Time for Reflection
There is a wonderful scene in the movie “Mr Holland’s Opus” where the hero, a teacher, is working Summer Driver’s Ed to raise a little extra cash. Talk about Brave Human! Anyway, the brief scene shows the car zoom past the fixed camera, obviously going too fast, while the once-patient voice over of Mr. Holland becomes increasingly shrill. Then there is a crash off screen, followed by Mr. Holland’s now strenuously-patient voice asking “SO, what have we learned from this?” As a teacher and as a person interested in bettering myself, I hold a belief in the importance of finding a lesson in my varied experiences. (The effect this has had on my children and the amount of grist it has provided them for teasing me as they have grown from adoring, humble, malleable cuddle-bugs into the razor-tongued young savages with whom I now live is, in retrospect, regrettably obvious, but I never saw it coming. Hmmmmn. Maybe there’s a …. never mind.)
As I have looked over the postings and the experiences of working with this Brave Humans site, I realized that I had taken away some lessons from my process of reading, thinking, and writing. I’ll get to the specifics of my personal insights in a later comment. The more salient point here is that I had the experience of learning *something*, maybe even a few things. I mention this because I assume that one goal of the site is to encourage new thoughtfulness, broader understandings, and better connection between people in a microcosm which might even generalize to the macrocosm.
So, I thought I’d look for evidence of that in the postings of others. One recent one that jumps out is Grant’s decision to view less of the Leftish Newstertainment of Jon Stewart, based on his new understanding that the self-congratulatory quality of such viewing only furthers the polarizing of his mind, and therefore (in a small but important way) of the culture. Way back in Rick’s “A Question of Balance,” his comment 15 reflected a new openness to an idea from Grant about the culture being defined by the middle. And I loved this comment by Lily in “God’s Country” comment 13, as I see this as evidence of a process of a new way of being with each other in inquiry and in wonder, eschewing the rancor of the blogosphere-at-large: Lily said “It is quite wonderful to be able to discuss hot button issues civilly, isn’t it? It is totally foreign to my experience, so you will have to forgive me for being somewhat addled—I have to readjust my thinking here!” These may be small changes or large, ultimately consequential or not, but they indicate that we might be actually creating some changes, at least here in the microcosm.
So now it goes out to you other Brave Humans. After all this talk back and forth, what have we learned, as individuals or as a group? This is the season of Lent in the religion of my childhood, and Spring is coming for all the pagans. Time for something thoughtful and something new! What new things are budding in you based on your own brave Humanity?
Nick
March 26th, 2007 10:10
Hello Nick, All…
Thanks for the regrouping post, Nick. I’d like to leave a comment, though it’s not exactly a new perspective. It’s more of a re-newed perspective. That counts, right?
Gillian said in one of her recent posts: “I’m still trying to sort out who is who here. It’s kind of fun not knowing! It helps me to respond to people on the basis of what they say rather than assuming things about the camp they are in.”
This notion of responding to what people say rather than making assumptions based on their affiliation is profound. In my experiences with discussions/debates about society or politics, the labels of “liberal” and “conservative” have been slung about almost as weapons, distancing the people debating even further. I realize that as humans we categorize things; it’s how our brains work. But using these titles as intractable walls behind which we stand only makes it more difficult to come out onto the field and meet each other as individuals.
I realize also the convenience of referencing either “one side” or the other, but again there’s the idea of putting ourselves into camps that can’t possibly combine forces and tackle problems together.
These labels have become imbued with value judgments that imply wrongness when used by someone who disagrees - this is what I object to, rather than the actual framework. So I guess what I’m saying in my rambling way is to suggest not relying on our labels to refer to each other, such that we further the “us vs. them” mentality.
March 26th, 2007 16:58
Disagreement between people of differing political, social and other ideas can be healthy and productive, even when strident and somewhat snarky. In any case, it’s inevitable
Yes, the noise, and dust genrated can be distressing at times, but they’re preferable to the screams and acrid smoke of war, which is the alternative.
I came of age just before things got really ugly in the 1960s. Back then, I was definitely right of center. I strongly disapproved of rioting, the day of shouting obscenities at Columbia University and other excesses of hell raisers who glommed onto the anti-war movement to justify the melees they considered a natural high and a natural right.
My outlook hasn’t changed much over the years, but the political and social landscape shifted so far right, I’m now well left of center.
There are several intertwined reasons for the current polarization of our society. The politicization of religion and intensively organized political activities of fundamentalist Christians is a leading one. It poses serious problems our system wasn’t designed to handle very well — and, as we see repeatedly, doesn’t handle very well.
The reason isn’t hard to fathom. Our democratic system requires a fair level of common respect and trust, civil discourse and regulated argument between people who disagree, however vehemently, before a matter is settled through voting. The vote’s outcome is supposed to be decisive, so people can move on to tackle other issues.
However, people whose political views are based in relgious dogma taken literally and made manifest proactively cannot and will not compromise. They will see — and brand — the opposition not as simply mistaken, wrongheaded, etc., but as evil, as doing the devil’s work. And agains that, they will persist in angrily and emotionally protesting, and fighting on past every outcome that doesn’t go their way.
Witness the neverending struggle concerning women’s right to have an abortion. Witness the ugly political circus a personal and family tragedy was turned into in the Terry Schiavo affair.
Put in simpler terms, our system absolutely requires compromise. Religious absolutism short circuits compromise at every turn.
Another problem with Republican neoconservatism is the conflating of concepts of personal pride and self-reliance with the elevation of greed and selfishness to the status of virtues. Types of people once denigrated as money changers in the temple have become high priests in the temple and presidents of the country. A leading tenet of their “faith” is, “You get yours, I’ll get mine and to hell with the rest.”
They depict government as the enemy of self-reliance and progress, as stultifying and controlling. In fact, government is a tool, as good and helpful as it’s required to be or as bad and limiting as it’s allowed to be. In a democracy, people decide which it’s going to be, both with the money they give and votes they cast — and with their withholding of those things.
The Bible tells us that to everything there is a season. I’ve lived long enough to see several seasons come and go. That perspective gives me confidence the long current season of polarization will pass, as have the others.
In the meantime, I have more respect for people who choose a side, take a stand and argue their beliefs with intelligence and good intentions than for those who wring their hands about the squabbling. It’s corny but true that you can’t enjoy an omelet without breaking some eggs.
March 26th, 2007 17:23
Thanks, Nick, for the hopeful note. We’re not just brave, we’re human, and that implies something less than perfection, but we struggle on…
I don’t mind disagreement so much…it’s part of life. What we were hoping for here at BH is give and take, listening and “talking,” learning and teaching…
Lately, though, I’d characterize many comments as debate-oriented rather than discussion-oriented…trying to score points on the “other side” and not really listening or explaining well. Too much TELLING.
I hope we can regroup and get back on track.
Susan
March 26th, 2007 17:34
S.W.~
I’m not sure if you were responding to my post or Nick’s post or both. In any case, I agree with what you say here: “In the meantime, I have more respect for people who choose a side, take a stand and argue their beliefs with intelligence and good intentions than for those who wring their hands about the squabbling.”
It’s the part about arguing with intelligence and good intentions that I find sometimes lacking in general society. People fight behind banners/slogans/labels whatever you want to call them and nothing is accomplished. In those situations, it seems people just want to “win.”
Disagreement, examination, debate, etc. become less about understanding and problem solving, and more about feeding egos when the other “side(s)” are dehumanized into labels. That’s what I was objecting to, and that’s why I really appreciate Brave Humans. People here are trying to get around/through/over labels and assumptions, so that we can disagree and agree in a more humane way.
And so…carry on!
March 26th, 2007 20:08
Elena, I was responding to both. I agree with you wholeheartedly about it being wrong to dehumanize others into simply labels. Debate can and should be civil and reasonable.
