man how is it that two people can see the whole world in an entirely different way? im a big newshound and this morning i was reading about the atheist/agnostic organization 'freedom from religion' that is working tirelessly to keep the phrase 'in god we trust' from being engraved on some monument in DC. then on the next page there is an article about that pastor from somewhere in the south who protests at military funerals with a sign that says 'god hates fags.' what is the deal?
obviously these groups are both fairly extreme (the pastor is worse i'd say but the atheists are at least misguided in my opinion and working from a similar state of mind). im aware that there are individuals in both camps of christians and atheists and all the wide variations in between that are moderate, compassionate people. but the extremism is the point: to the atheists, organized religion is the biggest threat the world has ever seen and christianity's hegemony over western culture is very dangerous and oppressive. to the christians the atheists perspective represents the encroaching 'moral decay' of society which is or will be very dangerous in turn. i think it's significant that both sides' positions are rooted in fear.
but how can this be? it even occurs on smaller levels. i read that in england they have modified sex education to include a discussion that covers that sex is fun and pleasurable. i would think people were probably already aware of that, but it comes from a concern that oppressive conservative thinking is making sex complicated and difficult for couples. of course on the other side English conservatives see this kind of discussion, this publicization of the intimacies of sex, as immoral and destructive of its purpose (which of course varies from sect to sect).
is the world coming to an end in a fiery pit of moral decay? is it getting better in a pluralistic, globalized society that can only progress? there are people who believe one or the other of these things so firmly they are willing to fight and beat down anything that would appear to threaten it.
im ready to rise above. who's with me? i have always been pretty liberal in my stances, and i think for voting and practical purposes i will probably remain that way. but i think i am ready to quit politics. i think people from both stances should have to live one year with people from the other side. they can keep their political orientation, as it were, a secret, if they want. it was probably interaction with my extremely conservative yet caring and sincere ward that first helped me notice this problem (instead of just wondering how so many people could be so hugely wrong). politics and taking stances aren't bad things, but can't we react with just a little more compassion for everybody involved? instead of feeling so threatened and angry, let's all do the mother teresa and help each other out, yeah?
6 comments:
We should learn how to intelligently debate, how to listen to other and to respond in an intelligent manner, but in our schools we don't (instead we are prepared for jobs). We learn politics from media pundits who know little more than how to insult each other, to listen in order to find weaknesses they can exploit.
We claim to be a democracy and yet we have a populace that can't carry on an intelligent conversation. We don't know our history. We can't even intelligently articulate the political landscape. Nor are we trying very hard. We are the new generation that lives life as a kind of continual masturbation, working empty jobs, enjoying ourselves without purpose, ever playing. We live in a time of infantilized adults and adulterated children. And we're ok with it. I think we live in Brave New World.
but you're assuming that if only everyone could debate intelligently then a reasonable solution could be found to problems. i don't think this is the case--that's part of the dissonance of the radical solutions of the preacher and the protesters. each side no doubt thinks they have ample evidence for their ideas, but both have come up with such opposite and destructive solutions. i don't think there is some objective sense of 'reason' people can appeal to. even those who seem most level-headed are still subscribing to a faith-based system of thought, whether it's religion or enlightenment-based rationality.
so i agree that we don't learn to debate efficiently in our schools, but even if we did, wouldn't it just contribute to a stronger hegemony of one thought system over our culture? it might be more peaceful, but the risks of totalitarianism grow much stronger.
i'm not assuming a reasonable solution might be arrived at and there is always the danger of rationality becoming a way to beat people over the head.
I think if people articulate their reasons and listen to other reasons they will recognize there are advantages and disadvantages of any position and as such they will be more cautious, more generous and more grateful. I know this is idealistic, but isn't that the foundation of democracy - civilized discourse?
We don't have civilized discourse now, we have the tyranny of money and endless meaningless entertainment. Perhaps civilized discourse is an impossible pipe dream, but i'd take a difficult regulative ideal over the kind of impotent rambling we do now.
well i'm not suggesting the present is a desirable state. but i worry that a world of reasonable discourse might result in a kind of cultural "philosopher's paralysis" at best and a descent into relativism at worst.
because i know you i know you aren't suggesting that all opinions are equal, so how do you suggest we deal with those who will not discourse reasonably, or who THINK they are doing so when others happen to disagree? i still think you are applying to an ideal of some universal 'reason' that just doesn't exist.
that said, i do think caution, generosity, and gratitude are all qualities our country could use more of.
well, i think you are absolutely correct that that is the danger, but i'm not sure what other option there is besides attempting to think and talk our way through things, especially since doing so is required to have a functional democracy. If we take it seriously it seems we are doomed to go down that path.
If we treat reason as dangerous what can we do? We can embrace tradition, but what if our traditions are cruel (especially when we don't realize it). I'm not sure what other option there is. I think this is why nietzsche and Heidegger suggest that only a new god (a new foundation, a new beginning can save us).
yeah. totalitarianism might be unavoidable, even desirable if it brings about the kind of 'instincts' that would allow us to dwell. scary thoughts.
Post a Comment