Current Issue – Page 9 – intramuralist ™

04/06/201704/06/2017

talking some gorsuch

You know (… and for the record, I know “you know” isn’t the wisest way to begin a blog post…), but you know, I don’t mind talking about politics. Granted, I don’t always like politics, but I don’t mind talking about it. I don’t mind talking about politics or even the icky, sticky, controversial issues, as long, of course, as it’s done respectfully.

What I do mind are (1) the inability to talk about political issues — when ignorance, intolerance, or some other attitude or emotion shuts down all other points of view — and (2) playing politics.

In that context, I’d like to “talk some Gorsuch” today. While I often chuckle with the proper noun sounding more like some foreign, foreign language to me, I instead speak of Neil Gorsuch, the 49 year old federal appellate judge and current candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Before we can “talk some Gorsuch,” we need to address two additional, relevant aspects. First, we need to remember the procedure for affirming a Supreme Court justice. Second, we need to acknowledge the judicial ongoings of the past year.

First, as set forth by the Constitution, candidates for the high court are nominated by the President, with the “Advice and Consent of the Senate” necessary for appointment. Note that the Constitution does not set forth any actual qualifications for service; therefore, the President may nominate the person of his choice.

While not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in the Senate, a nominee’s confirmation may be prolonged via the filibuster. Regardless, the Senate typically confirms the President’s nominee unless there exist serious, outstanding questions and concerns. Ideological differences or dislike for the nominating President are characteristically not enough to deny confirmation. (ie. Pres. Ronald Reagan’s nominee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, was confirmed in ’88 by a vote of 97-0; Pres. Bill Clinton’s nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, was confirmed in ’93 by a vote of 96-3; and the last nominee to be rejected was in 1987.)

Second, remember what happened solely one year ago. Justice Antonin Scalia was considered as “the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the Court’s conservative wing,” but he passed away unexpectedly in February of 2016. As is his purview, President Obama then nominated appellate judge Merrick Garland to succeed Scalia. Noting that ideological differences are not disqualifiers, Garland was fully qualified to be the next member of the Supreme Court. Senate Republican leadership denied him both hearings and a vote; they denied Garland’s mere consideration as a justice, proclaiming the next president should make the choice… a president, who would be inaugurated almost a year later.

In the Intramuralist’s semi-humble but honest opinion, the Senate Republican leadership played politics. There were no serious, outstanding concerns regarding Garland.

Now to “talking Gorsuch”…

Like Scalia, Neil Gorsuch is a proponent of textualism and originalism of the Constitution. His fairness and temperament have been raved about from all sides of the proverbial, partisan aisle. By all accounts, Gorsuch is also fully qualified to be the next member of the Supreme Court. The Senate Democratic leadership, however, has decided this week to oppose him.

In the Intramuralist’s again semi-humble but honest opinion, the Senate Democratic leadership is taking its turn, playing politics.

So now the Republican leadership in the Senate plans to change the rules in lowering the threshold for the number of votes necessary for confirmation. Before the immediate grimace at the obvious, partisan rule manipulation, note that the Democratic leadership changed the threshold rules three years ago when they were in the majority. Unfortunately, though, too many of us only jeer or cheer based on who is doing the rule changing. If it was wrong for one, it’s wrong for both, and thus, neither party can claim to be handling the confirmation process with total honesty, integrity, and even semi-humility.

Friends, I have no desire to be harsh; it’s simply that the Intramuralist so desires what is good and true and right. The challenge is when either the Republicans or Democrats play politics, they each engage in something less than that.

Let me be clear: both parties too often engage in something less than what is good, true, and right.

Wanting something more… wanting something better… always, regardless of party…

Respectfully…
AR

03/26/2017

when incivility wins

Every now and then I read an editorial I wish I would have written; however, I’m so thankful it’s more than me that shares such an opinion. What’s also true is that I learn from opinion other than my own.

