What if agreement isn't the goal?

[Celeste Chalfonte]

From an e-mail I received from Alexandra Hudson, founder of Civic Renaissance & author of The Soul of Civility:

At a recent conference with thoughtful, passionate people devoted to cooling our overheated public discourse, I noticed something that often troubles me at such gatherings. Beneath the civility and good intentions ran a recurring assumption: that those who disagree with us are simply ill-informed, and our task is to educate them into enlightenment.

[Bold mine.]

Here are three reasons why civility, not consensus, should be our aim:

1. Disagreement is a feature, not a bug, of a free society. Where people are free to think, speak, and live according to conscience, they will reach different conclusions. A society without disagreement is not united—it is coerced, silent, or stagnant.
2. Di sagreement sharpens truth. Encountering opposing views with civility tests our own ideas. Weak arguments fall away; strong ones are refined. Progress—in science, politics, and art—emerges from the friction of competing visions.
3. Disagreement fosters resilience and trust. When relationships and institutions withstand differences, we gain confidence in the strength of our civic fabric. We stop treating every clash as a crisis and start seeing it as normal, even healthy, public life.

This is a really important discussion. An example in our own midst is the issue of faith. Most of you believe in God. I don't. I think Frostbit believes in something, but not God as most Christians conceive of it. Does that make it us against the rest of you? Generally, no. Your belief, qua belief, does me no harm. My unbelief does you no harm. Our actions on our beliefs (or lack thereof) are what matters. I would be as offended as any believer at an attempt by the government to suppress or punish the expression or practice of religion. I hope and trust that you would be equally offended if the government tried to compel me to believe or pretend to.

That doesn't mean we can't argue vigorously about what constitutes an impermissible "establishment" or infringement of religion, or by what means those are to be avoided. We don't have to agree on any of it - including what the founders meant to prohibit - to be civil about it.

Sometimes, of course, the outcome of discussion, debate, and/or argument will be that one person or the other (or both, to some degree) will change their position, as happened when primarily Scott and I debated the intent of the 2nd Amendment. But it's not the only or even always the most desirable outcome.

[Newman]

A worthwhile discussion; just initial thoughts here.

If there is a God, and yes I think there is, God will withstand any honest examination, including skeptical arguments, perhaps the most valuable of all.

I think it's true that honest debate improves one's own thinking. It helps you be scrupulous about sources and inferences, for example.
It allows for development, and possible change.

The opposite of honest debate is what I've long derided as "bobble-head" discussions. Frankly the bobble-head variety is easier, re-assuring as comfort food, and unfortunately feeds an emotional equilibrium that really, really does not like to be challenged. It changes over time only by exhaustion or infuriation; its premises are unchallenged. (It's an equal opportunity sedative, of course.)

Infuriation is powerful and dangerous, however. Political road rage, more or less.

We've had bloody scrapes with such rage over the years, and well short of outright war. They say war is a failure of diplomacy. I don't know, but it's at least a violent extension of diplomacy.

Yet I don't think civility per se can be an objective. If preserving civility becomes the goal you run smack into Churchill's metaphor about feeding the alligators. The T-shirt slogan "War is never the answer" begs the rejoinder, "Surrender is always an option," but the outcome is not likely to be entirely civil.

Civility is a means to an end, and in politics it must be backed up with force, from the local constabulary to nuclear weapons, because that's the way the world is, sadly. Trump negotiates with Putin, but he recently showed Putin a couple of our nuclear subs as a reminder of the force that backs up our civility. "Don't" doesn't do it.

[Newman]

I have a minor dispute with this second point,

1. Disagreement sharpens truth. Encountering opposing views with civility tests our own ideas. Weak arguments fall away; strong ones are refined. Progress—in science, politics, and art—emerges from the friction of competing visions.

I'd rather say Disagreement sharpens resolution. "Truth" is malleable, not just cross-culturally but in domestic sausage-making. Seizing on Truth as one's standard emboldens extremists, and makes resolution difficult, and progress, meaning the flourishing of a prosperous and free* society, impossible.

*There cannot be debate, civil or otherwise, without freedom.

