Back in the late 1800's, in a certain midwestern city, there lived a Methodist Bishop by the name of Clarence Wright. One of his many supervisorial tasks as a Bishop, was to oversee the sectarian colleges of the Methodist Church in his district. This meant that he was required, on a regular basis, to visit these institutions.

On one of these trips, visiting with the president of one of the colleges under his care, the discussion turned to whether man would ever be able to fly.

The president of this college posited that yes indeed, man would one day fly like the birds. When the Rev. Mr. Wright heard this, he became extremely wroth. He went so far as to angrily label the president's statement as "unforgivable blasphemy" adding that the gentleman to whom he was speaking ought to immediately seek employment elsewhere because his ideas were diametrically opposed to the words of Biblical texts and that therefore there was, in the Rev. Mr. Wright's opinion, no way that he could continue as someone who was involved in any manner in the education of those impressionable youth whose education had been given into his care.

Back home, waiting for the Rev. Mr. Wright to return from his travels were his wife and his two children. Two young sons whose names happened to be Wilbur and Orville.

========

Those who are truly educated never stop learning. Those who are truly educated never fear a discussion of ideas.

It is truly unfortunate that throughout the world we humans seem to have reached a point where everyone is so sure of their "rightness", their positions so polarized, that discussion has become nearly impossible. And "ad hominem" (which is defined in the following terms: if you cannot refute the facts of the discussion as presented, then you attack the person making the presentation) seems to be the order of the day. There are those on one side who state that the other side is just foolish or stupid or "out of touch" and should be seen as such. On the other side there are those who claim that their opponents are so "wrong" that they should not even be allowed a forum. That their ideas are so dangerous to society that their ideas and expressions thereof need to be stifled. That in such stifling, "the end justifies the means" (or meanness) thereby allowing for venom and vituperation? It has to be asked how these attitudes will lead to any sort of logical progress or even how any discussion of any sort can take place.

Simple answer: it cannot. It is interesting to note not only the number of single-issue groups which have become "tax exempt organizations" but also the huge number of persons whose entire livelihood is contingent upon the absolute necessity of holding and proving of a certain political or social viewpoint, be it race relations, right to life/choose, lifestyle, the environment, or any other one of a myriad of "causes".

And we have not as yet even considered the use of "spin", misquotation (including "quoting out of context"), and/or purposeful "misunderstanding" to obfuscate the issue and stifle discussion of an issue, whatever it may be. The practice of using "hot button" words and phrases to stifle discussion seems also to be an extremely popular tactic. These are the obvious "stock in trade" elements of our current day politicos and "single issue" groups. Including those groups whose sole purpose is to tear down the political and moral fabric of the country?

Were you to check, you might find that viewing of "network" news and the circulation numbers of almost all newspapers has fallen dramatically. Could it be because these "information outlets" confused their job. That they came to think that their job was to "make the news" rather than "report the news". That they confused "straight reporting" with "editorial commentary" and muddled the two together until were the two indistinguishable from each other but those who practiced this deception got the idea that they, the press, the media were "running", and of a right ought to, run the show. That in fact we allowed it to a point but then saw where it was leading and saw the necessity of reversing the trend? And now the credibility of our media is somewhere south of marginal? As for the media, they cannot understand because they consider themselves to be the sole bastions and arbiters of all truth.

To be sure there are many who still recognize the value, even necessity, of open and frank discussion. The opportunities for such are becoming fewer and fewer. However, believe it or not, the author has found it to be alive and well. It is not practiced on college campi any more. Those bastions of learning have been taken over and sealed off by virulent advocates of various particular polarized political views. As is daily demonstrated in the news, "open and free discussion" is dying in the very places where it should be championed. The author, being a veteran, has cause to avail himself of the services of VA medical facilities from time to time. Crossing over onto the grounds of a VA medical center is a treat. All there have been trained to be, if not agreeable with or amenable to the ideas being discussed in various groupings around the grounds, at least to be respectful of the other person and and their right to hold whatever views even though those views might not be those of the listeners. Never is it the case that persons are attacked for their views. The listeners might conclude that the speaker is "out somewhere pickin' daisies" but, never in my experience has there been a case where the listeners attempted to quash the speaker's right to hold those opinions/views or to express them. Is this not a total reversal of what we see, daily, on the streets, on the news, on the various discussion programs to which we listen every day? That the response to the statement of one side or the other is to immediately "go ballistic" and continue to give their opinion to the exclusion of all others so that no one else can speak? That thereby the views of anyone except the speaker will never be heard? There was a case here in Los Angeles in which a talk show host whose views did not quite meld with the views of some of those of the community found his show cancelled at their demand. It was the position of those who forced the radio station on which his program aired that because he did not agree with them, not only was he wrong, but because he did not agree with these self appointed "guardians of correctness and rectitude", he therefore should not even be allowed the right to speak.

