All of us get worked up from time to time, and the temptation to rant about it can be irresistible. (Believe me, I know.) But, when we lash out, unrestrained, at any person, organization, or practice--as if any other view were completely crazy--we often just appear ignorant.
Consider: the commenter, Alison Cummins, at the bottom of this article, whose pseudo-question "What's Bible-Based Business Education?" was just a way to introduce her verbal tirade about why we should avoid anything faith-based. Or, to criticize the other side equally, consider the (many) Christians who call post-abortive women "evil and unforgivable," or who find nothing in common with "monsters" locked in prisons...
I believe, if we can't find at least one positive thing to say about the person/thing upsetting us, then we probably don't know enough.
That's not to say you have to change your opinion to be credible. (The male commenter on the above article calls himself an atheist and still allows that not ALL religious organizations are scams.) But, when we find ourselves saying, "I just don't understand how someone could _____," then maybe we need to find out. (And I mean actually find out. Not ask questions we don't want answered because we already "know" Bible-based business training must be as bad as we "know" christian marriage counseling is.)
If you really don't understand how/why someone could abort their child, then do some research! I just can't believe that all who've made the decision are simply out-of-their-minds, so why not find out what they were thinking? Maybe you'll still conclude abortion is murder. But a little empathy never hurt. If you can't imagine why a woman would allow her husband control over her, then ask about the "submission" principle. Maybe, at the end of the day, you'll discover you have the facts wrong. And maybe your understanding of Bible-based business instruction is equally confused.
I'm writing this for myself as much as for anyone. I once told my dad I "just don't understand" how anyone could vote Obama in for a second term. He replied: "I can...They honestly think he's doing a good job." Now, both of us happen to disagree--but it's important to understand where others are coming from. We do this by assuming they aren't completely insane and they DO have their reasons.
When we find ourselves filled with rage over a situation, and we believe we'll never understand it, that's when we must stop spouting off long enough to find some common ground.
Last night, my brother and I watched a documentary about a woman who killed her ex-boyfriend and later killed their baby and herself. As we discussed her motivations, the words "crazy" and "insane" easily came into play. And maybe she really was insane. But I agree that we fall into using those words far too quickly when we don't understand someone's motivations. And I think there's a real danger to it.
ReplyDeleteIf that woman or the 9/11 hijackers are just insane, then there's no way to stop violence except more violence. If advocates of the holocaust were just naturally more evil than the rest of us, we'll never recognize the signs of another one (because, of course, *we* would never be that way). If people who disagree with us politically, scientifically, or religiously are just morons, then we should give up on ever convincing them to change their views.
The idea that anyone who disagrees is just mentally or morally deficient comes from pride and a lack of mercy. I, for one, am thankful that that idea is completely wrong.
Exactly.
ReplyDeleteWith effort, we SHOULD be able to empathize with even the hands-down-guilty murderers you mentioned. But I'm writing especially to those of us (ME!) with strong feelings about things less obviously right/wrong than murder...like religion, parenting, and politics. And I'm cautioning those people (ME!) to understand as much as possible about the other side before condemning them. If I can't think of a single positive thing to say, I probably haven't researched enough...
As a member of the institution Alison hates, I noticed her comments revealed a misunderstanding about MOST of Christianity. (Christian counseling, Christian parenting, Christian businesses....she was mad about an imagined version of those things, and then she wouldn't consider the possibility they had ANYTHING positive to offer.) Even if all Christians participated in child abuse, oppressive marriages, and financial scams, she should be able to find at least one positive thing to say. With millions of Christians in the world, there must be some reason for the popularity, right? But her totally-negative assumptions about religious organizations were incorrect in the first place, which made her lengthy anti-religion speech look foolish.
As you know, I still think political liberals are off-base. And I think murder is wrong (of which, abortion is a part.) But there are many who disagree. So it's my job to figure out WHY. Even though their conclusions are wrong, I need to search for the motivation.