Remember Who's Always Right

 

900 words: about 2 and a half pages

Keywords:  church vs state, flags

Remember Who’s Always Right

                The great debate came up in the context of a church service:  which side is right?  The debate is even older than our country; it goes back to, well, biblical times. It’s a debate which pits traditionalists against reformers, priests against laity, those on the right versus those on the left.  The debate, of course, is the perennial one:  on which side of the room is the US flag placed in a house of worship where there is also another flag (for instance the Christian flag, the papal flag, Israeli flag or some  denominational flag)?

It’s not as cut and dry as it seems since it has the element of a strictly correct answer, but can also evoke the God vs. Caesar question.  Let me take a stab at the right answer.

First, the correct answer according to the letter of the law:  the US flag always gets the place of prominence on US territory. There can be two issues around this: 1) ignorant or lazy folks don’t know what the place of prominence is, or 2) even if they know, they want to tinker with it for other purposes.

Let’s tackle number one. The place of honor or prominence in the case of standing flag on display in a room is always to the right of the beholder; that is, to the right of the speaker.  Some will no doubt remember when it was a bit more complicated: it used to be that it was to the right of the speaker, only if on the podium level--please remember the podium is the whole speaking platform (riser, stage, etc., not to be confused with the lectern or pulpit)—and was to be to the right of the audience if on the level of the audience.  That was too confusing for all but the unflappable, so in 1976, the US Code was updated and now it describes only to the right of the speaker (regardless of level). 

So, let’s take a theatre for instance.  You sit in a seat facing the stage, like you’re going to watch a movie.  If the US flag is displayed, it should be to your left at the front of the room as you face forward (this would be to the speaker’s right). 

This is not that complicated and comes from the following rule, (US Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 7k): “when used on a speaker’s platform, the flag of the USA should hold the position of superior prominence, in advance of the audience, and in the position of honor at the [speaker’s] right.”

That’s not hard, US flag gets the honor. Like most things in life, it gets just slightly more complicated when others join in  (that is, other flags).  The other flags get second place. That is they are  to the left of the US flag (if on the same side) or to the left of the speaker if on the other side of the stage or room.

 

So, now let’s take the situation where one wants to place another flag, presumably a Christian or denominational flag in the mix. This brings in the God vs. Caesar question alluded to earlier. We know the place of honor because it is stipulated in the US Code, but some might not want to appear to honor country over Providence. The flag code writers (in 1942) thought of this:

 

US Code Section 7c:

No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy.

 

I could find no clear background on the committee’s debate, proceedings, or other deliberations on why the exception for ships at sea, but I would surmise that ships at sea MUST by international law always be flagged. Perhaps the flying of the “church pennant” along with the US flag represents that the ship is in a temporary status of worship (i.e., don’t shoot at us right now, we’re busy praying); if it were a permanent state of thought, then why not have it above the US flag at all times? Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.  As an aside, in researching this topic, I uncovered that a real estate association (homeowners, etc.) where each unit is independently owned cannot prevent individual units from flying the US flag. 

I’m hereby OK with rendering to Caesar here since flags were derived from state military banners anyway; however, I do understand those wishing for some symbolic victory over the state (other than the church’s tax exemption). Here’s my compromise if you want the flags of church and state in the same room:  put the US flag on the podium to the speaker’s right, and the church flag on the audience level to the audience’s right. Those remembering the old days when the flag’s level (podium or floor) was important will see it to be a crafty compromise.  Those too young or clueless to care will see it as completely correct according to today’s rules.  Ta-dah, everyone’s honored.  The audience—if they notice at all and find their minds drifting—can then try to remember either what used to be right or who’s currently right. Either way is alright.

Copyright ©2022. John P. Harrison. All rights reserved.

More FDR and Less Q

 

Keywords:  argument, rhetoric

About 950 words or 3 pages

Occasionally one gets called on to address some topic off the cuff. This happens more frequently if you’re head of an association and especially if you have “Dr.” as a title (and here’s a secret: a doctorate is a credential of stamina, not of intellect).  I got marked recently to spontaneously address a crowd at church in answer to a question about a controversial topic. The topic is not of consequence here, for I speak to you of the method of argument—no matter the subject.

