A “friend” is a person attached to another by feelings of personal regard. A “heretic” is a person considered to be a dissenter or freethinker, apart from our status quo. Like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, we need more friends that are heretics.
These days, the old adage that you never begin a conversation with a political or religious topic in mixed company seems to be the norm. It is difficult to identify the heretics outside the confines of family, political allies and place of worship. Unless you are physically or intellectually gifted, why take the chance on a beat down. Besides, when it comes to politics or religion, there is only one truth and nothing will change it.
The art of politics, especially in our constitutional republic, is the art of compromise. You would think that political discussions might seek a common ground, or at least to broaden the acceptable status quo. Not in my lifetime. Apparently, from the slew of new history on our founding fathers, not in their lifetimes either. Progressive vs. libertarian, federalism vs. states rights are and were serious business, worth fighting over. But despite their strong disagreements, Adams and Jefferson died on the same day as friends, after a lifetime of fervent political debate. In today’s political environment, it is a rare event when two friends of differing political views, discuss the options, shake hands and consider a compromise solution.
When institutional politics becomes an all or nothing endeavor you get the French Revolution, Jacobin vs. Royalist with the guillotine the only winner. The great compromiser, Lafayette, had to flee for his life. Thank goodness that in America, the very institutions that are slow to react and make no one happy, the Administration, Congress, the Courts, reach compromises that we grudgingly accept, and keep us all from anarchy. Unfortunately, more of the compromises are happening by default rather than by design as the business of getting reelected trumps the business of governing.
This dichotomy between individual rancor and institutional compromise is not new, but seems to be more polarizing than ever. The battle lines are not drawn around one issue but rather seem to stand for a way of life. In spite of a plethora of unbiased information, it is the inability of individuals to even consider a contrarian position that is most troubling. Each side attracts its own and rejects the other. Unfortunately, our primary interaction with the heretics are the surrogates screaming at street rallies or the appointed commentators attacking the dissenters in the media.
Maybe the polite approach of “keeping the conversation to ourselves” is now dangerously outdated. Maybe we should invite a heretic to tea, in the Pakistani tradition of friendship, and seek some commonality in our great pluralistic society. Maybe we should listen, and rediscover what makes us all Americans, more alike than different.
For a change of pace and to dampen the rhetoric, I would love to watch a talking head from Fox News, research, prepare for and debate a counterpart from MSNBC. The catch would be that each side adopt the opposite political agenda. At the end of the debate the participants would discuss what they learned, where there is agreement and compromise solutions. Those of us who rant against the tea party should attend one of their meetings. Those of us who rant against the President should read his autobiography.
Religion has always been a more contentious subject in mixed company, than politics. Going to hell is the ultimate serious business. If one religion is the path to salvation, the others, a priori, must be wrong. If one religious group is not understood or harbors a few destructive deviants, we tend to demonize them all. The political battle lines often include religious differences, adding another brick to the wall.
On the subject of different faiths I have some personal experience. I was baptized as a Methodist and raised in the Quaker tradition. All my first cousins are Catholic and my first wife and only child are of the Jewish faith. My siblings practice a collage of eastern mysticism and my sister- in -law’s family are devout Hindus. My present wife is the daughter of an evangelical Christian pastor, raised in the Italian Christian Church.
I have not once faced the dilemma of choosing sides. In my journey through churches, temples and synagogues, from the plain Meeting House to the most ornate Hindu temple, it was never the differences that stood out, but rather the universal themes. It always impressed me that at the fundamental core of all religions, in matters of faith, gratitude, humility, tolerance and forgiveness, they were more alike than different.
When it comes to religious intolerance (not unlike politics) ignorance is the enemy. Attending the service of another faith should be the norm rather than the exception in our modern world. I am a strong advocate of education in comparative religion. If such offerings became more available at schools, library discussions and even houses of worship, disinformation would disappear and the innate beauty of all religions would at least permit understanding, if not acceptance. A cup of tea with a member of another faith is a start. Those of us who rant against Christianity or Islam should actually read the Bible or the Koran.
In the end we should all be mindful of a quote from Thomas Jefferson: “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”
We need friends who disagree with us on matters of church and state, as much as friends who parrot our beliefs. We need to talk about the uncomfortable issues and listen to the contra positions. My father’s best friend was of a different faith and political party. They would often break out refreshment (never three cups of tea) and argue for hours over the topics of the day. Sometimes he would admit to me (never to his friend) that his opinion had changed. At the very least, like Adams and Jefferson, they would shake hands and agree to disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment