Change...Proceed With Caution (Part II)

continued from previous post

Going Macro On This Piece

Now we take this dynamic to a national scale. In specific terms the common "liberal" versus "conservative" fight. This fight is taking place right now on some internet site, or in an office, or on a cell phone, basically everywhere. And the fight they are having is the same one that happened yesterday and is the same one that will happen tomorrow. What the combatants can't do, is separate their personal feelings from the fight long enough to see what is really being argued about.

Let's go to a recent headline, the supreme court ruling on the Oregon "right-to-die" law. The Supreme Court sided with Oregon and allowed Oregon doctors to continue writing prescriptions that resulted in a terminally ill patient's death.

I'm going to discuss the problems of extreme people on both sides of the issue and use sweeping stereotypes. Just remember that these are stereotypes that I wish to eliminate, not solidify.

On the "liberal" side, you have people who are just happy that someone in the Bush Administration, John Ashcroft, lost. On the other side, you have those that wish to turn this not an opportunity to remove a law that they don't agree with on the basis of personal faith (suicide is a sin).

Both people have allowed themselves to enter the argument with an axe to grind. And everyone can smell it coming. But here's the thing, you can no longer sneak your agenda in. It's already assumed that you have one and you are going to try and sneak it in. In fact, the only thing that people are interested in anymore is finding out what agenda you are guilty of.

So this type of arguing is pointless. No one on the other side is going to listen to political arguments from someone that is solely focused on blaming Bush, Christians, and America for all of the world's problems. All they are going to hear is that you are trying to insult them for believing in God.

Similarly, no one on the other side is going to listen to arguments that are solely based on faith in Jesus. All they are going to hear is someone telling them that their lifestyle is wrong and that they are in danger of hell.

So what's my point? We should stop arguing like this.

Now That This Post Has Become Political, I Assume I Have A Lot Fewer Friends

What we need to do is remove the prejudices of this religious jihad that is happening under every political argument. Let's have the religious discussion in the open. When we try to sneak it in, it turns the conversation into something sinister. Moreover, when we try to sneak these feelings into what we say or how we write laws, it means that we aren't doing it in the open. And if you aren't dong something in the open, then that means you know you're doing something wrong.

Here's a story.

A high-school teacher was telling a story in a class that I was in recently. She was talking about the Chronicles of Narnia books. The main feature of her story was that if she were asked about the Christ imagery by one of her students, that she would sneak in that "some" people believe that it can be read in "this way". She went on to say that "they" can't do anything if you "do it" that way. To her, this was her opportunity to minister. So long as she didn't mention that it was her personal way of thinking, then she could say what ever sh wanted.

To me, this is not an opportunity to minister. It's trying to trick this kid into believing in Christ.

If you want to have a frank discussion, then meet outside of school. It really bothers me when teachers use this kind of language. As if Christian teachers are part of a secret society and everyday, they are sneaking Christ into their lesson plans. I just don't think that that is the way to go about it. Why try and hide it?

Again, if you have to hide it, doesn't that mean you think it's wrong?

Wrap It Up, We Have To Go To Commercial

Let's move onto the speed of change and back to the question of if change can be right or wrong. When it comes time to change something, such as a law, how can we know if it is going to be a good change or a bad change? Conservatives would say that change should happen organically, i.e. slowly. Liberals think that change should happen quickly, i.e. revolutionary. There can be tremendous good from change: civil rights, suffrage, and the like. But change can also be bad: Nazis, communist Russia, et cetera. We can only know for sure if a change was bad in retrospect. All we can do is look at the level of discomfort that the change will cause and weight it against the amount of alleviation it will cause and hope for the best.

I guess what I want to say is that change is going to happen. But it's not something we should embrace or stifle on its face. Rather we should look around, weigh out the merits of each case and do it with a little compassion and knowledge that losing the debate is alright.

And we should try our level best to remove our personal feelings about the issue and try and think of the greater good. If you want make decisions based on faith, do it in the open. If you want to make decisions based on your distrust of religion, do that in the open too. Just quit sneaking around about it.

Why does writing make me so angry?

The Next Post Promises To Be Better,

James