Sunday, September 12, 2010

Obstacles to Dialogue

As usual I got myself in trouble over the weekend with my tendency to share my opinions too frankly. Sure this tendency has cost me plenty over the years, but since it may be the most Christ-like thing about me, I am loathe to give it up!

What really gets me in trouble is that I arrive at these opinions independently rather than simply taking my cues from one global media corporation or the other who are trying to divide us into two warring camps. This means I get to be misunderstood by angry people on both sides- and that’s just from friends and family! That’s why I love typing things out on the internet. When people filter what they think you said and try to put you in one box or the other you can go back and point out to them what you actually said. It is always nice the times that this works. In many cases though, even when it is in writing they can’t reach the place where they comprehend what you actually wrote. Their brain insists on reading what their filters think you must have written rather than what you have written.

I started with my statement that although I don’t want a mosque built in my town I’d rather live with a mosque in my town that with a government which had the power to ban them. Such powers will eventually be used to shut down Bible Believing churches who appose immorality favored by the ruling elites, such as abortion, homosexual marriage, fiat money, and even the idea that man evolved by chance rather than being created in the image of God. “Churches” which play along with the government will be permitted to continue only if they forsake the prophetic role of speaking unwelcome truth to power.

I made the one club mad when I said that abortion costs us another 9/11 everyday since 1973, and that it was a bigger threat to America than radical Muslims. I asked conservatives why they are letting the media re-arrange their priorities and forgetting all about the greater and more recent bloodshed. That got one side stirred up, now all I had to do was stir up the liberals and I’d unfortunately have all of my bases covered. My negative description of Muslims as a whole and Islam as a religion took care of that.

A former student represented the liberal side. She claimed that the reason we can’t have a dialogue in this country (the example she gave was about race since she is black) is because people use hurtful terms- like “enemy” to describe Muslims and “backward” to describe Islam. Apparently, the use of pejorative adjectives is a “no-no” in the liberal’s conception of a dialogue. Except of course for the ones they want to use such as “racist”, “sexist” “homophobic” et cetera.

My position is that it is our hesitancy to speak frankly and openly to one another, along with hyper-sensitive feelings, that are the largest obstacles to a meaningful dialogue. The left says they want a dialog, but you have a whole list of banned terms that you are not permitted to use lest you offend their feelings. The logical conclusion then is that it is their feelings that are in the way of dialogue, not my words. And if the words I use are not accurate descriptors, then let them show how. Make it clear that I have a problem in my perceptions. But if those words are accurate descriptors, then perhaps it is they who have a problem in their behavior.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Ann said...

Very well said!

9:37 AM, September 17, 2010  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home