Jerry A. Goodson

What is this?

Recently, I've been involved in some colorful "discussions" where there was a gross lack of understanding.  "This" refers to those discussion, but those discussions are not the topic of this posting.  Rather, it's the lack of topic comprehension by the parties involved that will be presented here.

The details of "this" referenced aren't really important to the topic, but some will be provided to give reference.  The fact is, there have been several "this" that prompts such a posting, as there seems to be a chronic problem with lack of topic comprehension in today's society.  I'm not smart enough, or studied enough, to correctly attribute the cause, but it's here, and it's real.

Race, Racists, and Racism

The quickest and easiest way to derail any potentially productive conversation is the mere mention of a person's race.  Regardless of the main idea, or topic of discussion, so many feeble-minded people can't get past race once it's brought up.  There are some who will read this entry and automatically assume it's about race.  They are so unwilling to see through the mention of race that they are completely unable to comprehend the real and actual topic.  

This is the most recent "this" that sparked this posting.  As recently as yesterday, I pointed out the double-standard in journalism by highlighting the glaring absence of any mention of race in the headline... because it was a black man who killed a white man.  That thread quickly spiraled into a discussion on race, racists, and racism.  Of course, you could draw the conclusions that I was painted as the unintelligent racists... and you would be correct.  That's exactly where that conversation went.

The topic wasn't the fact that it was a black man who killed a white man.  The topic was journalistic double-standard.... or better yet, journalistic hypocrisy.  If the roles were reversed, if the white man killed the black man, the race of the parties involved would have surely been mentioned in the article, if not the headline.  

Some who responded were able to gather that, but the majority of the responses were from the topically clueless.

You apologized! Why are we still talking about this?

The other "this" had a lot greater consequence.  I made a post in a facebook group in an organization I'm in.  Every so often, there are elections for officials.  Those elected officials have appointees, and I was one of those appointees.

A person in the organization announced he was going to run for a position against the incumbent.  I posted that announcement, using my personal profile, in a group created for the purpose of discussing organization matters.  

The elected official had already posted his personal opposition to the candidate in another forum, but removed my post because he felt it wasn't appropriate.  I reached out to him to discuss it, and he refused to take my calls.  I warned him there would be severe consequences if he didn't reverse his action, and he refused.

I "went public" and took the matter to the general membership.  This caused quite a backlash, as the general membership did not approve of his action.  

In a sincere effort to help him "fix" the issue, I published a large and sincere apology.  As far as he was concerned, that should have closed the matter.  Only, it didn't.  It served to make him appear to be more of a failure as a leader.  

What did I apologize for?  I took the matter to the membership without first taking it to the official's cabinet.  I didn't afford the official's appointees to help resolve the matter, first.  

I have sent several emails detailing why he was wrong, and he can't seem to grasp that concept.  In an effort to provide reference, after I apologized, and some of the dust had settled, I asked for his permission to re-post what he had removed.  He gave me permission, and said I had the right to post it!  Yet, he never apologized for removing the original post... even after confirming I wasn't wrong for posting it.  

He privately posted one reason for removing the post, which was different than the two reasons he publicly posted, then confirmed in my request for posting it that I was well within my right to post it in the first place.

Now, several members of this organization have called for him to step down from his elected position, and many more have contacted me asking to start a recall petition for "no confidence."

I will probably update this post with a YouTube video directed to him to explain all of this by using drawings.

The Message and the Meaning

The meanings of messages today continue to erode as the chronic lack of reading--and topic--comprehension grows worse.  It's by no means a new problem.  There wouldn't be multiple Christian denominations if that were the case.  The message of the Holy Bible would mean the same thing to everyone who reads it.  

The prime and perfect example is the gross misunderstood and misused verse, Matthew 7:1.  Christ said, "Judge not, that ye be judged."  The majority of the people who read that understand it to mean, "Don't judge."  They may quote the rest of the verse, but their brain stopped processing at "judge not."  I've been discussing this very topic for quite a few years, but Stephen Altrogge published a very eloquent explanation on the meaning on his website, The Blazing Center.  I would suggest giving it a read.

Christ didn't issue a total ban on judgement, but rather, He warned that the same standard of judgement you pass on others will be measured against you.  For the sake of topical comprehension, He didn't preach against judging.  He preached against hypocrisy.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not advocating judgement.  There are harsh warnings against judgement and severe consequences.  However, "judge not" was NOT His message.  I implore everyone to earnestly study what He meant.  Christ's message was perfect.

And the list goes on...

Racism, apologies, the Bible... and so many other meanings get poisoned by the lack of comprehension.  Intelligent discussions dissolve when people make things about they aren't.  

Got comprehension?