[scott]

From an e-mail I received from Alexandra Hudson, founder of Civic Renaissance & author of The Soul of Civility:

[Bold mine.]




This is a really important discussion. An example in our own midst is the issue of faith. Most of you believe in God. I don't. I think Frostbit believes in something, but not God as most Christians conceive of it. Does that make it us against the rest of you? Generally, no. Your belief, qua belief, does me no harm. My unbelief does you no harm. Our actions on our beliefs (or lack thereof) are what matters. I would be as offended as any believer at an attempt by the government to suppress or punish the expression or practice of religion. I hope and trust that you would be equally offended if the government tried to compel me to believe or pretend to.

That doesn't mean we can't argue vigorously about what constitutes an impermissible "establishment" or infringement of religion, or by what means those are to be avoided. We don't have to agree on any of it - including what the founders meant to prohibit - to be civil about it.

Sometimes, of course, the outcome of discussion, debate, and/or argument will be that one person or the other (or both, to some degree) will change their position, as happened when primarily Scott and I debated the intent of the 2nd Amendment. But it's not the only or even always the most desirable outcome.

Thanks for the kind words, and I agree.

Regarding your faith or lack thereof in a divine creator, for many it is a matter of duty to at least try to introduce the non-believers to God. I believe I've done that by having civil conversations with you about what I believe, and then living such a way as to provide a good example, and not insisting on my way or the highway. You don't need faith for my faith to affect your life, I can pray for you (and HRH) any time, and have.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Thanks for the kind words, and I agree.

Regarding your faith or lack thereof in a divine creator, for many it is a matter of duty to at least try to introduce the non-believers to God. I believe I've done that by having civil conversations with you about what I believe, and then living such a way as to provide a good example, and not insisting on my way or the highway. You don't need faith for my faith to affect your life, I can pray for you (and HRH) any time, and have.

I don't think you ever knew Mike who worked for the power company, whom Nova, Frostbit and I knew on the old St Petersburg Times bulletin board. I believe I've mentioned him here, at least in passing.

Mike was a devout, albeit fairly uneducated, Christian. Member of one of those TV megachurches, very fundamentalist. His authority for everything he believed about Christianity was his Bible study leader at church. Not saying that a person can't productively study the Bible on their own, but I looked the fellow up, and he had a junior college degree in early childhood education and no theological training at all. Nova, with his Catholic education and lively interest in both philosophy and comparative religion, used to upset poor Mike quite regularly; I mostly stuck to debating him on politics. In both areas, there was no gray area for Mike. If "Pastor Danny" told him that God was going to send all the homosexuals, atheists, non-Christians and "idolaters" (read: Catholics") to Hell, that was all there was to it.

The thing is, Mike was a really sweet, decent person. He would get very riled up in some of the more contentious threads, and very frustrated that many of us didn't accept his "absolute truth." But it also broke his heart that he couldn't make me see the error of my ways, because he equally firmy believed that 1) I was a really good mother to HRH and 2) I was going to Hell and probably taking her with me, unless someone else led her to Jesus. Poor dear, it really worried him, and while I appreciated his concern, I couldn't help him with it. We really liked each other, though.

As for a duty to introduce non-believers to (their concept of) God, the assumption that we have never been introduced to the concept is as patronizing as the assumption of some atheists that believers are all ignorant, superstitious yahoos. I'm not offended to be invited to someone's church or Bible study, but it does tick me off to be hounded after politely declining. Sometimes the best we can achieve is to agree to disagree, and that's OK. You want to pray for me? Have at it; just don't harangue me to listen or join in (and you don't).

[phillygirl]

I don't think you ever knew Mike who worked for the power company, whom Nova, Frostbit and I knew on the old St Petersburg Times bulletin board. I believe I've mentioned him here, at least in passing.

Mike was a devout, albeit fairly uneducated, Christian. Member of one of those TV megachurches, very fundamentalist. His authority for everything he believed about Christianity was his Bible study leader at church. Not saying that a person can't productively study the Bible on their own, but I looked the fellow up, and he had a junior college degree in early childhood education and no theological training at all. Nova, with his Catholic education and lively interest in both philosophy and comparative religion, used to upset poor Mike quite regularly; I mostly stuck to debating him on politics. In both areas, there was no gray area for Mike. If "Pastor Danny" told him that God was going to send all the homosexuals, atheists, non-Christians and "idolaters" (read: Catholics") to Hell, that was all there was to it.

