Sometimes we change our opinions on things, and that can be a good thing. I know, for instance, of major conceptual changes wrought in the lives of such larger-than-life figures as Harding’s J.D. Bales (a bad change from conscientious objection to support for Christian militarism) and Rubel Shelly (a good change from sectarianism to non-sectarianism). Other times, we don’t change our opinions for years, or maybe never.
Thinking back over my own stuff—such as certain conversations and writings, and even a couple of sermons!—there are things I wish I’d said differently, i.e., in tone or manner. On the other hand, I can’t think of any core/key concepts¹ that have required wholesale change, although I try to hone, deepen, and/or broaden my thinking, as well as learning new things over time. A lack of major change in these key areas¹ might mean one or more of these things:
- I know how to word things in order to allow for later possibilities, instead of locking myself in too soon
- I’m duly convicted
- I’m hardheaded
- I’m just dumb
. . . or maybe I’m just not remembering all the things about which I’ve been wrong!
I happened on a bit of opinion while searching the archives of an old computer. This little piece, a letter to the editor of the Wilmington, Delaware News Journal, could be filed in a folder labeled “Less Important Things About Which I Also Have NOT Changed My Opinion in a Quarter-century.” For the large number of you who would likely disagree about cell phones and driving, I would emphasize human differentiation: we all have different capacities and limits. One-size-fits-all laws can only go so far in allowing for such differences.
Subj: Cell Phones and Driving²
Date: 5/1/00
To: njletter@newsjournal.com
To the Editor:
It seems we haven’t learned from all the needless solid-red, left-turn arrows at traffic signals. Isolated, horrible instances such as the cell-phone-related traffic death described by Wendy Wright do not constitute the need for a law.
Ms. Wright’s concern is admirable, but her solution, overzealous and impractical. I’d venture that driving doesn’t get 100% of ANY driver’s attention, and if talking on a phone while driving is outlawed, what about CB radios and other two-way communication devices? And car stereo systems — my goodness, the megabass bumpin’ in some cars can distract everyone within a half-mile! Hire a babysitter every time you go to the grocery store, because you’ll be fined if you pay any attention to your child while in the car. In fact, we must allow only one person per car — to avoid any chance of conversation. Change the engineering of rear-view mirrors so no one can primp while at a stop light. And (now I’m meddling) by all means, outlaw smoking altogether. Not only will smokers’ attention be totally on driving (right!), but we won’t get any more of those dangerous sparks bouncing toward our cars when careless, messy smokers in the cars ahead flick ashes out their windows.
No, overzealous lawmakers should not take away the personal freedom to talk on a cell phone while driving. People’s reaction times are different, and some people will always be dangerous — like the ones who race unconcerned between speed bumps in neighborhoods. (Um, who were those speed bumps supposed to protect our children from?)
We can’t legislate stupidity into dormancy. Drivers have to know their own limits and act accordingly.
Brian Casey
About the “solid-red, left-turn arrows” mentioned in the first sentence of the letter: as long as a driver can see that there is oncoming traffic, he should be able to decide for himself when it’s safe to turn left (assuming the straight-ahead light is green). Red left-turn arrows are unnecessary when the view of oncoming traffic is clear. Trying to keep people from doing things all the time when the actual need is only once in a great while, is an unnecessarily constraining, annoying avocation of lawmakers and activists.
Also, I live in a state that doesn’t have strict no-handheld-device laws, and many other driving rules³ are regularly flouted, too. Sometimes feel over-regulated, but I put my phone down when I feel I need to. Assuming I’m not a hazard to someone else, I figure it’s my choice.
Might we apply the over-regulation principle to church, Christian living, Bible study, or something more important than cell phones and stop signs? Some understood Christian rules could be viewed similarly: “Don’t do X anytime, because once in a while, there will be danger to your soul if you do.” Yes, maybe. But often, mature Christians (and, gasp, denominational HQs) simply ought to stay out of the law-making game. And that’s all Forrest and I have got to say about that.
Forrest, by the way, had great reflexes and the ability to make decisions for himself. He was a ping pong champ, and I figure he could have held a phone to his ear, without issue, while driving. (Maybe not while running.) Forrest, you just stop at the stop sign, and go when it’s your turn. Drive, Forrest, drive. And talk on your phone if it’s safe for you to do so.
¹ I’m thinking here of a handful of concept-areas that are key for me, and not necessarily key for others, such as the existence and transcendence of God, the nature of worship, God’s kingdom in relation to human kingdoms/governments, and the nature of the church universal. (In making this broad statement, I didn’t want to come off sounding as though I think I know everything.)
² Ten years later, Delaware passed a cell phone law/driving law, and it ticked me off. A year prior to that post, I’d offered a list of 20 things that were also distracting.
³ Stop sign rules, for instance. Goodness. I thought it was bad in Kingsville, Texas. I think it’s double the problem in Atchison, Kansas. I have not changed my opinion about the negative, annoying effects of people who don’t understand how the stop sign system works in this country!
Earnestly Speaking 