From Lori Borgman…

… an author, columnist, speaker…

Also — dare I say — a person who speaks the truth. In a recent column, here, no less, is the truth she shares:

An “Old West and New West” cartoon shows the “Old West” side with a cowboy holding his hands above his holster, ready to draw. It’s labeled Gunslinger.

The “New West” side shows a man in jeans, T-shirt, and a bandana with globs of mud in both hands and more globs of mud at his feet. It’s labeled Mudslinger.

It would be even funnier if it weren’t so true.

We’ve taken mudslinging to new heights. Make that new lows.

If you don’t like someone’s stand on an issue these days, start calling them names. Fascist is a popular choice, as are racist and bigot. Liar, moron, and homophobe are in the top 10 as well. If none of those do the trick, pull out the big guns – call somebody a Nazi.

The smear has become standard operating procedure. Don’t attack the argument; attack the person espousing the argument.

And we’re the grown-ups. Well, in name at least.

It’s like the entire nation needs a time-out to contemplate incivility.

Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill went to the mat in vehement disagreement over policy. They often made witty but disparaging comments about one another (name-calling light). Yet at the close of many work days they sat down for drinks together in the White House.

Today, opposing factions would be more tempted to throw drinks on one another. Our incivility is all-encompassing — from Wal-Mart brawls to both sides of the political spectrum.

The internet and social media have become cesspools of incivility. The pseudo-anonymity of posting online serves as a cover for knee-jerk, brash and reckless. Post now, regret later. Or never. People say things online that they would never say to someone face-to-face. (Hopefully.)
Online media outlets are forced to close the comments section on articles due to incivility of readers’ remarks. Someone posts a comment relative to the article. A second poster questions the IQ of the first poster, a third poster slams the second poster for slamming the first poster and it’s a slugfest.

On Twitter, you can barroom brawl in 144 characters or less.

Incivility shuts guest speakers out of venues on college campuses, places that were once bastions of the free exchange of ideas. Odd, isn’t it? We punish bullying in some quarters but give it free rein in others.

Incivility is why some are contemplating discontinuing Town Halls. You can’t have a public forum when nobody can hear what anybody else is saying over the din of rabble rousers. Those who can crank up the volume the most seem to be winning.

Or are they? When incivility wins, everybody loses. When incivility becomes standard fare, civil people pull back. They want no part. Mudslinging, hurling insults and vitriol are degrading and embarrassing to all.

We don’t have to agree with one another. We don’t even have to like one another. But in the name of survival, we do have to be respectful of one another.

[Amen, sister… amen…]

Respectfully…
AR

03/14/2017

reality?

For 18 years, the host began by asking the primarily female audience, “Would you like to be queen for a day?” And for the next 30/45 minutes, “Queen for a Day” ran on radio, then NBC Television, and on ABC Television, beginning in 1945.

Host Jack Bailey would engage with multiple contestants, as they shared the uniqueness of their individual circumstances, publicly sharing their financial and emotional plight. The more dramatic and dire the straits, the more intense and sustaining was the audience applause meter. The audience applause meter would then lead to the chosen “queen.”

Donned with a crown, robe, and throne, with roses an apt gifted decor and “Pomp and Circumstance” played in the background, the winner’s typical tears were drowned out seemingly only by the announcement of a plethora of prizes. To quote the host in his trademark sign-off: “This is Jack Bailey, wishing we could make every woman a queen, for every single day!”

Friends, welcome to the onset of reality TV.

“Reality TV” is the television genre featuring real-life situations and supposedly real-life people — not actors (… ok… one can decide for themselves if any of the Kardashian’s mimic real life…). What takes place is arguably unscripted (… granted, any regular reality viewer will acknowledge a key suspicion of some moments that are far too uncanny to be totally authentic).

While “Queen for a Day” may have been the beginning of this unique, far-cheaper-to-produce format, reality TV gained steam in the early 90’s in Europe, and then in the U.S. in the late 90’s, as MTV’s “The Real World,” CBS’s “Survivor,” and all the musical “Idols,” biggest somethings, etc. spurred the format on. A whole new genre became accepted television viewing.

