Of Tips and Tithing Part 2: What happened to "There's no such thing as bad publicity?"

  The tail end of this story is that Applebee's fired the waitress for posting the receipt with the note on it. The pastor complained to management that the "viral" photo had disparaged her reputation.
    Seriously? You do something like that in a public place and you don't expect somebody to talk about it? Tell their friends? Spit in your food next time? Not to mention, this is the 21st century--you can't say, do or write anything anymore without somebody putting it on the internet.
    To say it violated the pastor's privacy is a red herring. A sales receipt isn't a social security number or a bank statement--how many hands and eyes go over a receipt from the time it's printed to the time it gets filed away in the records? Furthermore, I can only assume that the receipt was the "merchant's copy" and not the "customer's copy", so I don't really think the pastor had any rights to privacy over what she submitted to the restaurant for its records.
    I'm not saying we should post everybody receipts online--though it would be an interesting study into how poorly people treat and tip service staff in this country--I'm just saying there are a few things about this particular case that push the limits of common decency.
    On a final note, I am surprised the pastor didn't get fired. If pastors have the cash to be going out to dinner and then having the gall to write something so condescending and nasty to the person who did nothing but wait on them and try to give them a pleasant evening out, they have no right calling themselves pastors or even Christians.
    It goes back to generosity, something I thought was a basic tenet of Christian teachings--something you can't really be lacking if you're going to get ordained as a pastor/minister/priest, etc. This woman who posted the receipt is a waitress, not an investment banker. She gets treated like crap by a dozen different people every day--all I'm saying is you'd think a pastor would have the decency to treat her with a little more kindness and graciousness rather than resorting to derision and hubris over a standard industry practice.

I care not for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.

-Abraham Lincoln

Of Tips and Tithing: Part 1

  You may have read about the waitress who posted her customer's receipt online after getting a cheeky note instead of a tip. Here's what's wrong with the whole situation.

The Thing about Tithing

  "I give God 10%," Bell wrote on the receipt, scratching out the automatic tip and scribbling in an emphatic "0" where the additional tip would be. "Why do you get 18?" (Yahoo News)
    First of all, I was unaware that tithing was still so prominent. Traditionally, dating all the way back to the Old Testament, good Jews and later Catholics, then Christians, were required to pay a tenth of their yearly income to God, aka the church. Over the years, since the Church split into so many denominations, I was under the impression that this was primarily a Catholic thing, but that might have just been my microcosmic worldview prejudice because I went to Catholic school for so many years.
    Apparently, it still lives on.
    The problem here is: who are you to be eating out and refusing to tip, calling on God as your excuse? Let me hash this out: a pastor doesn't make a ton of money that would go against the whole "worldly possessions" thing. But they apparently donate 10% of that income back to the church every year. AND they can afford to eat out with party of more than 8 people? I don't buy it. If you can afford to eat out, you can afford to tip. Simple as that. If you can't afford that extra 18-20% on your bill, stay home and eat Ramen. Period.
    Secondly, 10% of your yearly income is a LOT more than 18% on a bill at Applebee's. Not knowing anything about what pastors make, I have to assume they at least earn a salary that puts them at or above the poverty level in this country. They have to live somewhere. They have to drive to work. They have to eat. And, if the church doesn't pay taxes, I don't think their ministers and pastors would pay incomes taxes either. So, that's a goodly sum, presumably outright, of which 10% goes back to the church.
    Waitresses do not make minimum wage to put them at or above the poverty level for their yearly income. They need those tips to even things out and put their income at the appropriate level. The guys at Starbucks and Subway and those little fast food places that leave tip jars out--those guys make minimum wage. Most of them are part-time, so they appreciate the extra tips when they get them, but they don't rely on them. They're like a bonus.

    It doesn't work that way at a "sit-down" restaurant. The reason the 18% gratuity gets tacked onto large party bills is people tend to forget about the tip when the bill is so large to start. It's to protect the interests of the servers who are the ones who suffer if the tip is forgotten.
    Tithing is an outdated practice. There are far too many people in need of food, shelter and healthcare in this world to be giving 10% of your money to a church to build a new wing, erect a new statue, or pay for all those fancy robes the Pope wears. 
    If that money were going directly to build a soup kitchen, support a literacy program, or buy cots for a homeless shelter, that would be one thing. But it doesn't, and parishioners aren't always told where it does go.
    Check in soon for the follow-up and conclusion of why this whole thing is ridiculous.

