In science fiction literature a favorite topic is "first contact" where the question is "What do we do when we first come in contact with an alien race?" It's an interesting question. Do you annihilate the alien before they have the option of annihilating you? Do you assume they are friendly or hostile? Do you give them directions back to your home planet or take steps to make sure they don't know where you came from? If you need to shoot at them, when should the shooting start? And, of course, your prejudices will determine your answer. If you believe that all creatures are evil at their core then you'll need to kill these before they do anything. If you believe that all creatures are good by nature then you'll feel free to engage in friendly and open dialog. If you think that all creatures are liars, then you'll need to be cautious, walking a tight line between "destroy" and "friendly and open dialog." And, of course, trying to establish "dialog" with an alien race to even determine what the situation is will be difficult. So ... when should the shooting start?
Sure, a momentary mental diversion for sci-fi fans, but what does that have to do with everyone else? It seems to me that the question comes up in life much more often than we realize. Take, for instance, those "fighting words," "I'm a Calvinist." For the anti-Calvinist, the approach is often shoot first and ask questions later. Open fire on all the things you're quite sure this Calvinist believes before ever finding out what this Calvinist believes. And it's not just the anti-Calvinist. Often "I disagree with Calvinism" is grounds for the Calvinist to unleash an artillery barrage on the beliefs perceived to be held by the one who disagrees with Calvinism. What do they actually believe? We're never quite sure because we've already closed negotiations and opened fire.
Religion is a common arena for this kind of "when should the shooting start?", but it's not only in religion. Mention "Intelligent Design" in a room full of Evolutionists and you'll likely be set upon without mercy. You may hold that ID shouldn't be part of science and you may hold that Evolution is true, but if you haven't attacked ID in your opening statement, you'll likely be perceived as a threat rather than a person with which to converse. Shoot first, ask questions later. But that, I suppose, is still in the arena of religion. It's just as predominant in the area of politics. Shout, "Conservative!" in a room full of Liberals (sorry, "Progressives") and you're going to be lucky to get out with your eardrums intact. You needn't actually express an opinion; you just need to raise the concept. And don't think that Liberals (oh, yeah, "Progressives") are the only ones who do it. Someone could mention "raise taxes" and if they're foolish enough to think it out loud in a room full of Conservatives, they'll wish they hadn't. What do they actually believe about "raising taxes"? We may never know. They're shouted out of the room.
Now, I don't have it in me to stop all of you from doing this. I appear to have misplaced my magic wand. I didn't win the "Emperor of the World" election. I don't get to make the rules. I can, however, try to avoid it myself. I can make a conscious choice to treat individuals like, oh, I don't know, individuals. It is my suspicion that no two people are alike. I know ... far-fetched ... but that's what I think. So it is unlikely that no two people think completely alike. So assuming an "Evolutionist" is hostile to Christianity before they exhibit such hostility won't help me at all in the conversation. Assuming that people who are of a different ethnic origin than my own are hostile to me won't assist me in making friends with them. And, frankly, shooting first and asking questions later is a really poor way of conversing with people. So I will try really hard to avoid assuming that the people with whom I come in contact are of a certain mindset before they convince me otherwise. I can only hope that they will provide me the same courtesy. And I can only hope that you, too, might find this approach more helpful than the alternative.
1 comment:
Shout, "Conservative!" in a room full of Liberals (sorry, "Progressives") and you're going to be lucky to get out with your eardrums intact.
That's funny because it reminds me of when my sister blurted out that I was a new Republican during a Christmas gathering many years ago. Oh, my, did the bombs burst in air! My parents had been divorced 20 years at that point but they both jumped on me with a verbal barrage of every ill thought they had about Republicans. In their eyes I had embraced every bad Republican idea since the Ice Age melted. I just shrugged, watched my back for turkey forks, and kept saying, "...but I like babies, that's all!"
Of course, that's not a real dialog. I think one of the most common things is that one side refuses to answer the claims of the other but respond to some other claims they feel comfortable berating. In that debate over ID at Dagoods' site, the idea that theological statements are not scientific, either for theo or against, was only accepted in the case of ID. If they refuse to accept the idea that saying there is no God is also "unscientific" what can you do?
Post a Comment