My sense is there is no issue in the format being acceptable; the issue is in the acceptance of the television being reality.

It makes this current events, cultural observer wonder…

Are there places we are unknowingly mistaking circumstances, reactions, and relationships as something other than they actually are? Are we thinking something is real that is not?

“Fear Factor” used to seemingly pride itself in creating the most grotesque eating challenge possible. FOX’s “Temptation Island” used to divide actual couples into two locales, filling them each with multiple persons willing to aid in their potential, adulterous stray.

If we accept each somehow as “reality,” does that mean it’s acceptable and honorable human behavior?

Even as a semi-frequent viewer, “Survivor” sometimes reminds me of those grade school kickball days, where there was that punch-in-the-gut feeling for the unpicked kid left standing on the sidelines. And “Big Brother” — geepers — I really don’t need to watch any person 24/7… and if I do, I’m ok if they have a little more clothes on.

My point this day is not to knock reality television. Truth told, my household tends to find many such series quite entertaining. My concern instead is where are these pockets and places where we confuse what’s on TV with reality? Because it’s not… TV’s not… TV’s not always good and true and right… much less even acceptable. My sense, therefore, is that reality TV is totally, completely, unfortunately, inaccurately named.

Last night, by the way, was the conclusion of ABC’s “The Bachelor.” This was their 21st season, of one man — or one woman — choosing between seemingly three zillion, desiring others. Which one would be their soulmate? Which one could he/she propose to? “Real love” is the pursuit… real love is the answer… real love.

Noted, veteran contestant Nick selected beautiful Vanessa to be the one… she wins!! And Nick proposed! They’re in love!!

I’m so happy! It was so sweet, so wonderful… no doubt they’ll make it! I love reality!

(… ok… so I hope it is…)

Respectfully…
AR

03/07/2017

civil discourse

As reported by The Hill:

“On Friday, Charles Murray, author of ‘Coming Apart’ and ‘The Bell Curve,’ was driven out of the McCullough Student Center at Middlebury College by a mob of angry students. He gave his talk via live stream from an ‘undisclosed location’ on campus. The live stream was chanted over, the fire alarm pulled to cut power, and at the end of the talk Charles Murray’s car was surrounded and Professor Allison Stager, his interlocutor, was assaulted, her hair pulled and her neck injured.

The protesters were successful. They drowned out freedom of speech, silenced those with whom they disagree, and attacked the defenders of democracy.

The words that carried the night were not Murray’s. And they were not the reasoned arguments of those who disagree with Murray. They were the chants of an angry mob who believed that disagreeing with Murray necessitated silencing both him and those who had asked him to speak: ‘Charles Murray go away,’ the students chanted, ‘Racist, Sexist, Anti-Gay.’”

One can agree or disagree with the message of Murray. What I found myself pondering was the sincerity of the protestors.

Even though their tactics were disrespectful, deplorable, and/or “de-something,” my sense is the protestors were sincere. They do not want Murray’s message to be spread… because they obviously believe it to be absolutely wrong, incorrect, maybe even evil.

Via the wisdom of an articulate friend, it reminds me of the abortion protests in previous decades. While the anti-abortion movement remains an active voice, prior to the enacted buffer zone laws in recent decades, previous protests sometimes included the destruction of both property and people.

Noting that their tactics that were sometimes disrespectful, deplorable, and/or “de-something,” I again ponder the sincerity of the protestors.

It seems in both examples, regardless of our agreement or disagreement with the protestors or the issue at hand — and admittedly, this is a tough thought to swallow… but… the protestors may be potentially, fully sincere. While their tactics sometimes fall somewhere short of democratic — and even in some cases, criminal — my sense is the protestors may still be sincere.

Granted, sincerity remains not a justification for the “de-something” means… at least not in a democracy.

