I have never been a blogger. Then one year in my Spanish Literature
class in college, class members were required to create a blog in order to
write about principles that were discussed in class. I named my blog “Emilee’s
Musings”, thinking that one day I would use this blog to discuss other things.
The class ended, and I stopped blogging.
Four years later, I find myself itching to write about
different topics, many of which are controversial religious and political
topics. I have lost sleep thinking about such topics.
I once heard a beloved aunt of mine say of our family
conversations, “Politics and religion, we don’t talk about that.”
Maybe it is because we value this feeling of mutual respect
and love in the family that we don’t want to go there, because too often the
feelings that come with talking about politics of religion are opposite those
of love and mutual respect.
Maybe it is because we are afraid of being wrong, afraid of
coming out on the losing end of the discussion.
Maybe it is because we are afraid of being labeled as old-fashioned,
conservative, liberal, racist, tree-hugging, or bigoted.
Maybe it is because we assume that we already know and
understand another person’s position.
You could say there is too much talk about politics. At
times, our social media feeds are flooded with it. Often such talk carries the
message, “anyone who disagrees with me is a bad person.”
However, I say, it doesn’t have to be this way, and it
shouldn’t be this way.
We need to talk about politics and religion. There are
important issues to discuss and to understand from different perspectives. Of
course, not all ways of discussing politics and religion are equally effective
or beneficial. We need to do it in the right way: humbly and with the goal of understanding
each other.
Understanding the views of those who disagree with us is
important to solidify our own views. In an address titled “the Dying Art of
Disagreement,” the writer Stephen Brett spoke of his education at a university
where he studied many different philosophers and many different lines of
thought. He writes,
“The University of Chicago showed us something else: that every great idea is really just a spectacular disagreement with some other great idea.
"Socrates quarrels with
Homer. Aristotle quarrels with Plato. Locke quarrels with Hobbes and Rousseau
quarrels with them both. Nietzsche quarrels with everyone. Wittgenstein
quarrels with himself.
"These quarrels are never
personal. Nor are they particularly political, at least in the ordinary sense
of politics. Sometimes they take place over the distance of decades, even
centuries.
Most importantly, they
are never based on a misunderstanding. On the contrary, the disagreements arise
from perfect comprehension; from having chewed over the ideas of
your intellectual opponent so thoroughly that you can properly spit them out.
"In other words, to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch
closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the
intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate
empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the
possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say.” You can read Stephen Brett’s entire address, which I highly
recommend, here.
So, we can start conversations with individuals with the sole
purpose of trying to understand their point of view, especially those with whom
we disagree. This is not easy; it requires concentration to actively listen and
to ask good questions. It requires open eyes, open ears, open hearts and open
minds. But chances are, after you have heard the other person out, he will be
interested in what you have to say. You can learn more about how to have productive political discussions by listening to this podcast titled "Dialogue and Exchange" from NPR Ted Radio Hour.
There are times in which we feel like we must say something,
that we must take a stand. As one of the leaders of my Church, President Dieter
F. Uchtdorf, said in this talk, “Of course, we must always stand for what is right,
and there are times when we must raise our voices for that cause. However, when
we do so with anger or hate in our hearts—when we lash out at others to hurt,
shame, or silence them—chances are we are not doing so in righteousness.”
Rather,
we should speak humbly and respectfully. None of us has all the facts, knows
all the circumstances, or knows all the answers (not even Google). We can
welcome respectful discussion. It is okay if others disagree with us.
I
can’t say that I am good at this, but I want to be. The times that I have had a
respectful political or religious discussion with someone with whom I disagree,
I have gone away from the conversation feeling a little more sympathetic to
someone else’s views. I have gone from thinking, “how could anyone think
that?!” to “I can see your point.” I have learned valuable information that I
did not know before. I may not be convinced about their standpoint, but I feel
less judgmental and condemning. I see this person no longer as a label, but as
a person.
I
think most people would agree that we could use less judging, condemning,
divisiveness, and hate. Who knows – maybe if we talked a little more in the
right way, if we listened more, there would be more understanding, empathy and
love. Maybe we can come to better solutions. That is my hope.
