The election cycle is in full swing, and for some reason it seems to bring out the worst in people. I see all the time where intelligent people who are generally perfectly fine to be around in 'real life' turn into irrational and hateful people online or in any conversation that mentions their politics. They reduce the person arguing with them to the convenient stereotype of an ignorant, ill-informed, unpatriotic, puppy-kicking, (insert political descriptor). I write this as one who has frequently engaged in this behavior myself. I think part of the reason we so often resort to this type of arguing and relating to those we disagree with is the fact that it satisfies our basic human instinct to need to feel superior to our fellow man in any way possible. It also serves to build up a structure of security in our own beliefs, further convincing us of our points of view and assuring us that there is actually a difference between what we believe and what the opposite side does, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
There are so many things in this world that people allow to cause problems between them. I'm finding more and more that those problems are not the result of radically different viewpoints, but rather a different approach to a situation with the same flawed human logic. There are some who are quite aware of this, and they are the ones manipulating the arguments that cause rifts in entire countries to come about over something as simple and as insignificant as say, a chicken sandwich. If you don't believe me, consider just about any social issue in contention on the national stage right now. The gay marriage debate for example. The base problem is quite simple. Whether the federal government, (or state/local governments) should recognize same-sex unions as lawful and provide the same treatment under the law as 'traditional' marriages. That's the argument, but it doesn't sound quite right. It's missing something when described that way. It's missing the manipulation of the media and lawyers and organizations that want to spin sentiments in their favor. The debate that really seems to be going on in our country is whether or not people should be universally hated and persecuted for being different in one way from the 'rest' of society. And isn't it horrible to take away the rights of an entire group of people simply because some backwater, ignorant, bad apples think homosexuality is icky. Or perhaps this version: A minority of people who are in the wrong should not be allowed to influence our culture in such a way that traditional, biblical marriage is threatened, and the very fabric of the American family is ripped apart by a perversion of a Godly institution.
Both of those slants are the same. At least they are the same in the fact that they twist the real issue into irrelevant and false premises. The blatant similarity in both arguments is that as previously referenced, we as humans have to put down any view that we don't hold because if we don't, we feel terribly uncomfortable and unsafe in our beliefs. And so we both exaggerate the facts and let hate weed its way into what should be a serious debate with conclusions reached by mutual understanding and compassion.
Maybe you disagree with my philosophy. That's your right, not that I have given you, not that is bestowed upon you by any nation or human establishment, but that is given to you necessarily as a free being created in the image of an all-knowing, all-loving God. But consider why you are disagreeing; if it has to do with the fact that you know you're right about your beliefs and other people are wrong, what good is that doing you in an eternal worldview? Do you have an eternal worldview? Lets say that you are the last person on the planet with the right answers and no one else will agree with you. If you are to convince people of truth, are you going to do so by becoming the quintessential arguer? Or are you going to gain the favor and the respect of those around you by loving them for who they are with all their flaws and letting the knowledge that you are not the judge of the universe guide your actions? And if you are not the judge of the universe, then who is? If it is an all knowing, all loving, perfect God, then is there any possible way that you or I or anyone can dole out accurate judgement of someone else's actions having no ability to see his motivations and his unique story? (The answer is no, by the way)
As you can tell, I could go on for a while about all this, but I think the basic point I'm trying to make is the one I started with. Everyone has a story. I have a story that made me who I am today, and if you're reading this, then not only do you have a unique story and set of circumstances, but my story is also affecting yours in a small way. What you do with it is your business, but I've tried to choose not to ignore anyone's story. I've learned very recently something that should have been obvious to me far earlier in life. People want to share their stories, they want to hear yours. They want to find common ground and they want to feel loved by someone. I've learned that what I can do as a professing follower of Christ is to try and show them through my imperfect, shadow of agape love, that there is a perfect love and a perfect peace that comes from their perfect father who desires a relationship with them.
There are so many things in this world that people allow to cause problems between them. I'm finding more and more that those problems are not the result of radically different viewpoints, but rather a different approach to a situation with the same flawed human logic. There are some who are quite aware of this, and they are the ones manipulating the arguments that cause rifts in entire countries to come about over something as simple and as insignificant as say, a chicken sandwich. If you don't believe me, consider just about any social issue in contention on the national stage right now. The gay marriage debate for example. The base problem is quite simple. Whether the federal government, (or state/local governments) should recognize same-sex unions as lawful and provide the same treatment under the law as 'traditional' marriages. That's the argument, but it doesn't sound quite right. It's missing something when described that way. It's missing the manipulation of the media and lawyers and organizations that want to spin sentiments in their favor. The debate that really seems to be going on in our country is whether or not people should be universally hated and persecuted for being different in one way from the 'rest' of society. And isn't it horrible to take away the rights of an entire group of people simply because some backwater, ignorant, bad apples think homosexuality is icky. Or perhaps this version: A minority of people who are in the wrong should not be allowed to influence our culture in such a way that traditional, biblical marriage is threatened, and the very fabric of the American family is ripped apart by a perversion of a Godly institution.
Both of those slants are the same. At least they are the same in the fact that they twist the real issue into irrelevant and false premises. The blatant similarity in both arguments is that as previously referenced, we as humans have to put down any view that we don't hold because if we don't, we feel terribly uncomfortable and unsafe in our beliefs. And so we both exaggerate the facts and let hate weed its way into what should be a serious debate with conclusions reached by mutual understanding and compassion.
Maybe you disagree with my philosophy. That's your right, not that I have given you, not that is bestowed upon you by any nation or human establishment, but that is given to you necessarily as a free being created in the image of an all-knowing, all-loving God. But consider why you are disagreeing; if it has to do with the fact that you know you're right about your beliefs and other people are wrong, what good is that doing you in an eternal worldview? Do you have an eternal worldview? Lets say that you are the last person on the planet with the right answers and no one else will agree with you. If you are to convince people of truth, are you going to do so by becoming the quintessential arguer? Or are you going to gain the favor and the respect of those around you by loving them for who they are with all their flaws and letting the knowledge that you are not the judge of the universe guide your actions? And if you are not the judge of the universe, then who is? If it is an all knowing, all loving, perfect God, then is there any possible way that you or I or anyone can dole out accurate judgement of someone else's actions having no ability to see his motivations and his unique story? (The answer is no, by the way)
As you can tell, I could go on for a while about all this, but I think the basic point I'm trying to make is the one I started with. Everyone has a story. I have a story that made me who I am today, and if you're reading this, then not only do you have a unique story and set of circumstances, but my story is also affecting yours in a small way. What you do with it is your business, but I've tried to choose not to ignore anyone's story. I've learned very recently something that should have been obvious to me far earlier in life. People want to share their stories, they want to hear yours. They want to find common ground and they want to feel loved by someone. I've learned that what I can do as a professing follower of Christ is to try and show them through my imperfect, shadow of agape love, that there is a perfect love and a perfect peace that comes from their perfect father who desires a relationship with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment