• Home
  • Freedom
  • Historical Ramble

Steve's Free

Chains really didn't work for me.

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Landing on Another World
Fish Out of Water »

Pardon, but your Worldview is Showing

August 8, 2012 by Steve Woodruff

We’re in the season when social media gets hot and heavy with opinions – sometimes blisteringly delivered – from people who passionately advocate for their political points of view.

Or social points of view. Or religious points of view. Pull it all together, and it’s your worldview.

I’ve always considered it a fallacy to embrace the old saw, “discuss anything but religion and politics,” because this implies a very truncated and unrealistic view of human nature.

We all have a worldview. And, it’s showing.

Some believe President Obama is something akin to a savior; others see him as the devil incarnate. Sprinkle in a wide range of viewpoints in between. Same person being discussed – but we each see through our own set of glasses. Same thing happened with Presidents Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and on and on.

I believe that everything having to do with the lives of Hollywood types is utterly valueless. Others spend hours per week devouring magazines and TV shows on the subject. We have very different worldviews about where value is found. I’ll tell you right now that I don’t get it, and that I think it’s a waste of time – but if I then write you off as a sub-human being, I’ve crossed a line of disrespect. Even if I firmly believe you’re “wrong” and can argue a really strong case for it!

You may turn out a light bulb because, by that small action, you feel like you are helping to save an endangered planet. There is an entire narrative of beliefs feeding that sensibility. Whereas, another person may turn off a light bulb simply to save a few pennies, while quite convinced that there is sufficient energy for the world’s needs and no real danger is posed by the consumption of those watts.

Same action. Very different worldviews. Very different core beliefs.

Our opinions are shaped by our worldview – how we see and feel about the world, its origin and destiny, its occupants, and the laws by which it operates. How we assess “right”ness and “wrong”ness. And undergirding our worldview are our (consciously or unconsciously held) core beliefs – our first principles. Our intuitive moral framework. What are religion and politics and social causes if not expressions of worldview?

Face it, folks – by and large, we don’t believe because we see. We see because we believe. That goes for naturalists and supernaturalists, of every stripe. <—-(this statement is an expression of one of my core first principles of belief. Don’t share it? Fine. Happy to talk. Respectfully.)

If someone shares our worldview, we feel an affinity. But what if, in the body politic of our society, we encounter others who have a very different set of assumptions, whose embraced narrative about reality differs from ours? What then?

Unlike those who think that religion and politics should be “off the table” as subjects, I advocate for an honest and consistent worldview, embraced with appropriate measures of both passion and humility. If Tim Tebow believes that Jesus has helped him, let him say so in any way that he prefers. No laws are broken. On the other hand, if a gold-medal winner wants to say, “All praise to Allah for my performance,” and another athlete wishes to say, “I did this all myself through my hard work,” and another says, “I didn’t build that – it was my parents and society and government,” and another says, “the stars were in alignment for me today” – whatever. Own your beliefs. Don’t be shy about your worldview.

And respect the fact that other people don’t share it. I’m not going to shut up about how I see the world because someone says, “Dude, I disagree with you,” or, “that belief system offends me.” If I say to you, “I believe that the world was created through random processes of mutations and unsupervised evolution (or, alternatively, it was created by a Supernatural Being),” then you are free to disagree and to state your beliefs (and vice-versa). And I’m perfectly free to express my worldview in a blog post, a book, TV interview, or a banner trailing behind an airplane. We live in a land of first amendment rights. However, if in a dialogue together, I say, “I understand where you’re coming from, but I find this particular aspect of your belief system to be distasteful and don’t want to discuss it further” – then the correct thing to do is to move onto other subjects. That’s being respectful in our differences.

Suppression of the expressed beliefs (even publicly!) of others isn’t the goal. Mutual respect is.

But here’s the other danger we face – denigrating stereotypes. All Muslims must be terrorists – or all Bible-believing Christians are dumb rubes – or all liberals are elitist communists – or all conservatives are greedy haters. The possibilities are endless. And if I’m associated with one or more of these labels, you might be tempted to lump me into a group of straw men that you can conveniently flail and then write off. Pretty disrespectful.