As The Hill article questions, even with sincere, passionate protests, civil discourse is a central tenet of democracy, so how within our democracy do we actually engage in it? How do we resist the need to shut opposing opinion down, even when we don’t agree with the opinion — or we believe it to be, maybe even evil? Shutting down opposing opinion means disallowing civil discourse.

As the The Hill states: “Democracy is based upon the principle that citizens can think for themselves, choose for themselves, and vote their conscience. The tradition of free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly that we are so lucky to enjoy in America is meant to provide all Americans with the capacity to promote their views. These liberties help to protect us from tyranny no matter its form — whether the despotic rule of one or the vulgar justice of a mob…

Protesters who silence others by angry chants presume their fellow citizens not capable of choice — unfit for self-government.”

So two questions:

One, who are we to declare entire groups of others as “unfit”, thus shutting down their opinion?

And two — perhaps most significantly — do we really believe in democracy?

Respectfully…
AR

03/05/201703/05/2017

limiting my own perspective

I’m thinking I won’t be venturing out on too much of a rhetorical limb here when I suggest current political discussions have become fairly difficult — at least difficult in navigating through via an interactive, respectful, honoring-of-all kind of way.

I witness such weekly within a few online groups I belong to, in which politics and various socio-economic issues are intentionally discussed.

We often struggle with respectful dialogue. We often also disagree as to why.

This week, for example, a respected friend started a conversation with the following:

“It remains amazing to me how there are millions of people that love this country and want what’s best for it. Yet somehow they are willing to simply shrug off the exploding volume of evidence…”

As the thread continued with multiple participants, it seemed amply one-sided, affirming the perspective of the conversation’s initiator. The opinions stated were also pretty strong. Please note: there is zero problem with that; many of us have strong opinions — and it’s ok to share them. There were also no insults, disparaging treatment or direct attacks, nor anyone believing it was ok to add “you idiot” at the end of their individual expression.

At one point, however, my friend asked where I was…

“AR… Nothing to say in response to the original post? Do you agree? Disagree?”

My friend sincerely wondered what I thought.

And so I chimed in…

“Your original post gave me the impression that you were starting a discussion from a point of telling everyone else how wrong they are, if they don’t have your perspective. With the far majority of persons sharing such strong opinions, that is where many of these threads seem to start… I find many of these threads not interested in interactive, varied, balanced, and respectful dialogue. Hence, it’s easier not to engage than be immediately told why I’m wrong and why there’s no validity behind my perspective.”

He then asked a brilliant question…

“As long as your mindset is as you described, and therefore you choose to avoid comment or participation, how can anyone even know what your perspective is or tell you that you are wrong?”

He was right. How can anyone know what we think if we choose not to tell them?

I added…

“That is an excellent question. And you’re right. No one can tell what my perspective is if I choose not to share it. My impression — and it may be wrong — is that most of us don’t listen long enough nor intently enough to truly understand why another person has the perspective that they do. And that’s a problem on all sides of the aisle… in Washington… on Facebook… here…”

Again, my friend sincerely wondered how I thought and desired my participation. Yet the interaction made me question the impression each of us offers to unspoken others — and how inviting we are to all. It made me wonder…

Are we allowing and promoting environments which clearly welcome diverse opinion?

Are we giving the impression that we will or will not listen intently to others?

And…

Are we limiting our own growth and perspective, by only listening intently to the likeminded?

Respectfully… always…
AR

02/28/2017

state of the government ’17

For the last several years, the Intramuralist has published our annual “State of the Government” analysis in conjunction with the president’s annual State of the Union Address. Technically, tonight is not a State of the Union Address.