I’m not so sure about political and social conflicts degenerating into simply a desire to win, even though an anything-to-win mania has gotten out of hand in certain quarters over the past 30 years. Stakes are high and consequences are very real, as we can see all too plainly in the country’s current situation, domestically and in the world.
March 26th, 2007 20:22
Susan, I wrote my comment from a very definite point of view, telling what I think, but taking care to explain the why and wherefore. I believe I did that in a civil, respectful way.
Certainly, all of what I had to say is fair game for debate.
I don’t mean to be sarcastic, but I take from your immediately following comment you expect something different. Something perhaps along the lines of people responding with comments that end, “but, whatever, can’t we all just get along?”
If my definite, explained and civilly stated point of view isn’t welcome, I will certainly refrain from sharing it here.
March 26th, 2007 20:46
S.W.,
Your comments on the absolutist nature of certain viewpoints (religious and non-religious alike) makes me wonder if, as individuals, we have to compromise at all. Politicians have to compromise, but perhaps individuals don’t.
On one hand, we do agree to all get along, because we agree to the rule of law and the democratic system. I wonder, though, if we lose something by not standing on principle. Then again, perhaps that is why our political system seems so out of whack these days.
March 26th, 2007 22:03
Brian, people can and should have principles they’re willing to stand by. That’s a personal thing, a home-and-family thing. And, it’s a fine thing.
When they venture out into into places where public policy is debated and decided, and laws are written and enforced, they must have due regard for the diverse, pluralistic makeup of our society and system, and the secular nature of our democratic system of government. It is there that compromise is so necessary.
What that means in practice, using abortion rights as an example, is for people who passionately believe abortion is wrong should refrain from getting an abortion of convenience, should teaching their children that such abortions are wrong and at odds with God’s teachings.
It can also mean working to change the views of those who believe differently, and praying for those who abortion opponents believe have erred.
But that those ardently held and very decent beliefs must become public policy, the law of the land that applies to everyone, is an entirely different matter.
It is there where the uncompromising nature of beliefs based in religious teachings run into serious trouble and cause serious trouble. When it comes to public policy and lawmaking, democracy requires a fairly high level of live-and-let-live sentiment.
But make no mistake, live and let live doesn’t equate with people of faith having to give up their beliefs or behave in ways they believe to be wrong.
For one good example, if I’m not mistaken, Quakers were exempt from the military draft when we had one, and people of that faith who joined the military voluntarily were placed in noncombat specialties.
March 27th, 2007 08:42
I am a little puzzled by the distinction being made here between telling and discussing. Now, I know the difference in their meanings but I wonder if we are making an artificial distinction here.
Can we discuss anything before articulating clearly what we believe and why? Presumably, no post and its comments are an isolated occurence but, rather, part of the larger ongoing discussion.
I am not sure the manners appropriate at the dinner table are necessarily the only manners appropriate in the public sphere. I like vigorous debate, for instance. I am not so fond of rudeness, name-calling, vulgarity, etc.
What you have created and are trying to sustain here is a small miracle. But I am not sure that you need to fear real differences of opinion. That will not harm the conversation nearly as much as inculcating in the “minority” a self-conscious habit of self-censoring, for fear of giving offense.
March 27th, 2007 10:23
S.W.-
My comment really was in response to Nick. I wasn’t talking about your comment at all; I was talking about the general unrest there was on the site last week. I have NEVER found anything about any of your remarks uncivil. It’s just happenstance that my comment followed yours…
Sigh…such are the limitations of an on-line world. I honestly don’t expect contributors at BH to get along, or agree, or even reach a compromise…I just would like us to listen and learn from each other.
Hope this clears everything up. Please stay!
Susan
March 27th, 2007 17:01
Susan, thanks for the follow-up note. I’m greatly relieved.
March 27th, 2007 17:52
Hello All, and thanks for the comments. I will respond in two ways. First, I will address my own unclear writing and failed intent. I wrote the post as I reflected on the contentious nature of the last week on the site, and on my own judgement of myself as having crossed a line. I perceived that my tone and my intent had become more polarized than I wanted: I was becoming defensive when my stated goal in the beginning was to develop better listening and clearer speaking towards the development of more understanding. I also perceived that others were in that same pattern, whether by choice or from reflex I cannot say.