Because, ultimately, no matter which hot-button topics you try to avoid publicly, through your many words and actions and associations and tweets and status updates, your worldview is showing anyway. So put on big enough panties to express yourself clearly, debate others intelligently and forthrightly, learn about the glasses others wear, and make friends with those who may not share your first principles.

We all might learn a few things that way. Even while agreeing to disagree.

We don’t live in a theocracy. Or an atheocracy. This is America, where we can have possess our worldviews and speak of them freely. Thank God for that (or, don’t, if you prefer!).

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google +1
  • Print
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Posted in Liberty, Life, Politics | 40 Comments

40 Responses

  1. on August 8, 2012 at 6:58 pm socialmediaforsmartpeople

    Steve I love how you articulate this and I want you on my shoulder while I am in Facebook so I am not tempted to tell certain morons to %^&* off. While I have been wearing big gal panties for a while, I have also seen when you stand up for yourself respectfully – many are unable to give the same in return – then down goes everyone in the mud. No I do not mean I got in mud with them, but the got mud on me just the same.

    Can we go back 30 years and have a do-over? When we corrected each others children when they were rude or we witnessed them doing wrong. When we were cordial to each other and even I remember neighbors we could argue about politics and still enjoy eating BBQ together. Now everyone get so offended, we are these silos living on a field with plenty of grain, but no one is harvesting. ( stepping off her soapbox)


    • on August 9, 2012 at 6:44 am Steve Woodruff

      Michele, thanks for stopping by. Respectful disagreement is the currency with which we can maintain a free and open society. And, it is really easy to feel a sense of nostalgia for the past, when these things seemed to be woven more deeply into the fabric! But, here we are – so maybe we can make things better one conversation at a time.


  2. on August 8, 2012 at 9:42 pm Kim Phillips

    Got my big-girl panties on. No subject is off the table. Chains don’t work for me, either. What I don’t understand is bloggers who throw stuff out there and expect everyone to agree with them… anybody else is a “troll” or just being “negative.” Bring it on, I say. Feeling another blog post coming on… for now: http://bit.ly/NHXiWL P.S. Students of the history of journalism know that what goes on today in political discussions is tame, actually.


    • on August 9, 2012 at 6:47 am Steve Woodruff

      Kim, unfortunately, it is very easy (and I include myself here) to simply dismiss others who see things from a different point of view. Can we hold firmly to our convictions without taking a scorched-earth approach to others? I hope so… Thanks for commenting!


  3. on August 8, 2012 at 9:57 pm Ike Pigott

    Steve, there’s one more ingredient you need: A conscious decision to seek out other perspectives.

    That used to be a platitude, but in the age of Facebook filter bubbles (not just our tendency to surround ourselves with like minds, and the Choir — but Facebook’s algorithm that exaggerates this effect even further) we have to work even harder to get out of our own echo chambers.

    Actually, it’s worse than that. Most of us are laughing at the idiots on the other side of the sheet, while we choke inside our Dutch Oven. (kids, look that up.)

    I’ve got several people on Facebook who probably wonder why the hell I ever engage with them, or comment. Some have even asked me. I tell them that I find them interesting and engaging, and that I am going out of my way to tell Edgerank to shove it. Otherwise, I don’t see those articles from Alternet or Huffington Post or other sources I wouldn’t frequent.

    The reason discourse is so coarse is that all of these people, in their own bubbles, have tricked themselves into believing their are in a strong majority. And it’s got to stop.

    Want a reality check? Scroll through your Facebook, and copy the names of the 200 most recent people on your timeline. Now compare that to your entire list. It may take a while, but you’ll find a LOT of people who exist and are real and have opinions that have become invisible to you… and that has empowered you to behave like an asshole member of the tyrannical majority.

    Stop the insanity. There’s a better, richer world out there. And it smells a lot better than it does under your sheet.


    • on August 9, 2012 at 6:50 am Steve Woodruff

      Ike, you make an excellent point. If there was a more reasoned approach to expressing these differing points-of-view, it would be a lot easier to consider them. Unfortunately, we typically get partisan screeds and illogical other-bashing. And, the self-delusion about being in the majority due to affinity-addiction is a huge issue.