He does not believe that does not live according to his belief.

-Sigmund Freud

Of Cultural Norms and Ridiculous Gender Standards

  Today, I wanted to focus on a particularly ridiculous piece of news I came across recently. A court in Iowa ruled that it was legal for a dentist to fire his dental assistant for being "irresistible." Apparently her clothing and behavior was deemed inappropriate, by the dentist or possibly his wife, and he anticipated that he might experience an infidelity in his marriage if they continued to work together. I find this ruling so typically midwest, and so incredibly offensive to women everywhere.
    First of all, the woman worked there for ten years. If she had been acting or dressing inappropriately, it seems such an issue would have had precedent. A jealous spouse or a wandering spouse are no reason to fire someone who has performed their duties correctly and loyally for such a long time. Granted, I don't know the full details of the case or have photographs or anything to judge whether the woman was actually in the wrong, but I'm going to speak to the principle of the matter.
    It is not the fault of one person for another's insecurities or inability to remain loyal to their partner. If this woman were coming to work in low cut tops or really short skirts, see-through blouses or bending over more obviously than is necessary to pick up a file or a pencil, that would be one thing, but it's a dentist's office. I was under the impression that most dental assistants, as well as hygienists and dentists themselves, wear scrubs. At least they do at my dentist's office. It's the administrative people, the file clerks and receptionists, who are supposed to wear the business professional or business casual attire which might offer more freedom and opportunity to dress inappropriately.
    The frustrating thing is, once again, it's the word of one person in a position of power versus the word of another person who is in a position to be fired. Sexual harassment is supposed be under a strict "no tolerance" policy at pretty much every job in the country. It should make no different whether the harasser is a supervisor or not, and yet, office politics and issues like gender bias seem to always place the blame on the person lowest on the totem pole.
    "Oh, s/he dressed too provocatively, I couldn't help it," the higher up person says. You know what? No. If you have no self-control, that's your problem. You don't get to get away with this just because you can't keep it in your pants. And you know what, spouse/partner of no-self-control person? This won't be the last time this happens. You can demand they fire every good-looking employee in the office and they will always find a way back into the gutter. Firing others doesn't address whatever the real problem is in the relationship, and there usually is a relationship problem if the spouse is requesting the firing.
    Speaking up about harassment in the workplace is important, whether you're a man or woman, though unfortunately, it is often women who experience it. Whether your coworker or boss comments in an offensive or inappropriate way how nicely those jeans fit you, whether they make sexually or otherwise inappropriate jokes, whether they look at porn on their computer when you happen to show up for a meeting--whatever the case may be, it's important to let the right people (HR or whoever is in charge of enforcing the policy) know about it.
    If you put up with it when you're uncomfortable with the words, attention, or actions, even if they're not particularly offensive to you, you're just letting the negative environment propagate. If it makes you a narc, so be it. You have to do what you feel is right, regardless of politics or the ridiculous possibility that you may lose your job in the process. I say "ridiculous" because coming forward with something like this should never cause you concern for your job security. It's ridiculous that things still work that way in the 21st century.
    You are entitled to a safe, harassment-free, and healthy work environment. Your job may still suck, your coworkers still may not pull their weight, and you may never get that ergonomic chair or mouse you requested, but at least you don't have to put up with demeaning or offensive attitudes when you're just trying to earn a living.

Fight for your right
to a healthy work environment.

Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say

  Hypocrisy runs deep, partly because so many people don't realize they're doing it. We say so many things throughout the day, the week, the years, and it's difficult to keep track of everything we say. In the heat of the moment, especially if we're having an argument or debate with someone, we can say things that we don't mean, that we wouldn't say under normal circumstances. It isn't until later that we realize what we said was contradictory to a belief we held prior.
    Unfortunately, not everybody has this realization. Some people go on contradicting themselves, not realizing they're losing people's confidence in them. These are the true hypocrites--the ones who pay so little attention to what they say or how their words and actions may appear to others that they never realize that they are defeating the very image of themselves they are trying to project.
    In spite of myself, I catch my own hypocrisy from time to time. In trying to win an argument, I sometimes end up changing my mind from the beginning to the end. It's not a conscious choice, or manipulation, but rather ignorance. Ignorance about the issues to the point that I am not allied to one side of things more than the other and I trip over my words.
    Hypocrisy stems from ignorance. We say we agree with one thing, but it's more for the principle of the issue than because we have examined it and honestly hold it to be true. In cases like this, ambivalence, or agnosticism (I mean this in a broad sense), is a better option than risking hypocrisy by allying oneself to side of an issue and then going back on your half-hearted belief.
    The best option is always to examine things. Discuss them, learn about them, get a good grasp on the issue before you automatically say I agree or I disagree. Then, when confronted with it, in an argument or just in your daily life, you can see more clearly the choices you make, the words you choose. You won't have to try so hard to argue your point, because you will know the facts and details of your beliefs so well that you can explain them to anyone.
    I've said it before, I'll say it again: An unexamined life is not worth living. Don't let yourself wander into hypocrisy merely because you have not taken the time to consider the matter thoroughly enough.

Reserve the right to change your mind--just not too often.

I'm Modern, But I'm Not THAT Modern

  We 90s kids (meaning children who grew up in the nineties, not kids who were born in the nineties) have some interesting perspectives on relationships.
    Some informal statistics: 3 out 4 guys between the ages of 20 and 30 never, or probably never, want to have kids. 2 out of 4 guys in the same age group never want to get married. However, 4 out of 4 guys want to be in a monogamous relationship if they were in a relationship (note: this is more due to fear of STDs than desire to commit). No, I didn't completely make these stats up, but I did take them from a VERY small sample of people in my age group. Things have sure changed over the years. Even 30 years ago, 3 out of 4 guys probably wanted kids; wanted to get married, someday, at least, if not right that second; and I don't know about the monogamy thing, but the concern for STDs was not nearly as high then as it is now. Plus, now we have to worry about AIDS.
    Girls, however, seem as traditional as ever. Girls in this age bracket still plan on getting married, many, it seems, because they watch too much reality TV and want the big, expensive, overblown wedding that's going to put papa in the poorhouse. Girls still want children, though not in as high of numbers as they did previously. Girls, for the most part, want monogamy, partly for fear of STDs, but more for desire for commitment.
    I won't tell how I fall into these statistics, because I have a feeling I'm the exception rather than the rule here, but it amazes me how girls remain so traditional when the men in our age group seem to rush toward a modernity that clashes seriously with those traditional values.
    It doesn't surprise me at all that the divorce rate is so high, because men and women seem to be on two different wavelengths when it comes to relationships and how to be in one. We are a spoiled group (though I have no doubt that the youngsters who are in the age group immediately after ours are even more spoiled), and we seem to forget that relationships are, in the end and inevitably so, about compromise. Guys seem to want to rebel against the Oprah-indoctrinated women who want to change them, and therefore, refuse to change at all. Women, on the other hand, seem to want to do everything they can to create the fairy tale romance, the perfect man, the ideal soulmate (never mind that they picked him up at a Burger King) that they've so often seen and swooned after in movies and television programs.
    I may be very accommodating in a relationship--too forgiving, perhaps, in some cases--but there are some things I just won't do, no matter how cool and easy-going I wish to appear. I will not participate in "an open relationship" (for anyone not up to speed with that term: a relationship in which both partners are permitted to see other people but remain connected--though not necessarily committed--to each other in a romantic way). Open relationships seem to defeat the purpose. If you're going to date or screw other people, do it, but don't pretend you still want the person you're in an open relationship with after you do it. You're kidding yourself and each other. Take separate bedrooms. Have your own boys' nights and girls' nights, but don't sit there and pretend like dating other people makes your relationship stronger.
    I hope I haven't offended anyone, but if so, feel free to tell me off in the comments. I will moderate generously.

Meatloaf anyone? (Hint: I'm thinking of a song lyric, 

and no, I don't expect your thought path to be the same as mine.)