So, I decided to reflect on my experience, and to find the reflections of others as a way of crearing meaning from experience. As I read increasingly aggressive posts from others, I thought to extend the invitation to the BH community to also reflect. Not to stop anything, just to be conscious of our intent, conscious of our actions and to share what statement of goodness of the BH experience we could with each other. To look beyond the fray, before we re-enter it.
Either I was unclear, or people were not interested in that same process, or people are still framing their ideas, still reflecting. I was not explicit in issuing that invitation; my writing was less exact than I intended. So here it is: have you learned anything so far in the BraveHumans exchange that you are willing to share in public view? If so, or not, please consider responding to share the insight with others . Any outcome is OK. Any way it goes, I can learn from it. And so, Reader, can you.
On the content of the responses so far, a few people seem to hear me saying they should be less contentious. Lily says “What you have created and are trying to sustain here is a small miracle. But I am not sure that you need to fear real differences of opinion.” S.W. goes further and says it’s “inevitable”. Well, I am many things, but neither so foolish nor so milquetoast as to expect or fear the exchange of ideas. I *am* idealistic enough, hopeful enough about our humanity that when we invite the exchange of ideas that there might be some openness to the opinions and the good intentions of others. The debates will roll on, rage on, in some cases. But just as we go to church/temple/grove to recenter ourselves in the physical world, I thought to create a moment in the cyber world for a breath, an insight. I did so. To all I saythis: find in it what you will; what you find is possibly what you bring.
Lily, thanks for the recognition of the potential of this environment. You are clearly a part of that potential. I would suggest that some “telling”which I would call “discussion” is sharing information and opinion which is up for true back-and-forth clarification and some movement is possible. Other “telling” is more sharing personal truths which I will die for so don’t bother to tell me what you think but I’d be glad to tell you more about my ideas. Sometimes the latter is inevitable, and can be instructive, but I,( at least), am probably more interested in more exchanges which have the possibility of building bridges. As I say, there are plenty of sites out there for idealogues; let’s be something new here. It takes more time and work, and some real courage. But I believe it is worth it, as you seem to also.Does that clarify?
SW- I valued your comments, and echo Susan’s hope that you’ll stick around. (I’ll be visiting your place from time to time as well, as I found your writing thoughtful.) I especially liked the bit about “My outlook hasn’t changed much over the years, but the political and social landscape shifted so far right, I’m now well left of center. ” I riffed a bit about that in my Comment No. 17 (in response to Lily, with whom I often disagree and still value) under Grant’s post titled “Britain Falls to American Hegemony.”
I’m not so sure that I agree with “However, people whose political views are based in relgious dogma taken literally and made manifest proactively cannot and will not compromise.” What do you mean by “made manifest proactively”? I certainly think religious belief can and should inform individual political choices, just not be the direct source of public policy. I think I’m not clear on your meaning, and I’d like to be.
To all:I think a seperate post/thread about what these terms mean in our conversationsmight be instructive: Patriot, Christian, Liberal, Progressive, Left, Right, Socialist, Pagan, Democrat(ic), Republican, Conservative, Neo-Con, Moderate. Any takers?
Maybe it should be BarelyHumans? But still trying.
Nick
March 27th, 2007 21:08
Nick, I completely agree that “religious belief can and should inform individual political choices, just not be the direct source of public policy.”
One example of “proactively” was the pressure placed on some members of Congress in the Terry Schiavo affair, along with the actions of some members and leaders of Congress and the administration. Another is the way some churches openly told their congregants how they should contribute and vote in the last election. Another was the widely publicized refusal in ‘04 of a Catholic bishop to let Sen. Kerry have communion in his diocese, to the cheers of some right-wing Republican Catholics across the country.