The thing is, Mike was a really sweet, decent person. He would get very riled up in some of the more contentious threads, and very frustrated that many of us didn't accept his "absolute truth." But it also broke his heart that he couldn't make me see the error of my ways, because he equally firmy believed that 1) I was a really good mother to HRH and 2) I was going to Hell and probably taking her with me, unless someone else led her to Jesus. Poor dear, it really worried him, and while I appreciated his concern, I couldn't help him with it. We really liked each other, though.

As for a duty to introduce non-believers to (their concept of) God, the assumption that we have never been introduced to the concept is as patronizing as the assumption of some atheists that believers are all ignorant, superstitious yahoos. I'm not offended to be invited to someone's church or Bible study, but it does tick me off to be hounded after politely declining. Sometimes the best we can achieve is to agree to disagree, and that's OK. You want to pray for me? Have at it; just don't harangue me to listen or join in (and you don't).

I do wonder about the sin of introducing an actual ignorant pagan to Christ, only to have them now have actual fear of hell. Before their ignorance was somewhat of a defense to going to hell for some believers. Now they've gone and done it!

[Newman]

But it also broke his heart that he couldn't make me see the error of my ways, because he equally firmly believed that 1) I was a really good mother to HRH and 2) I was going to Hell and probably taking her with me, unless someone else led her to Jesus. Poor dear, it really worried him, and while I appreciated his concern, I couldn't help him with it. We really liked each other, though.

As for a duty to introduce non-believers to (their concept of) God, the assumption that we have never been introduced to the concept is as patronizing as the assumption of some atheists that believers are all ignorant, superstitious yahoos. I'm not offended to be invited to someone's church or Bible study, but it does tick me off to be hounded after politely declining. Sometimes the best we can achieve is to agree to disagree, and that's OK. You want to pray for me? Have at it; just don't harangue me to listen or join in (and you don't).

Currently I attend a First Baptist Church which is conflicted on the same general problem. It's a fast-growing church (a new building is opening this fall)—everything in Florida is "fast-growing" you'd think, but not all churches are. I play in the band for one service, and there are some things important to me that led me to this church and to leave the ELCA Lutheran church that had been my adult church for decades.

This church houses many people who have beliefs I can't accept. My wife refuses to attend, and it's entirely because of what my wife thinks is their benighted attitude about gay people. At the last social my wife attended a very devout woman told her she left the United Methodist Church "when they started letting all the gays in." (Our daughter is gay, you may recall.) This woman was Korean with strongly accented English, so it took a bit for my wife to understand what she was hearing.

That Korean woman does not speak for the FBC; I've never heard the pastor or other pastors here say such a thing, and I'll stone guarantee you her word choice was poor, but she herself understands the last thing Christ would do is keep "sinners" out of church.

The work-around churches use is to "hate the sin, not the sinner," but I find it hypocritical, revealed in the following parallel application: These churches also subscribe to Jesus' statement regarding marriage and divorce, "What God has joined together let no man separate." Remarriage is adultery.

And yet I'll bet less than half the congregation remains in their first and only marriage. We just confess our sinfulness, give thanks for God's forgiveness and move along. To me the parallel is unmistakable and insuperable. The words of my Korean friend are not supported by anything Christ said.

I'll also bet you many in this FBC congregation have gay family members, or are themselves gay.

The Baptists believe that only accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior opens the Pearly Gates. The Pastor has said, for example, that he hopes one day his Jewish friends accept Christ, but meanwhile he doesn't separate himself (or our church) from them, evangelize to them so as to make a boor of himself, or fail to support ideas important to them, particularly Israel.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I do wonder about the sin of introducing an actual ignorant pagan to Christ, only to have them now have actual fear of hell. Before their ignorance was somewhat of a defense to going to hell for some believers. Now they've gone and done it!