                First, here’s an acronym for you to memorize:  FDRQ.  Just think FDR and then add a Q. This approach is a concise use of the classics with a smidge of modern legal rhetoric thrown in, and I borrow from Jay Heinrichs’ amusing treatment in Thank you for Arguing. 

                You may have heard this method from a lawyer:  if the facts aren’t with you, argue the definition; if the definition isn’t with you, argue the relevance; and if the relevance isn’t with you, question the other side.  That’s it in a nutshell (the facts), now let’s unpack it a bit (the definition), see how it’s used (relevance), and try to avoid any ad hominem attacks against you personally (questions).

                In our scenario here, I was called upon to analyze a topic in the Bible without any preparation time.  I applied our little acronym, which is useful for quick analysis of most any content.  What are the facts?  As applied to literature, this really becomes what is the face value.

I said, “I don’t know off hand all of the verses dealing with this topic, perhaps someone here can list them for us, but let’s get those out on the table,” then we have the “facts” or “face value.”

                The next step is obvious, but costly.  We now try to define those facts. What do the words actually mean?  And for this we must know something of the context?   This is where a lot of behind the scenes research would often need to be done—and done with respect.  For example, the four words “Thou shalt not kill,” would need to be understood in the Hebrew; do we mean ‘kill’ as in take the life of anything (a plant, an animal, a microbe?) or is it only meant as murder?  The original language and content must be understood.  Another example would be “follow the science.”  As one from the sciences, I chuckle when I hear this. Which science?  Define that please.  Ah, you must mean settled science?  Well, it might take a long while for the precipitate to settle in that test tube. 

                This brings us to relevance. Be careful, this is when the disingenuous—if they failed to attack well in the F (Fact)  and D (Definition) phases—will now fire their last bullets of reason. 

I said, “You asked how those rules in an old, limited section can even be relevant anymore?  An analogy of what you ask:  I’m driving down the road in New Jersey and get pulled over for speeding. I appear in court. Your Honor, please show me in the law book where speeding is illegal. The judge opens the book and points to the section in the code. Suppose I know my stuff and then say, Your Honor, please turn to section such and such in that same book, and you’ll see that it is illegal to milk a cow on the second floor of a house here in your garden state. Now how can you possibly enforce anything in that silly book?”

                In the F and D moments, the argument was only on the actual text/idea in question by itself (in vacuo). Now, all sorts of analogies and tricks of argument come forth. Try to make sure those tricks are limited to this R (Relevance) phase—delay them until the F and D phases are explored. Otherwise, one never explores fully the topic, but gets derailed by some polemic (i.e., tricky method). Churchill was a master at this (I paraphrase):  “remember, madam, I may be drunk and you may be ugly, but I shall be sober in the morning.”  In other words, he ceded the fact and definition of his being drunk, but this is irrelevant to the permanence of her ugliness.

                Actually, this quip does double duty: shows irrelevance and moves into Q territory, that is, it Questions the speaker. In today’s world, especially with barely literate social media, the first three phases of what could be intelligent debate are skipped altogether.  We go straight to questioning the validity of the other side. These are labelled ad hominem attacks (Latin for “to the man”). Things get made personal right away. Arguments with familiar people or a pre-labelled “side”  can move quickly to this phase. This is regrettable; yes, it may save some time, but leaves all intellect behind. It replays what happened before on an endless loop and allows for little progress. 

                Let’s take the real FDR (that is Franklin Delano Roosevelt) as an example. Someone touts the New Deal as policy successes, and the response comes in argument, “you mean those policies enacted by the same president who locked up all our Japanese citizens in concentration camps?”  Now there’s an irrelevant R and Q, but illustrates a popular tactic today.

                As an association exec who argues on the Hill on occasion (back before Zoom calls proved much more lucrative for Members of Congress than meeting folks in person), I recognize a clever form of Q in how bills before Congress are labelled.  Some proposed legislation might be titled the Save-the-Universe Act--meaning that if you aren’t for it, you then must be against saving the universe, you slimeball!  No matter how you feel about his policies or war time actions, we need more FDR and less Q.

©Copyright 2022. JP Harrison. All rights reserved.