March 28th, 2007 06:13
Nick-
I think the idea of defining terms is excellent, as you suggested: “I think a seperate post/thread about what these terms mean in our conversationsmight be instructive: Patriot, Christian, Liberal, Progressive, Left, Right, Socialist, Pagan, Democrat(ic), Republican, Conservative, Neo-Con, Moderate.”
The importance of stating clear definitions is just one of the things I learned through my doctoral program that applies to everyday life; it’s so likely that we are all not working with the same beliefs. I think you should write the post!
As for BarelyHuman? First thing in the morning, definitely…
Susan
March 28th, 2007 11:54
Hello all,
I love the idea of a separate thread to discuss what the terms/ideas we’re arguing about mean to us. As has been said, this would have been a good place to start, but hey, live and learn.
For Nick, SW and others on the interaction of faith/religion and political action:
Nick’s quote:
“Religious belief can and should inform individual political choices, just not be the direct source of public policy.”
I think you guys may be guilty of a double standard here. If I am person with strong religious convictions, how can I NOT fight for those convictions in the public sphere? And if I win the debate in the public sphere, then my beliefs will become a direct source of public policy. Isn’t this pretty much how every interest group in the country seeks to influence public policy? I agree that the influence of religious groups on public policy can be taken too far, but this is true of any special interest group.
-Grant
March 28th, 2007 17:34
Grant- thanks for the feedback about how stunningly unclear I was . Let me try again.
Religious belief can and should inform individual political choices…”,–by that I mean to include voting, writing letters, debate, and other legitimate political acts.
“…just not be the direct source of public policy.”– by that, I mean that just because the Buddha said “All life is suffering”, that government should not justify doing nothing to ameliorate the effects of natural disasters; just because Jesus said “The poor will always be with us,” government should not use that as the reason to not address some of the causes of poverty such as illiteracy, unfair banking practices, etc. Just because Perhaps I should have said that one set of religious beliefs should not DICTATE public policy.
Does that make more sense to you?
To go a step further: I do think that it is possible for one group to gain too much power in a representative demomcracy and to use that power to influence public policy inappropriately.( Note the value judgement creeping in here.) The voice of the people must be balanced with the Constitution and with the emerging laws/customs/mores of the times. Jim Crow laws, prohibition, and the excesses of industry in abusing workers in the 1900s and again in the 1930s might all be examples of where groups wielded political power in sometimes dubious/sometimes legal ways towards ends which should not have been achieved based on the good of most people, or on the will of most people.
When those two align, the will and the good of most people, then it seems to me that what should happen becomes clearer in terms of the public policy debate. When the will is opposed to the best interests (as might be the case in war protests or pollution laws), or when the long term good competes with the short-term good (same examples) then the sparks are most likely to fly and we set aside reflection for action.
Unclearly Yours
iNkc
March 28th, 2007 21:12
Nick, you have written a couple of really interesting messages. I have been thinking off and on about yours and others’ comments all day. I think that the overarching theme that emerges should be no surprise– we all want the same ends, a just society, a healthy, educated citizenry, clean environment, etc. but we disagree on the means of achieving those ends.
Because the place of religion in the public sphere is of enduring interest to me, I want to make a few comments about some things that have been written here.
SW:
You wrote way up top: “However, people whose political views are based in religious dogma taken literally and made manifest proactively cannot and will not compromise”.
I don’t think this is necessarily true. All of us have political views that are grounded in something. None of us is a blank slate thinking completely rationally about politics, untainted by cultural conditioning, economic class, education and religion. We religious dogmatics can compromise about a lot of things. Just not life and death, as I said in an earlier comment in a different thread.
Terry Schiavo is an excellent example. Her killing had to be fought, not just for her sake but for the sake of all of those who are similarly endangered. It is no accident that the disability rights group “Not Dead Yet” came out on her side. The handicapped and those with serious, chronic illnesses could not help but see themselves in her position.
Whether or not she was brain dead, the fact that her parents were willing to care for her should have trumped her husband’s wish that she be killed. What is the public good that we who tried to save her sought to accomplish? The affirmation that life is better than death and that people, until the natural end of their lives, are to be cherished and valued. Life must always triumph over death or we are all in danger, when we become inconvenient.
