Define the terms.
I met the father of our church’s new worship leader last weekend, visiting from out of town. As we chatted for a few minutes, I mentioned that I write a blog. “What about?” he asked. “Issues of the day, and my faith, mostly,” I said.
“Define the terms,” he said.
I knew exactly what he meant.
It’s why I don’t often engage in your conversations, preferring to carefully avoid most of those terms.
Right vs. wrong.
This list is hardly exhaustive.
Every one of these words means different things to different people. That’s why Facebook memes are so inflammatory. You post something to make a point, and someone else interprets it entirely differently.
Even worse, most of you have no intention of discussing the issue, but only in preaching to your choir.
Case in point:
“Do you think Trump is a racist? Simple yes or no.”
Depends who you ask.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
No. No. No. No.
Never the twain shall meet in this online poll currently making the rounds. Neither side has any intention of discussing the issue.
“Intelligent discussion” is an oxymoron.
What is “love?”
That word has a myriad of definitions and meanings. Each of us defines it slightly differently, from our own perspective.
Indeed, we define all these hot-button words from our own perspective.
“Hate.” Is there really as much hate out there as we say there is?
What is hate, anyway?
Some of you define “hate” as any stance different than yours. I’m not exaggerating.
How do you expect to get along with anyone while throwing that word around? You’ve marginalized yourself.
Is “the economy” doing great? Depends who you ask.
If the stock market is your indicator, then yes. If finding a good job that pays the bills is your indicator, then no. There are lots of jobs out there, but many of them are outsourced or lower-paying service jobs, with fewer well-paying manufacturing and management careers than there used to be. We don’t like to talk about that.
“Inclusion.” Oooh, there’s a good word. Of course all should be welcome just about anywhere. But that’s not what inclusion means in today’s America. A certain sector of society has taken over that word, and politicized it.
Even inclusive people exclude those who don’t think like they do.
Let that sink in (I don’t like this phrase, but it fits here).
“Discrimination” is another often misunderstood word. I’m a member of AARP, and I get emails and Facebook posts almost daily talking about “age discrimination.”
When I say discrimination, that’s not what most of you think about, is it? But it’s very real. I switched jobs several times in my 50s, and I’m sure I experienced age discrimination to some degree while job searching.
Most of you put “discrimination” and “racism” in the same sentence. And you should. Because racism is very real as well.
But again, what is it? To those of you who have experienced racism: Do you have any interest at all in ending it? I’m serious. Because I’m a white male, I’m often guilty by association.
Many white males are racist. I am not defending them. But if you look down on me only because of the color of my skin, you’re racist too. By definition. I can change my attitude, but I cannot change the color of my skin.
Can we have an intelligent discussion about that?
Probably not, because there’s another issue at work here besides defining the terms.
I’ll explain this by quoting an article in the Aug. 20 edition of the (Elyria, Ohio) Chronicle-Telegram. The Avon Lake City Council was prepared to enact a law increasing the penalties for drivers passing a stopped school bus – until a resident, who’s also an attorney, objected, calling the local law unconstitutional. He claimed it was an attempt to supersede state law.
Well, OK. The attorney has a right to say that.
A city councilman didn’t think so. He said the local law had been reviewed by Avon Lake’s law director, then added, “I’m sure everyone is very familiar with his reputation,” referring to the attorney.
The attorney responded, “That’s a personal attack on me. I want him sanctioned. Discipline him, chair – or don’t you have the guts?”
Then this: (The attorney) spoke out several times at Monday’s meeting, talking over council members to the point police officers were called to keep the meeting civil. Following the meeting he was escorted out of Council chambers by police.
That’s the problem with civil discourse today. We can’t discuss issues without getting personal. Neither side can.
We must stick to the issues, and agree to disagree at times. There are ways to oppose a law without name-calling.
Perhaps we need to tone down the social rhetoric in public, and focus on issues of real government (federal, state and local):
- Paying for and improving public schools.
- Maintaining roads and bridges.
- Balancing the budget.
- Ensuring trash pickup.
- Improving water quality, both in our homes and in our lakes and rivers.
These issues get lost behind abortion, gay rights, women’s rights, gun rights and other rights.
Who decides what rights are right?
Are certain issues topics of right vs. wrong? Which ones?
We answer that question differently, so we aren’t seeing eye-to-eye on much these days.
Here’s a thought. Let parents teach their children whatever social values they choose. In school, all children matter – because all children belong there. Teach them reading, writing and arithmetic.
Can we start with that?
Can we set up an educational system where every child has a chance to succeed, no matter who he or she is or what their background is?
It can be done, if all of us start with that question.
Believe what? Everyone believes something. Everyone believes lots of things. We believe the sun will come up tomorrow, for example.
What do you believe in? Why?
Let’s talk. Not argue or curse, but actually talk.
Which requires two listening ears. By both of us.