Thanks to the confluence of internet, air travel and evangelism, I'm not sure there are any remaining pagans who aren't at least generally aware of the basic idea of Christianity. But that was only a for-instance. There are many things we can civilly agree to disagree on and still function as a society. Except whether it's acceptable to put mayonnaise on a submarine sandwich. That's an abomination.

[80zephyr]

I do wonder about the sin of introducing an actual ignorant pagan to Christ, only to have them now have actual fear of hell. Before their ignorance was somewhat of a defense to going to hell for some believers. Now they've gone and done it!

Does a Christian feel an obligation to introduce a pagan to Jesus? From the net: The verse reads, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'". This verse is a foundational belief in Christianity, asserting that salvation and access to God (the Father) are attainable solely through Jesus Christ.

Mark

[80zephyr]

Currently I attend a First Baptist Church which is conflicted on the same general problem. It's a fast-growing church (a new building is opening this fall)—everything in Florida is "fast-growing" you'd think, but not all churches are. I play in the band for one service, and there are some things important to me that led me to this church and to leave the ELCA Lutheran church that had been my adult church for decades.

This church houses many people who have beliefs I can't accept. My wife refuses to attend, and it's entirely because of what my wife thinks is their benighted attitude about gay people. At the last social my wife attended a very devout woman told her she left the United Methodist Church "when they started letting all the gays in." (Our daughter is gay, you may recall.) This woman was Korean with strongly accented English, so it took a bit for my wife to understand what she was hearing.

That Korean woman does not speak for the FBC; I've never heard the pastor or other pastors here say such a thing, and I'll stone guarantee you her word choice was poor, but she herself understands the last thing Christ would do is keep "sinners" out of church.

The work-around churches use is to "hate the sin, not the sinner," but I find it hypocritical, revealed in the following parallel application: These churches also subscribe to Jesus' statement regarding marriage and divorce, "What God has joined together let no man separate." Remarriage is adultery.

And yet I'll bet less than half the congregation remains in their first and only marriage. We just confess our sinfulness, give thanks for God's forgiveness and move along. To me the parallel is unmistakable and insuperable. The words of my Korean friend are not supported by anything Christ said.

I'll also bet you many in this FBC congregation have gay family members, or are themselves gay.

The Baptists believe that only accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior opens the Pearly Gates. The Pastor has said, for example, that he hopes one day his Jewish friends accept Christ, but meanwhile he doesn't separate himself (or our church) from them, evangelize to them so as to make a boor of himself, or fail to support ideas important to them, particularly Israel.

In the Catholic faith, a remarried divorced person was considered to be living in sin and could not receive communion. Not sure if that is still the way it is.

Mark

[Newman]

Does a Christian feel an obligation to introduce a pagan to Jesus? From the net: The verse reads, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'". This verse is a foundational belief in Christianity, asserting that salvation and access to God (the Father) are attainable solely through Jesus Christ.

Mark

The reason I am mystified by this is simply my own difficulty understanding the "Triune God." Jesus is God, "made manifest." Is Jesus different than the God who walked with Adam?

Do Christians need an intermediary? Protestants don't pray to Saints of to Jesus' mother.

Sometimes I think addressing Jesus is simply less austere than addressing God, and I've heard that idea preached, and examined in the one Bible study class I really appreciated. I was told, for example, that the word Jesus used for "Our Father...." was really the familiar at the time, comparable to "Dad." That rattles me a bit, but maybe so.

[Newman]

Does a Christian feel an obligation to introduce a pagan to Jesus? From the net: The verse reads, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'". This verse is a foundational belief in Christianity, asserting that salvation and access to God (the Father) are attainable solely through Jesus Christ.

Mark

I made the case to our Baptist pastor recently that the "first Christian" was the guy being crucified next to Jesus (this was a response to the nomination of a later candidate). This was the "thief" who a) acknowledged his guilt, b) recognized Christ, and c) asked for salvation ("Remember me when you come into your kingdom"). And Jesus accepted ("...you will be with me this day in heaven").

Jesus didn't say, "Well, it's a shame you're not baptized."

The Baptists (ironically) acknowledge that even baptism isn't necessary for redemption, only the a, b, c above per the verse you cite. I think virtually all the tenets and rituals we observe merely serve to buttress our own focus. Maintaining that focus, the "pursuit of happiness," as the Founders meant it, isn't easy and needs all the buttressing it can get, including, in my opinion, regular church attendance.