  4. on August 9, 2012 at 12:59 am Bill Senger

    Great post, Steve. I’ve found that I have learned little from people who agree with my point of view. I’ve learned a great deal from those who disagree with me. Even if I still disagree with them.


    • on August 9, 2012 at 1:00 am Ike Pigott

      That’s totally wrong, Bill.


      • on August 9, 2012 at 6:54 am Steve Woodruff

        You’re both completely and hopelessly off-base. I could never learn a thing from either of you. And, if you were right, I’d agree with you, but since you’re not, I no longer want to associate with either of you, since you clearly have the intelligence level of seared gnats. ;>} Ah, yes, that feels so much better – nothing like a little insulting hypocrisy in the morning!!!!


  5. on August 9, 2012 at 5:18 am Olivier Blanchard

    I love this post. I love posts like this in general, but this one is exceptional. The comments are pretty solid too.

    Now let me throw a fly in your soup (and this has already been brought up, so it won’t come as a surprise to you).

    Most people don’t care if someone is Muslim or Sikh or Jewish or Christian or nothing at all. Most of us don’t care if someone voted for McCain or Obama or why. I managed to live almost 40 years of my life alongside democrats and republicans, and when I live and work overseas, alongside a seemingly infinite scale of beliefs and opinions. Some of these are completely opposite from my own world view, but somehow manage to be perfectly compatible with it in the sense that my beliefs don’t interfere with their lives and their beliefs don’t interfere with mine. I am no more threatened or offended by a guy who speaks in tongues and handles snakes on Sundays than a guy who makes love to his boyfriend on Saturday night.

    The only people I have ever had problems with (that is, the only people who have encroached on my freedom, on my liberties, on my children’s ability to learn science in school or have access to books or music or movies) are religious fundamentalists and reconstructionists. Sometimes, they think they’re Christians. Other times, they think they’re Muslim. Sometimes, they wear white hoods and sometimes, they carry the only book they’ve never actually read properly. These folks don’t care about my world view and don’t care if I respect theirs. In their eyes, only their world view matters because it’s been ordained by God. The god is interchangeable, depending on where they are. Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Carolina, North Korea… same thing.

    I can disagree with all the violence of my inner convictions when someone expresses a racist or xenophobic view point, but I respect their right to express it. And in a sense, if they’re honest about hating black people or Muslims (that is, the fact that they do and the reasons why), even if I disagree with them, at least I respect that they’re being genuine. I may not be able to remain friends with them, but that’s really a factor of whether or not they have entrenched themselves into a belief system that makes them impossible to reason with. Where I get frustrated though, is when people add insult to injury by being disingenuous about what they believe in and why.

    Someone holding a “Go back to Kenya” sign and tells me “I’m not a racist” is lying. Right off the bat, if there’s no basis of honesty upon which to build our dialog, there can be no dialog. Either they take me for an idiot, or they’re too dumb to realize that they’re only a sheet away from marching in a KKK parade.

    Someone advocating that it isn’t racist to block the construction of a Mosque in lower Manhattan can’t claim that they’re just being patriotic. There’s something else going on in their hearts that they either need to fess up to or expunge (I don’t care which), but the game of “I’m going to pretend that I’m not a bigot and if you call me one, I’ll pretend to be offended” needs to stop, or there can be no dialog.

    You cannot, for instance, claim to be for less government intrusion in our lives and be an ardent protector of the US Constitution, and then at the same time support the establishment of religious laws, and legislation that strips certain groups of the same rights as everyone else. (Homosexuals and Muslims, for example.)

    If we’re going to have a shot at a real dialogue (whether one on one or national), then we need to be honest about our own agendas and world views. We need to stop lying.

    You don’t believe in a nanny state? Great. Neither do I. But I do believe that Americans who’ve been hit by very hard times (and especially their kids) deserve the help of those who can provide it. I don’t mind paying a little more in my taxes to establish a system that takes care of that. It saves me from sending a check to some tax-exempt charity every month that pockets 80% of what I donate to pay its executives. Will I make sure that the program doesn’t turn into an inefficient monster? Yes. It’s my civic duty. But what I won’t do is adopt a polarized world view by which I consider welfare evil. I won’t side with overly excited partisans who get hard thinking about completely eliminating welfare out of principle.