Is that merely a religious sentiment? I hope not.
It is a bit of a digression but, since you brought up John Kerry, I think it might be worth noting that this is an instance in which the public (in the guise of the media) intruded on what was a private disciplinary matter. The bishop who refused John Kerry the Eucharist was notable in one particular respect. He, almost alone among Catholic bishops, has a backbone and enough respect for his calling to do his clear, unambiguous duty.
Why do the practices of the Catholic Church have any place in a political discussion? Kerry knows, even if he doesn’t care, that he cannot dissent from Catholic teaching and present himself for the Eucharist. The fact that he has gotten away with it so many times, as have other Catholic politicians, is testimony to the spinelessness of most American bishops and how easily corrupted a hidebound hierarchy that is all too cosy with this world can be. But this is for Catholics to discuss amongst themselves.
If, on the other hand, there were churches telling their parishioners how to vote, to whom to contribute money, etc, that was wrong but it is already against the law– or, at least, it puts the tax exempt status of the church in jeopardy.
Nick, I was intrigued by this: “To go a step further: I do think that it is possible for one group to gain too much power in a representative demomcracy and to use that power to influence public policy inappropriately.( Note the value judgement creeping in here.) The voice of the people must be balanced with the Constitution and with the emerging laws/customs/mores of the times.”
I have a question: How is it possible for one group to gain too much power in a representative democracy? Groups typically either seize power by force of arms or acquire it by virtue of winning the favor of the majority. The voice of the people is expressed through their elected representatives. Inevitably, we are not going to achieve 100% agreement on issues and some are going to feel left out or marginalized. But what is the alternative?
The only role the courts play (are supposed to play), is that of pronouncing laws constitutional or not. When the courts take over the legislative function of government, as they have here for the last 40 or more years, we are no longer a representative democracy but are ruled by judges– a possibility that caused some of the founders to argue against the creation of a Supreme Court.
Prof. Brian Z. Tamanaha put the problem this way: “Rule by judges poses the specter of the usurpation of power by an unaccountable elite, treating political issues as if they were matters of law, hiding political decisions under the guise of purely legal interpretations.” (*On The Rule of Law - History, Politics, Theory* (Cambridge University Press, p.125)[/i].
This view has lots of interesting implications for our political life, of course, but this response is already too long and so we can explore them later, if anyone is interested.
March 29th, 2007 13:09
Coming late to the party…
Nick - On a couple occasions, I thought about crafting a post on the labels you mentioned. I’m still wringing my hands over it. On one hand, it is good to agree to the definition of terms and have a baseline (I have mentioned that on other posts). On the other hand, I intensely despise all the labels, because they so thoroughly, incompletely define us. If there was a way to eliminate the labels, I would prefer to do that. What I wouldn’t do to have a third hand….
S.W. - I’ve told my wife many times that I would rather discuss, tell, argue, debate with someone principally steadfast who opposes me, than someone who is linguini-spined. I will get angry, frustrated, and generally cheesed off. I may win over someone to my thinking, or I may be won over to my counterpart’s thinking. I may even decide that, with the intellectual and emotional capital already expended, I should not continue with a debate, or I should take a step back. (Hmmm, where have I been for the last week?)
I could get nitpicky about some of your specifics, but generally I agree with you (comment #8). To me, the generalities need to be hashed out before the specifics are addressed.
All - It’s nice to reflect, re-assess and agree to talk. Sometimes, it’s even fun to have a heated argument. After a week-long sabbatical, I am still as confused about the intent of the site as I was previously. Are we a “bring everything into the open” site, a “solve the country’s/world’s ills” site, or a “quest for understanding” site? Each perspective leads to a different flavor of the site, and requires different standards for dialogue and for moderation. Inquiring minds want to know….