That's why I'm not bothered by most denominational differences in ritual or theological details. I think our practice of religion is for our and society's benefit.

Yet it's a human institution and always subject to human weakness. Here I'm thinking of the urge to wield power, and elevate selected scripture to enforce as law. You will go to hell if you don't tithe, attend "religiously," or whatever. And sometimes through the years churches have declaimed hate-the-jews, slaves-be-happy or hate-the-gays as Holy Writ.

[phillygirl]

Does a Christian feel an obligation to introduce a pagan to Jesus? From the net: The verse reads, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'". This verse is a foundational belief in Christianity, asserting that salvation and access to God (the Father) are attainable solely through Jesus Christ.

Mark

I think some Christians do feel an obligation to introduce Christ to those that haven't previously known of Him. Hence, the Missionaries.

[phillygirl]

From an e-mail I received from Alexandra Hudson, founder of Civic Renaissance & author of The Soul of Civility:

[Bold mine.]




This is a really important discussion. An example in our own midst is the issue of faith. Most of you believe in God. I don't. I think Frostbit believes in something, but not God as most Christians conceive of it. Does that make it us against the rest of you? Generally, no. Your belief, qua belief, does me no harm. My unbelief does you no harm. Our actions on our beliefs (or lack thereof) are what matters. I would be as offended as any believer at an attempt by the government to suppress or punish the expression or practice of religion. I hope and trust that you would be equally offended if the government tried to compel me to believe or pretend to.

That doesn't mean we can't argue vigorously about what constitutes an impermissible "establishment" or infringement of religion, or by what means those are to be avoided. We don't have to agree on any of it - including what the founders meant to prohibit - to be civil about it.

Sometimes, of course, the outcome of discussion, debate, and/or argument will be that one person or the other (or both, to some degree) will change their position, as happened when primarily Scott and I debated the intent of the 2nd Amendment. But it's not the only or even always the most desirable outcome.

I started to respond to this earlier, but got distracted..squirrel.

I am cheating on you all on another board (!). It is very heavily liberal (as in probably 90/10) while pretending to be "neutral". In any event, despite its many rules to feign civility, there is no rule about showing restraint regarding religious beliefs, as we have here. It is a shame, as nearly every thread that someone starts that really is about looking more deeply at a particular religious tenet (primarily Christian, from what I can see) usually has within 3 posts an atheist coming in and proclaiming something about fairy tales, sky gods, etc. I have thus far refrained from asking why they feel the need to do that every time. I barely understand evangelical Christians (no shade, but I'm Catholic, so it's just a very different experience than what I am used to) but I really don't understand evangelical Atheists.

I've said it before, I appreciate your perspective on it all. You don't try to "yuck my yum" when it comes to religion, and for the most part, I don't think anyone here has tried to lead you to our version of Salvation. Live and let Live (or Die, if you're a Wings fan) is a much nicer way to converse.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I started to respond to this earlier, but got distracted..squirrel.

I am cheating on you all on another board (!). It is very heavily liberal (as in probably 90/10) while pretending to be "neutral". In any event, despite its many rules to feign civility, there is no rule about showing restraint regarding religious beliefs, as we have here. It is a shame, as nearly every thread that someone starts that really is about looking more deeply at a particular religious tenet (primarily Christian, from what I can see) usually has within 3 posts an atheist coming in and proclaiming something about fairy tales, sky gods, etc. I have thus far refrained from asking why they feel the need to do that every time. I barely understand evangelical Christians (no shade, but I'm Catholic, so it's just a very different experience than what I am used to) but I really don't understand evangelical Atheists.

I've said it before, I appreciate your perspective on it all. You don't try to "yuck my yum" when it comes to religion, and for the most part, I don't think anyone here has tried to lead you to our version of Salvation. Live and let Live (or Die, if you're a Wings fan) is a much nicer way to converse.

Oh, please invite me there! As a gay lefty 2A advocate who loves church music and can't stand loudmouth aggressive atheists, I bet I get kicked off in a record time. Don't you miss Nova in places like that?