As we expand our circle of Conservative acquaintences, we will inevitably run across some people with views that differ from ours, sometimes considerably. Yet they share a common respect for the Constitution (hopefully) and gravitate toward a common understandings of where our rights come from.
But as we are all at different places in our lives, we may find that others assume that we adhere to certain position politically, or support certain candidates, or causes, which we don't. Perhaps it is because some of this is so new to us, or perhaps we are dismayed by the naivete or wrong thinking that we see in others. Nevertheless, we should not shoot the young because they are not ready for battle, nor dismiss those who seem to be "off track," or into some odd corners of conservatism that we never even heard of before.
Of course, there may be some among us who really are not "of us", and we need to be careful about them. But even then, not every one who offers an opposing view is an enemy. Some are confused, and some have been fed such a steady diet of lies by the enemy that they they have a lot of unlearning to do. If there is a willing mind...
This article is an appeal to all of us to remember that Conservatives of all stripes are ultimately on the same side.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mike Cantwell said:
ReplyDelete"
I always found it amusing to some extent but a great lesson indeed that two of the most opposed Supreme Court Justices, Ginsberg and Scalia are great friends away from the court. They share little in the ways of thinking about our Constitution yet remain great friends. That should be a lesson and hope in that we can return to some civility in our nation not only about politics but life in general. We as a nation have much work to do right now and to watch some of the discourse by our nation's leaders must have some of the founders tossing in their graves. No doubt there was some discourse among them, history has surely reported that, but in the end they created the greatest nation the planet has seen, time for all to remember our history lessons."
One thing Mike, they are collegiate personally but sparring partners at times in their professional persona. Perhaps they studiously avoid any acrimonious differences in person since they have a chance to make their positions clear in their jobs. A legal opinion is a kind of position on a point of law, and also frequently a rebuttal of the opponents' thoughts. Once having done that, perhaps the judges want to maintain their impartiality by not discussing their differences in private. I could see where they might want to preserve their impartiality.
ReplyDeletethis is not the case on Facebook, or among the commoners like us. Facebook or Blogs of any type are places for a pretty freewheeling discussion of the full range of topics. Sometimes they are not very cordial. I accept that as part of entering into discourse with others on subjects about which people (including me) feel passionately.
One FB thread participant posted a small film about which I very strongly disagreed on the content, and seemed to be reproaching me for my "judgment" (judgmental attitude) - I replied "I don't want to be "disagreeable", but Truth trumps Civility when Truth itself is at stake."
Even Jesus was "offensive" in his speech when confronting his official opponents (Scribes and Pharisees)John 8.
We live in a culture that has minimalized convictions and maximized tolerance - to the point of being considered the final test of truth. If one is intolerant (ie: holds to convictions about right/wrong, opposition to abortion, etc.), then he is automatically wrong. Of course, that elevates Tolerance to the supreme level of Truth - a position it cannot hold.