Best Against Worst
One of the problems with religious debate in our nation right now is that we often compare the best of our argument with the worst argument of the opponents. What I mean is, we look over our debating points and find what we believe is our best point and then look over the opponent's worst argument and thus we rig the arugment so that we win. Thus liberals will always accuse conservatives of being insincere and hypocritical, and perhaps even say that all conservatives want to kill people in the name of God. Then they argue for the best they have of inclusion, pacifism, reconciliation and anything else they think that makes them better. Of course, the same is true on the other side. The conservatives will find extremist liberals who want no restrictions on sexual morality, or other issues of any kind, or don't really beleive in the existence of God and accuse liberals of being amoral and trying to destroy the faith. We do this all the time.
What would happen if we were to discuss, rather than debate, our best against their best and look at our worst and theirs? Maybe we could find some common ground doing that. Maybe we could quit stereotyping others and start listening. You simply can't debate with another by assuming that their intentions are evil. Most people, on both sides, are sincerely trying to find their way in a world where sometimes a clear way is not always obvious. Would this result in comprimise? Perhaps a bit yes, but not always. What I would like to see, as the old song says, is a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Give the other side their props, what's wrong with that? Learn to restate the argument of your opponent in a way that is fair to them. Find the truth in the other side. I imagine you will still hold your point of view, but I also think that you might learn how to debate in a way that is fair to the other side. Divisions are killing the mainline denominations and our national life too. What if we really heard what the other is saying.?Are we afraid they might win us over? If we are does that mean we are so unsure of our argument we don't believe it can stand up to the intellectual test? Why are we afraid of the truth that is contained in the opponents argument? Why do we want to silence it, and stereotype others? If we say "All conservatives are..." or "All liberals want to..." and then insert a negative trait, are we not merely showing prejudice? When we label a certain position with the word "all" we assume that there is no difference between people of a certain point of view. Have we talked to all people from the other side? Maybe toning back the rhetoric and learning to restate the other's argument is a way of loving your neighbor, or even your enemy. It would be a first step out of the morass we are in.
Peace,
Jim
One of the problems with religious debate in our nation right now is that we often compare the best of our argument with the worst argument of the opponents. What I mean is, we look over our debating points and find what we believe is our best point and then look over the opponent's worst argument and thus we rig the arugment so that we win. Thus liberals will always accuse conservatives of being insincere and hypocritical, and perhaps even say that all conservatives want to kill people in the name of God. Then they argue for the best they have of inclusion, pacifism, reconciliation and anything else they think that makes them better. Of course, the same is true on the other side. The conservatives will find extremist liberals who want no restrictions on sexual morality, or other issues of any kind, or don't really beleive in the existence of God and accuse liberals of being amoral and trying to destroy the faith. We do this all the time.
What would happen if we were to discuss, rather than debate, our best against their best and look at our worst and theirs? Maybe we could find some common ground doing that. Maybe we could quit stereotyping others and start listening. You simply can't debate with another by assuming that their intentions are evil. Most people, on both sides, are sincerely trying to find their way in a world where sometimes a clear way is not always obvious. Would this result in comprimise? Perhaps a bit yes, but not always. What I would like to see, as the old song says, is a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Give the other side their props, what's wrong with that? Learn to restate the argument of your opponent in a way that is fair to them. Find the truth in the other side. I imagine you will still hold your point of view, but I also think that you might learn how to debate in a way that is fair to the other side. Divisions are killing the mainline denominations and our national life too. What if we really heard what the other is saying.?Are we afraid they might win us over? If we are does that mean we are so unsure of our argument we don't believe it can stand up to the intellectual test? Why are we afraid of the truth that is contained in the opponents argument? Why do we want to silence it, and stereotype others? If we say "All conservatives are..." or "All liberals want to..." and then insert a negative trait, are we not merely showing prejudice? When we label a certain position with the word "all" we assume that there is no difference between people of a certain point of view. Have we talked to all people from the other side? Maybe toning back the rhetoric and learning to restate the other's argument is a way of loving your neighbor, or even your enemy. It would be a first step out of the morass we are in.
Peace,
Jim
posted by Theoblogger at
7:52 PM