This applies especially to "political correctness". It may be "politically correct" but the question should be "does that "political correctness" fly in the face of fact and truth, thereby standing in the way of a discussion/practical solution, or is it just disallowing subjective reasoning??" Is it true that in order to "protect" a certain idea's validity, any other view is instantaneously marked "politically incorrect". It has been the author's unfortunate experience in dealing with many people, that as soon as some fact which does not fit into the other person's subjective reasoning is presented, they all of a sudden no longer want to discuss the matter. A good example is the fact that many who live in a country (okay guys, that means worldwide so don't start pointing fingers or thinking that this is just a problem for somebody else's country) do not speak the language of that country, but also have no intention of ever doing so. The apologists talk about the strengthening of a culture through multiculturalism.

My question is: If communication is the path to problem solution, how many problems can we solve if no one can communicate with others? Is anyone still mindful of the Tower of Babel?? Because the very thing which caused that project to cease was the fact that no one could speak the language of another so communication became impossible. Or that racial parity is the foremost problem in the society. But if we focus totally on which race is doing what, to whom and when and then complain about things like "profiling" and "perceived inequity" without calmly and sanely discussing possible answers, alternatives and solutions, how close will we ever get to any solution?

I do not worry about the government rendering useless the First Amendment to the Constitution. Given how far "behind the curve" our government is, and how long it takes them to get around to doing anything, seemingly that little task will be "seen to" long before by those whose arguments are so weak that neither they nor their arguments can stand to have anyone with ideas which are in any way different (read "incorrect") than their own given the opportunity to express them. The idea of these persons and groups seems to be that they are so "right" and "correct" that no other opinion, statement, or discussion need/should be put forth or carried on. That to do so is "dangerous". No. Might it not be that the real and ever present "danger" is to be found in the fact that those who feel this way will, through the inaction of those who are more responsible, allow these persons and groups to take over all public discourse and stifle all else. To see the possible end result of our current course, a book called, "1984" by George Orwell is highly recommended. William Golding's tome, "The Lord of the Flies" also contains an excellent, if frightening, description of that eventuality.

Question: What would happen if each of us spent some time in honestly evaluating our position(s) on whatever subject(s) and entertained the notion that perhaps a little open and honest discussion might be a very good, right, and necessary thing because we just might (heaven forfend) be, not especially "wrong" but "misinformed"?

Answer: We might just accidentally come up with some acceptable solutions or steps to those solutions to both individual and societal problems and situations which at this point keep everyone at loggerheads, thereby automatically precluding and preventing any sort of progress or solution. Surely there are things which we could each do better. Surely we have better things to do with our time, our lives, than stubbornly disagreeing with each other with no discussion. Perhaps, we could enjoy a payoff. Perhaps our human society could begin to attempt to work together to resolve some of the problems which we each and all face every day.

There is a song from the sixties which the reader may remember. In spite of the fact that it is a little long, I wish to quote it here for reasons which shall become obvious:

They're rioting in Africa. They're starving in Spain. There's hurricanes in Florida, and Texas needs rain. The whole world is festering with unhappy souls, the French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles. Italians hate Yugoslavs. South Africans hate the Dutch. And I don't like anybody very much.

But we can be tranquil and "thankfill" and proud, for Man's been endowed with a mushroom shaped cloud, And we know for certain that one lovely day, someone will set the spark off. And we will all be blown away.

They're rioting in Africa. There's strife in Iran. What nature doesn't do to us, will be done by our fellow man.

How true is that? How dangerous is that?

OBVIOUSLY, THE WRITER WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE SOME DISCUSSION OF THIS DISCUSSION ON DISCUSSION. SO IF YOU CAN SPARE A MOMENT OF YOUR TIME, PLEASE HONOR ME WITH YOUR FEEDBACK/CRITIQUE. THANK YOU.

vurdraak@pacbell.net

Opinion Piece # 17

A "JIHAD" FOR RESPECT ?

Click to Read

Home / List of Topics