Regards,
Rick
March 29th, 2007 23:17
Hi,
This is my first time visiting here, and I am impressed with the openess and intensity of discussion. So much of the discussion has done little for melting division of our “boundaries”. I wonder what we can do to step out of our immediate viewpoint, and if it would help to imagine our interaction differently. Re: Iran, it’s hard to see beyond the bullies on both side begging for a fight: and this isn’t a schoolyard. It’s VERY scary and not helping anyone move forward. I don’t want another war…
But more to my first thought: I live in USA in a southwest state and in a Mexican neighborhood. I’m an anglo questioning the impact of millions of illegal immigrants: the invasion of America. My world is changing fast. My town hires Mexicans before even local hispanics. Just as I think I get a grip on my opinions, perspectives change. Round 1 of threats of expelling aliens, I immediately check out with one of my neighbors: do you have your papers in order? She has 3 adorable American kids. I watch how different communities respond to aliens: some harsh, some compassionate. I could cheer for either side.
But when in my town they do an undercover raid, I get mad: this is not humane, fair treatment. Families torn apart, kids left who knows where:children, much gastpo action. It’s wrong. People are moving out of the neighborhood, and more Mexicans will move in. The irony: if roles were reversed: no one would care about my viewpoint, if I have family or a job: I’m anglo.
SO the question is: how do we begin to imagine a better solution, compassionate world, equitable community? From what I read these questions permeate many cultures.
Thanks,
Mary
March 30th, 2007 23:42
Hi Mary, and welcome to BraveHumans. Thanks for the compliment–we like it here, mostly. We hope that through the openness and decency we can come to better understandings, which is a step towards being better able to work and live together, and help the country work better. I’m going to suggest that we open a new thread for your topic of Immigration in the next few days, so check back. Thanks for the very up close and human perspective on an issue many of us only touch occasionally.
More Soon-
Nick
March 31st, 2007 02:09
Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen,
There has been much soul searching among a wide variety of posts for a bit here. Due to what have been characterized as extreme postings, some have questioned the purpose and the usefulness of the site.
I would offer a saying from one of my favorite teachers, “In the going, we are already there”. The success of this site is akin to the talking dog. The wonder is not how well it talks, but that it talks at all, at all. Most discussions of this quality establish pat positions and having done that, fail for aught else to say. THis site seeks to have discussions, exchanges of views, debates, etc. It is wonderful that it works at all. The value of these postings is the offering of our views, trusting others will even have an interest in them. To have responses affirms we have touched another. To sustain this exchange while commenting on the most difficult issues of our day is no mean feat.
If these concerns of spirit, nature, justice, fairness etc., were easy or obvious, they would already have a permanent and verifiable solution. These are the concerns of all mankind, and will remain so. We can only attempt to understand and to act honorably upon it.
I will say for myself that I am here to experience an exchange of views. As I recall, Grants original brief was that this was a discussion and debate site, hoping to gain enough conservative readers to offset the liberal founders. As the issues being opened for discussion became more heated and passionate, I found myself disagreeing with some of the points being raised and the stands being taken. Some of these I could hardly credit were being advanced. And yet, I had to give them great credibility, simply due to the regard and respect I had person advocating them. This experience induces a Cognitive Dissonance in me. To respond civilly to extremely divergent views from my own has demanded I use a great deal of discretion and forebearance. But, that exchange is valued in and of itself.
March 31st, 2007 02:45
To All,
It is 2:20 AM, and I had just signed off for the evening, when I had a burst of thought on the concerns of communications here. If there is rambling here, I offer my humble apologies. In the past two days I have returned from an international trip, engaged in a several intense rounds of child chouffering, a court ordered mediation, and a chronic lack of ZZZZZZ’s. At least that’s my story and I’m sticking to it !
We must not forget the value of the relationships we are establishing here. We are coming to value aspects of our co-respondents. I know Nick, my brother of forty some years most intimately, and yet I am finding new facets to him I had heretofore not seen. I know Susan, Grant and Brian a little bit from an adventure or two and a couple of back yard barbecues, yet I am learning of Susan’s gentleness and quiet probing for truth. I am seeing Grants earnestness, his determined openness and conscious exploration of the other’s view. I am seeing the implaccable rigor, the intellectual strength, and the fierce advocacy that Brian brings to a discussion. I am discovering Lilly, whom I know only through words on a screen and suspect is secretly my twin sister separated at conception. She shows a quiet confidence in her own mind and in her faith, affirming who she is, and denying no one their validity.