Pres. Trump is not bucking tradition; SOTU speeches are typically not offered until a sitting president has been in office for at least one year. It is then billed as a reflection of what they’ve done and a look forward at what’s next to do.   So while the President’s speech is instead being called an “address to a joint session” this evening, the Intramuralist would like to proceed with our annual State of the Government analysis…

As repeatedly opined for several years now, the state of our government is “too partisan, too influenced by money, too big, too financially imbalanced, and too far removed from the Constitution.” With a pulse, too, of our current culture, let’s again focus on one embedded angle in that analysis which has become increasingly pronounced. One may remember it’s the singular angle that Pres. Obama acknowledged in his final SOTU last January as a “regret” of his tenure. Obama shared, “The rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better.”

Exactly.

Too much rancor. Too much division. And too many fueling the division.

Part of the problem with the division seems to be that most of us like to blame anyone other than self. We are not very good at taking a tough look at ourselves, honestly reflecting upon how we individually contribute to the problem. Let’s be clear: the division is a problem… and we are far more comfortable pointing the finger elsewhere.

We point the finger at someone else’s…

Arrogance
Insults
Obstruction
Blindspots
Unwillingness to listen
And their lack of loving all people well.

We fail to look at our own…

Arrogance
Insults
Obstruction
Blindspots
Unwillingness to listen
And our lack of loving all people well.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… if we’re only loving and respecting the person who thinks like we do, then we are only loving and respecting some people well.

When we fail to love and respect all people, we are adding to the division.

In last year’s SOTG address, the Intramuralist shared our earnest, impractical desire to wave some unifying magic wand that could somehow end this growing, disturbing digression; that would no doubt be easiest. But perhaps the best place to start is not with any magic nor fictional tool or exercise that relies on something or someone else.

The best place to start is within each individual — putting away our pointing fingers and looking instead, inside of self.

How have I fueled the division?

Tough question. Tougher answer… albeit necessary.

Respectfully…
AR

02/19/2017

the great political divide

I did a search recently on “the great political divide.” (And let me say for a mere tangent moment, it’s amazing all the things one can search for on Google…) But I was curious. What would arise?

The results were many, with first headlines as follows…

“In America Today, What Is The Real Political Divide?”
“The New Political Divide”
And “Three Ways Marketers Can Bridge Today’s Great Political Divide”

The following comments from those articles were also insightful…

“A recent PEW Research study found that half of Democrats and half of Republicans actually fear the other party…”
“For years now a majority of Americans have realized that neither of the so-called major political parties represents them.”

And perhaps the one that struck me most this day, from Lindsey Lorel, a senior ad agency strategist in Advertising Age, written three weeks ago…

“… This past election has shown us that America is struggling to find that common ground. At its worst, we’ve witnessed acts of hate. And at its most civil, we’ve seen carefully constructed judgments posted to the echoing walls of Facebook users. The nation is more divided than ever, but as any brand strategist can tell you, for every tension there’s a counter tension. The counter to division is unity, and I believe that in the coming four years, we will see a surge in brands that tell stories of togetherness…”

Friends, please pause before going forward. I have no desire to focus on all the things another person and party is doing wrong; my desire is to focus on those stories of togetherness. But right now, there’s too much finger pointing… too much “look at him” — “look what he/she is doing wrong!”…

That’s it. There’s too much focus on someone else; there is lesser focus on self or what “I” may or may not be doing wrong.

Hence, the great divide isn’t between male and female, Democrats and Republicans, or Trump supporters and Never Trumpers…

Look instead at the plethora of good thinking, wise people, who used to know it wasn’t polite, ok, respectful, or discussion-building to scream, point fingers, and tell or think of everyone else in regard to how wrong they are — those who are falling prey to ending conversation and relationships if another doesn’t feel/think/believe like them. We are falling prey to those who wish to divide. We are choosing ideology and issue over all else. We are damaging relationship.

The great political divide, therefore, isn’t between all those listed above; the great divide is within ourselves. Will we or will we not succumb to the idea that ideology is more important than relationship?

Too many groups and social media gatherings are encouraging division. And too many of us are willingly joining in… “I just can’t talk to a liberal any more… I don’t want anything to do with anyone who supports Pres. Trump.”

