The Pen is Mightier...

...than the 15 second "sound-bite". At least it should be more powerful. Fifteen second sound-bites lend themselves to sloganeering, trivializing of issues, "creative editing", and sensationalism. Good writing lends itself to thoughtfulness, self-examination, and critical thinking. The last post on this blog suggested just saying no to shrill voices that do not foster a civil discussion of issues. Today's suggestion is to just say "yes" to reading widely good writers of varied political positions. A good place to start is by reading several good "op-ed" columnists in a variety of newspapers (On-line reading of op-ed selections counts too.). Serious, civil debate of issues can never be reduced to 15 second sound bites, nor to two-word slogans.

Raise Your Right Hand and Repeat After Me...

It's been over 4 months since the last post to "Gentle Answer" and with the rhetoric of the 2012 U.S. presidential election heating up, it's not too early to make some commitments toward achieving a more civil, thoughtful discussion of issues that impact the lives of people. The first commitment is to "turn-off" the shrill voices that feed their own egos through name-calling, labeling, speaking in broad generalities, and who deal in half-truths taken out of context. If your sensibilities run toward the conservative side, you know who those voices are; so too if your convictions run toward the more liberal side, you know who those voices are. In one of the first posts to this blog, I encouraged us to "just say no"; "unplug" from all who demean, vilify, and demonize fellow humans beings. We recognize those voices that pander to our prejudices and fears and if those voices are to give way in the public discourse to civil discussion, it will be up to us to "turn them off" and refuse to give them time and attention. It matters not whether we agree philosophically with those shrill voices; if civility is to be restored, it will start with a rejection of the voices that sow fear, mistrust, hate, and discord.

Now, raise your right hand and repeat after me...

Musings...

It may be outside of the scope of this blog and its stated purpose of fostering a more civil public discussion of issues and it is certainly with some "fear and trembling" that I add to the spate of words written on the demise of Osama bin Laden. The writer of Proverbs said, "When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy." (Proverbs 11:10). Certainly I shed no tears at the news of the death of Osama bin Laden and I am grateful for the courage and skill of those Special Forces who took part in the operation that rid the world of a man responsible for so much evil and suffering. Strangely, though, I'm uncomfortable with the gleeful celebration of his death. Justice may demand such punishment, but is such seeming delight over the death of anyone, even a heinous crimimal such as bin Laden, the response that reflects the heart of God? One of the first thoughts that came to me on getting the news of bin Laden's death was that from the book of Ezekiel: "Do I take pleasure in the death of the wicked? Declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" (Ezekiel 18:23) "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" (Ezekiel 18:32). I trust no one will misunderstand...a man responsible for the misery and death of thousands, even tens of thousands, must face justice and judgment. Yet was justice served? Perhaps it was not possible, but might justice have been better served to bring this man to trial and before all the world, face the consequences for his cruelty? Do we really think that the death of bin Laden will be a "game-changer" in terms of the necessity of vigilance in counteracting terrorism? Recent years have demonstrated the power of fanaticism as literally hundreds of men, women, and even children have been willing to blow themselves up for a perverted "cause". We should also be sobered by the thought that a dead "martyr" may wield more influence than a live fugitive. Perhaps most troubling of all in the midst of this celebrating is that we lose perspective on the nature of evil. We believe that evil belongs to "others" ("them") who deserve to pay for their sins because of the gross character of their misdeeds, blinding us to the fact that evil also resides in us and that we all stand under the judgment of God. Were it not for the grace of God in Christ, we would stand before God without hope. "Do you think that those Galileans were worse sinners than all the Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." ( - Jesus Christ: Luke 13:2-3)

Toward that "Healthy Mistrust"

In the post of 23 February, I tried to make the case for a "healthy mistrust" of the total "rightness" of our particular ideology. This follow-up may resonate more with those of evangelical conviction because in order to develop this healthy mistrust of our own ideology, we need to allow our theology to inform us with the reality that everything in this world is loaded with imperfection...OK...sin. Think of the illustration of philosophical differences that pit the advocates of a totally unfettered (and unregulated) free-market economy over against those devotees of a highly regulated (even socialistic) economy. My Evangelical Christian theology informs me that everything in this world is tainted to its very core by sin. Given that understanding, it isn't difficult to understand that a free market idealogue can "game the system" in such a way that enriches himself on the backs of human beings created in the image of God, but who (and their labor) become reduced to nothing more than commodities. On the other hand, the advocate of a tightly regulated, more socialistic economy must recognize that people can "game the system" by taking the path of least resistance through irresponsibility and deception in order to receive that to which they are not entitled. I guess the old saying is true...and may we never forget it...no one (and nothing) is perfect.

A Healthy Mistrust

"Mistrust Healthy?" Yes. Not the natural mistrust we easily have for those whose social/political positions we disagree with, but rather a mistrust of our own ideologies that all too often lead us to uncritically believe our own "press releases" and reject out-of-hand the opinion of contrary viewpoints. Nothing illustrates this better than the often onerous debate between economic ideologies. There are those who believe that the free-market system is the best (and perhaps only) system that rewards diligence, creativity, and initiative to produce wealth and a better life-style for everyone. Taken to an unquestioned and unexamined extreme, the "market" becomes "god", needing no regulation and in-and-of-itself, taking necessary self-action to correct imbalances. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the "market" leads to a "social darwinism" of "survival of the fittest" so that those who cannot make their way in the free market system are simply left behind to struggle or (in the attitude of Ebenezer Scrooge) die. In this view, the "market" cannot be trusted to "do the right thing" and needs strong regulation and oversight. If the believers on both sides of such an argument would take some time and make some effort toward a healthy mistrust of their own position, it would lead to a more civil discussion of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in both ideologies.

Compromise is Not Necessarily a Bad Thing (Re-visited)

It's been 3 months since the last post to "Gentle Answer", in keeping with my policy of not writing simply for the sake of writing something. However, the events of the past several days in my home state of Wisconsin have prompted me to revisit a post from October 2010.

For your enjoyment (hopefully) again...

There's an old saying, "Half a cake is better than no cake at all". However, in the emotionally-charged arena of social and political discourse, we have slid into an "all-or-nothing" mentality where it insisted that one "buy the whole package", without any deviation from "the party line", of a particular agenda without stopping to consider that the truth of all social and political issues may very well be nuanced and certainly more complex than reduction to sloganeering would suggest. A good way toward more civility in our discussions would be to admit that we have succumbed to the disease of "hardening of the categories" and at least be willing to admit that those with whom we have disagreements have reasons why they hold their particular positions. A good beginning on the journey toward civility would be that of going to meet someone "halfway".