These people have engaged me and captured a piece of my soul. How so very cool is that ! This is a meeting place for kindred souls of all varied types. We have that in common which is more vital than positions and labels. We are looking for connections, for friends. Let us not forget that each of these posts is a person, doing us the honor of sharing themselves with us, spending a part of their prescious life with us. We can’t go bowling, have a picnic, go out for a drink, skating, or any of those active physical things we do to get to know people. But we can offer ourselves, our ideas, our values, our difficulties, our joys, and our consternations to each other to build bridges of understanding, friendship, and communion.
We are birds of a feather, in spite of our differences in religions, political beliefs, gender, education, training and vocation. Enjoy each other, for if we did not have each other, we would only have ourselves to entertain us. And that would be a poor situation indeed. We bring colour, interest, variety, challenge, verification and plain fun to each other. So let’s have our dialogues and debates, diatribes and dissents, looking for our commonality even as we find our differences.
Warmest regards to you All,
Denis
March 31st, 2007 23:53
Lily wrote:
“We religious dogmatics can compromise about a lot of things. Just not life and death . . . Terry Schiavo is an excellent example. Her killing had to be fought, not just for her sake but for the sake of all of those who are similarly endangered.”
Terry Schiavo’s life-and-death situation had already been decided years prior. She couldn’t be killed because she was in fact dead. At autopsy the poor woman’s brain was found to have liquified. That’s not a political position, just the unfortunate fact.
There is no dignity in being made an open-ended biology experiment and no decency in using someone who’s passed away in such a manner, either out of ignorance or out of emotions-trump-facts-and-science denial.
I was an Air Force and Air National Guard medic for 14 years, During that time I gained fair amount of training and experience. I don’t take losing someone to illness or injury lightly. You might say I’ve served on the front lines of preserving life and health.
But I also appreciate the science, including the ability to determine whether someone is with us or gone; whether someone has any hope of recovery. Terry Schiavo’s situation was evaluated thoroughly and repeatedly by people eminently qualified to make a determination. There was no split decision, no shades of meaning. She had been a goner for some time.
Faith can be a wonderful thing. It can help to heal, can help comfort those grieving loss. But faith shouldn’t be made the enemy of truth. My faith is such that I don’t think that’s what God intends.
April 1st, 2007 00:05
Lily, regarding the bishop’s refusal to offer communion to Kerry.
Had Kerry shown up at a church within the St. Louis, Mo., diocese and been refused communion, that would’ve been one thing. That would’ve been between the church and the senator, a private matter, as you suggest.
But my recollection was that the bishop made it a point to go public with his intention to refuse Kerry or any other politician with similar beliefs. That was a patently political act in the midst of a presidential campaign.
Yes, the bishop can refuse communion to whomever he sees fit. How he does it mattters.
April 1st, 2007 00:32
Lily wrote:
“The only role the courts play (are supposed to play), is that of pronouncing laws constitutional or not.”
The role of courts is to seek truth through the lawful administration of justice. If someone cause you loss because they agree to buy something from you but back out at the last minute, you’re within your rights to seek relief in court. There’s no constitutional issue, per se, you just want to be made whole.
Right?
As for judge-made law, it’s inevitable. As good as the framers of the Constitution were, they couldn’t foresee all the complexities of modern society, business, technology and so forth.
The term “strict constructionist” doesn’t stand for a judge who shies away from interpreting law and the Constitution, just for a judge who tends to interpret those things in a particular way.
What’s more, judges don’t usurp legislative authority. When enough people feel strongly enough about an issue, they have means to change the Constitution, if that’s the only way. They can do that and they have done that.
The system works and has stood the test of time amazingly well.