Deus Ex Machina

Anyone with delicate sensibilities regarding the topic of religion, you may want to leave now (*sigh* there goes my bounce rate). I'm about to delve into it, head first, no tiptoeing around anyone's feelings--so if you have any inkling that you can't handle some honest evaluation of this topic, again, it may be best if you return to Insistent and Persistent on another day when there's a different topic posted. No kidding, exercise your self-control if you think you may find yourself offended by any of the following. I will not apologize. And I will not publish any excessively nasty comments, should you feel the need to voice your opinion in a particularly vulgar way.
    Still here? Don't say I didn't warn you.
It occurred to me today that perhaps religion is merely an attitude and not a belief or system of beliefs--at least for some people. What I mean is: some people have the attitude: Jesus--Yay! or God--Boo! This attitude or expression of feeling is different from the system of beliefs which can be outlined as something like: "I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth..." and so on (quoted from the Nicene Creed according to Catholicism-text found through Wikipedia). While an attitude is changeable and dependent, a belief system is inflexible and independent of opinion. You can't say, I believe in God and Jesus, but I don't believe in the Holy Spirit, when you claim to subscribe to a particular belief system. It's all or nothing. An attitude, however, such as feeling positive about God and Jesus, and negative about the Holy Spirit seems perfectly acceptable. (Note: As you've probably remarked, this discussion will revolve exclusively around Christianity, as I believe it is most relevant to a discussion of religion in the US today, and also because I have more experience with it than with other religious paths.)
    The problem I would like to address here is that there are way too many people holding religion as an attitude rather than as a belief system, but still claiming to hold it as an end-all belief. Every system is flawed (systems in general, I mean), and religion is no different. There's always going to be something that you're not one hundred percent comfortable with. But an attitude can change, even from one day to the next. Find twenty bucks on the sidewalk--Yay God! Lose your job--Boo God. Attitudes are fleeting. Holding religion as an attitude is as arbitrary as liking a flavor of ice cream. Monday I like vanilla ice cream. Tuesday I had an upset stomach from the vanilla, so on Tuesday I like chocolate. Many people seem to believe in God, and whatever bits and pieces of the religious system they prefer over others that involve God, as it suits them. They can quote scripture. They can reprimand you for whatever hot topic is the order of the day. They can claim that they know more about the loving arms of Jesus than sinners like you ever will. But so many of them would drop that God-loving attitude like a hot potato if the shit really hit the fan.
    The issue here is not that people shouldn't be religious. The issue is hypocrisy. Religion is a commitment that too many people take too lightly. Kind of like marriage. (But that's another discussion for another day, dear readers.) I have no problem with people who are religious. In fact, I find many of them fascinating (although I find many more of them misguided). I have a certain soft spot for religion, no matter how increasingly implausible it may become for me. So, this isn't an anti-religious finger-pointing session I'm running--rather, I want to examine those people who use religion as an excuse for their actions, as a bolster for their intolerance, and as a simple means of argument for the sake of argument.

    Those kinds of people have no business maintaining religiosity. God is not a pawn in your argument against abortion. Jesus is not a reason to be for or against the death penalty. And neither of them can be used in a discussion of gun control, primarily because guns didn't exist 2000 years ago. We've veered into politics now--dangerous waters, I fear. But, it seems that the two are inextricably tied because people refuse to separate them. Politicians use religion to support their ends, and private citizens use religion to support their politics. In any case, it's wrong because doesn't make their arguments stronger. It weakens them. Your religious life may in fact play a role in which issues you support or reject, but you cannot use religion as the explanation for supporting or rejecting those issues. Using religion to explain your non-religious beliefs is like trying to explain trigonometry with Shakespeare. The two are completely unrelated. As a result, it seems that people who do employ this tactic may either be ignorant of aspects of their religion, or may be one of those people who hold their religion as an attitude, dependent only on its helpfulness at that particular moment.
    I believe I've gone far enough now to provide my conclusion: (1) Be religious if you must, but don't half-ass it--we can't all be saints, but we can't purposely be sinners and claim that we're still saints because we say we're "sorry" for it; (2) Be political if you are so inclined, but keep your religion out of it--certainly there are other nonreligious arguments that can support your opinion that you agree with: use them. I won't say I'm right about all this. But I hope those of you who made it this far will at the very least consider religion and people who claim to be religious and examine these concepts a little more closely for yourselves.

Rub-a-dub-dub, thanks for the grub. Yay God.