The
pending arrival of the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage is crashing head-on into
the controversy over the Confederate flag. I struggle with the aftermath of
both these issues, no matter who wins, because the problem with “winning” is that the
“other side” has to lose.
However,
this piece is about neither of those issues, at least not directly, although I unequivocally support
marriage equality. I also totally reject arguments that the stars and bars (I refuse to
promote its status with capital letters) – and, by extension, the whole Civil
War – is really about celebrating Southern heritage. I call B.S. and refer you
to the linked article. (http://theweek.com/articles/562004/surprisingly-uncomplicated-racist-history-confederate-flag from The Week)
Some conservatives,
and especially conservative Christians, are claiming that the so-called tolerant
liberals who support marriage equality are intolerant of their faith-based
opposition to the same, that not only their beliefs but they themselves are being
discounted and, in their view, even discriminated against.
In the same way, I consider
myself to be a tolerant person, but I confess that I am tempted to respond to
what I perceive to be the intolerance of others with intolerance of my own. A
shop owner who refuses services, or offers only surly service, to a person
because of sexual orientation is not someone who will earn my patronage or
respect. Neither do I have any use for racists, no matter how they try to
camouflage their bigotry with disingenuous or irrelevant arguments.
However,
I try to remind myself that basically good, decent people can be unenlightened,
misinformed, ignorant, or just plain (have you noticed that plain and Palin are
anagrams?) wrong. I also recognize that those who disagree with my positions
might feel the same way about me. I also try to remind myself about Rule
#24: agreeing or disagreeing with me doesn’t make you right — or wrong.*
The key
to tolerance is respect for those with whom you disagree, (even if you believe that THEY are failing to respect you in turn) not necessarily their opinions or their arguments,
but them as people, entitled to their own misguided notions (as I am to mine,
as you might see it). In the same way that I assume that
any disagreements in philosophy or point of view are not
personal, I assume that any contrary political positions are not aimed at me,
but my positions.
What
that does, I hope, is allow a
return to civility, a willingness to accept that the ideas of others are
worthy of consideration, because the holders of those opinions are worthy of
respect as human beings, to accept that there is no single answer, no
single solution. For that to truly happen, however, will require that all
of us, no matter our position on the political spectrum or stance on an
issue, must forgo anger at those with whom we disagree. Sadly, we have too
often deteriorated from “I believe I’m right” to “I’m morally superior and
you’re not only stupid but evil.” We, and our opinions, all come from different
places, places that color our perceptions of both events and each other. We must be willing to at least listen to those who think differently and not confine ourselves to our personal echo chamber.
Nothing
in this (increasingly) complex world is so simple that there is no room for
debate, disagreement, or alternative thinking. You can claim the moral high
ground, but if you look across the valley you’ll see at least one other camp on
another mountain. I suggest that if both can’t be right it is equally likely
that neither is, at least not completely. I have written about this before, but
before scorching the earth of someone with whom you disagree, pose the
question, “What
if I’m
wrong?”
Bottom
line: we are all entitled to our thoughts and opinions, no matter how
misguided, but we also all have a responsibility to play nicely with the others
who inhabit our sandbox. It doesn’t cost extra, after all.
Yes, I know my self-imposed hiatus did not last long. Maybe I should have threatened to quit writing sooner!