Yes, the divide is within ourselves.

One of the articles listed above is from an October article published on WPR.org after first broadcast on Wisconsin Public Radio. Per their site, “Wisconsin Public Radio and WPR.org welcome civil, on-topic comments and opinions that advance the discussion from all perspectives of an issue.”

Civil.
On-topic comments and opinions.
That advance the discussion.
From all perspectives.

Are we valuing all of that?

Or are we falling prey to something lesser?

Yes, the great political divide is within ourselves.

Respectfully…
AR

02/09/2017

still makin’ me want to shout

Perhaps no one has noticed, but respectful dialogue seems to be increasingly nearing endangered species status. We seem to continuously take turns — albeit not on the Intramuralist (thank God!) — justifying why respect is no longer necessary.

Respectful dialogue is this blog’s stated priority. Regardless of society’s rhetorical digression, we will adhere to a conversation abundant with respect. We will not ignore truth; but we will also not sacrifice grace in the process.

So I wondered… what do others say about respect?

“So much drama off and online…
Be kind and respect others.
Follow the golden rule. Always.
Don’t step on others.
Chase your dreams the right way.
Keep your head up.
Then, everything else will take care of itself.”
― K.J. Kilton

“Respect begins with this attitude: ‘I acknowledge that you are a creature of extreme worth. God has endowed you with certain abilities and emotions. Therefore I respect you as a person. I will not desecrate your worth by making critical remarks about your intellect, your judgment or your logic. I will seek to understand you and grant you the freedom to think differently from the way I think and to experience emotions that I may not experience.’ Respect means that you give the other person the freedom to be an individual.” ― Gary Chapman

“Many people have the confused idea that peace will happen when all the colors in the palette are the same. The actuality of peace is accepting each color’s differences and seeing the beauty each possesses.” ― Alaric Hutchinson

There’s more…

“Keep an eye on your responses. Strong responses are about you more than them.” ― Auliq Ice

“Men are respectable only as they respect.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

“In the end, those who demean others only disrespect themselves.” ― D.B. Harrop

And a couple more…

“To be respected, be respecting.” ― Himanshu Arora

“Respect is love in action.” ― Bangambiki Habyarimana

“The only true disability is the inability to accept and respect differences.” ― Tanya Masse

I heard a gentleman on one of the cable news networks this week discuss the current societal digression. He spoke specifically of the protest-laden, rhetorically-attacking, political climate; his evaluation was not one calling out solely the left, right, or anything in between. He was discussing the entire sad state of affairs and the current, clear inability to accept any ideological differences. There exists an incredibly prevalent “I’m-right-and-there’s-no-way-I-could-be-wrong-or-off-in-any-capacity” attitude. In other words, there is a concerning, existent lack of humility.

I then found myself sitting still, pondering more, and attempting to digest his stated perspective that “instead of talking with each other, we have started shouting at each other.”

Just for a moment, visualize a person shouting… ranting, raving.. and loud…

Can any other voice be heard?

Does anyone else feel respected?

Great question… really great question…

Respectfully…
AR

02/05/2017

two questions

As we witness the current unenviable, rhetorical climate, weathered with unfortunate ample disgust, distaste, and disrespect for seemingly any perspective other than one’s own, two questions continue to come back to me.

Let me warn you now: I won’t — and actually can’t — answer my own two questions.

But as I ponder the current climate — and ponder even more so how to be a part of the solution as opposed to the problem — or somehow, even fueling this problem — I keep coming back to these two Q’s.

Granted, in order to state this accurately, I probably need the voices around me to be quieter for a mere moment, so I can actually think on my own and vocalize my 17¢… if people will let us.

I do realize the need to peacefully stand up for what we believe in. And peaceful protest does include some shouting. What does it not include? Briefly?

… insult… profanity… judgment…

I admire protest. I do not admire insult, profanity, and judgment.

