if one observes the plethora of female news anchors on today’s airwaves, venomous attacks, often factually unsupported ones, pour out without regard to the gender of the anchors.

And it is not just the media. Many of us, at least it seems to me, are now so bereft of acceptable demeaning terms for those unlike ourselves, we must seek to bring them down to our level by other means. We are uncomfortable not being able to differentiate “us” from “them”.

This phenomenon has been years in the making and is not the province of just one sociological group or political party. I recall when Congressman Joe Wilson, who still represents South Carolina, during President Obama’s speech to a Joint Session of Congress in September 2009 publicly yelled at the president, “You lie!” And I find it difficult to watch CNN anymore as they assert virtually every statement by President Trump is, “False!”, without giving any supporting data for their accusations.

I do not wish for a return to those Jim Crow days when any group one claimed to be a part of felt comfortable denigrating any other group. However, perhaps we have exchanged politically incorrect speech for terms every bit as demeaning to individuals and perhaps even more dangerous to our democracy.