Let me share an additional truth… Rightly or wrongly, when anyone’s shouting at me, I can’t hear them.

Why? Because I can’t always tell if they care what I think. They have to be silent long enough to engage in some semblance of active listening and exchange. Without active listening, there will be no meaningful conversation. Without meaningful conversation, there will be no respect. And without respect, there will be no solution.

Nonetheless, I keep coming back to these two Q’s…

Two questions that plague me…

Two questions that if we answered truthfully, maybe solution would come a little quicker…

Maybe solution would even come.

One: how do we not equate our own experience with everyone else’s reality?

And two: how can we assume that just because a person doesn’t react as I do, they don’t care?

We sure make a lot of assumptions. Isn’t that the zillion dollar challenge?

We assume that if we experience something, it must be true for everyone— or at least true for most. We react a certain way, and if someone reacts completely differently — or maybe not at all — we make assumptions about their character, integrity, and morality. We sure assume a lot (… makes me think of that ole clique as to “assume” only sadly makes an “ass” out of “u” and “me”).

I pray not do that.

Again, however, as forewarned at the onset of this post, I cannot answer my own two questions.

I do think, though, that the pondering of the above would be wise for us all…

… a little more silence… a little more grace for the different… and far fewer assumptions of those we do not understand.

Respectfully… always…
AR

02/02/2017

which is worse?

As is no secret, the Intramuralist is saddened and concerned regarding the current societal climate. So much disrespect is being justified. So much unwillingness to listen is being encouraged. So much shouting, tension, blindness, meanness, etc. So much… dare I say, too much.

I’ve been asked at least three times in recent weeks, “AR, aren’t you concerned?”

Of course I am. I would only add that I’ve been concerned long before last November.

This week, no less, something struck me. It was one of those moments from a book or a text where I felt immediate cause to pause, as the written words extended way beyond the pages encasing their current context. It was similar to how I frequently felt, fumbling through the truths buried in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini, and in When Character Was King by Peggy Noonan. There is truth in words — regardless of where they are found… in a book, a friend’s text, even on a postcard or placard…

The following words struck me this week, as I pondered the relevance to the frictional, non-fictional climate we now witness. Maybe this is relevant; maybe it’s not. But something within made me think… this whole idea that…

“… The idea that the whole human race is, in a sense, one thing — one huge organism, like a tree — must not be confused with the idea that individual differences do not matter or that real people, Tom and Nobby and Kate, are somehow less important than collective things like classes, races, and so forth.   Indeed the two ideas are opposites. Things which are parts of a single organism may be very different from one another; things which are not, may be very alike. Six pennies are quite separate and very alike; my nose and lungs are very different, but they are only alive at all because they are parts of my body and share its common life…

[Note: sharing common life…]

When you find yourself wanting to turn your children, or pupils, or even your neighbours, into people exactly like yourself, remember that God probably never meant them to be that. You and they are different organs, intended to do different things.   On the other hand, when you are tempted not to bother about someone else’s troubles because they are ‘no business of yours’, remember that though he is different from you, he is part of the same organism as you. If you forget that he belongs to the same organism as yourself, you will become an Individualist. If you forget that he is a different organ from you, if you want to suppress differences and make all people alike, you will become a Totalitarian…

I feel a strong desire to tell you — and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me — which of these two errors is the worse. That is the devil getting at us. He always sends errors into the world in pairs — pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course?

He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them.”

Friends, do we see this?

Can we see this?

“The devil is getting at us.” He is manipulating us into identifying solely one as “worse.”

We must remember we are part of the same “organism.” The goal is thus not to make all people think the same; the goal is also not to be so blinded that we think of the other as so much “worse” — evil, in fact. We need to find a way to talk and listen and learn from those who are different — not shut them down nor ignore their perspective.

For some reason, the wisdom of C.S. Lewis stood out to me this week. It also seemed profoundly relevant.

Respectfully…
AR