    People like me WANT to have a dialog. But it’s very difficult when 20% of the country either isn’t being honest about their world view and want to push a system of government that ultimately isn’t interested in dialog or opinions.

    The truth is that there is still a remarkable amount of hatred and fear out there, and an unhealthy bend towards turning a pluralistic nation into a regressive, religious, apocalyptic kingdom-come republic, and Steve, it’s really hard to have an intelligent conversation with people who are being sucked into a politico-religious cult. I’ve tried for years, and I keep trying, but we’re not getting through.


  6. on August 9, 2012 at 6:24 am Kim Phillips

    I agree with Olivier about religious zealots… gotta go. Unfortunately, where I live, the fundamentalists (of every stripe) are falling out of the trees, and they are mostly far-right-wing politically. The local newspaper (part of the Gannett chain) uses Facebook for comments to its online version, and you have never seen the like of ignorance, bigotry and vitriol coming from “religious” people. These folks invented hypocrisy. It would be funny if it weren’t so scary.


  7. on August 9, 2012 at 6:53 am Linda

    Oliver & Kim,
    By marginalizing religious “fundamentalists,” and stating they “gotta go,” you are doing the exact thing that Steve is warning about in this post. “Everyone is ok, except *this* group.” That is not respectful disagreement. While you may not agree and you may have opinions about their worldview, your worldview is showing…. you are intolerant of this group of people.


  8. on August 9, 2012 at 7:00 am Kim Phillips

    Ah, the refuge of the intolerant, calling others intolerant. Yes, I am very intolerant of intolerance. There can be no respectfully disagreeable discussions with zealots… no minds will be changed.


  9. on August 9, 2012 at 7:20 am Steve Woodruff

    I have previously made my convictions known regarding theocracy – ANY form of theocracy – here: http://stevewoodruff.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/not-compatible/ (the post kicks off talking about Islam, but quickly broadens to any and all absolutist religions)

    Theocracy/theonomy is incompatible with America, and with religious freedom. However, to conflate all religious believers with society-threatening zealots would be to set up a straw man. It is just as wrong, and offensive, as it would be to say, “any unbeliever (in my religion) cannot be a productive and welcome member of society.”

    Olivier, you and I both have very strongly-felt convictions, and differing world views in a number of areas (though not all!). And, I’m quite sure we each have inconsistencies and faulty perspectives that can be called into question, because we’re human. I have a long way to go in figuring this stuff out and trying to live it well.

    Thanks for stopping by and raising some important issues!


  10. on August 9, 2012 at 7:32 am Steve Woodruff

    Kim and Linda, I’d like to suggest that the tone of this exchange between you can only go downhill from here. There is an infinitely regressive loop once we get into charges of tolerance and intolerance, and once the charge is made, it always degrades. I do believe that Linda makes a valid point, however – especially with the “gotta go” language employed. As soon as you step back and swap out “fundamentalists” with some other group defined by worldview (or religion, or race, or creed, or gender, or…) – then the line of reasoning ends up with a pretty offensive flavor, no?


  11. on August 9, 2012 at 7:57 am Kim Phillips

    My point is that true dialogue can’t take place with folks whose minds are closed. I find that religion gets to that place faster than any other, because it relies entirely on belief… no amount of information can sway that person. Politics runs a close second in that regard, especially lately. The “gotta go” part just meant you can’t really engage folks on certain subjects. I’m happy to engage people but they always feel that disagreement is “negative” and they get drummed out… as is happening here. Looks like the “big girl panties” aren’t worn by all.


  12. on August 9, 2012 at 12:04 pm azmomofmanyhats

    Thank you for this post… you said it so well. Dialogic civility is missing in today’s world. We jump to say that those that don’t believe what we do are closed minded, wrong, hateful – etc. The reality is that if we assume that of others then we are exemplifying the exact things that we are assuming of them. We each have a different set of experiences that go into what we know as our own Truths. We can love, respect, and engage in civil discourse, even if we don’t agree with another’s viewpoints.


  13. on August 9, 2012 at 12:59 pm Kim Phillips

    I would respectfully and very positively submit that fundamentalists marginalize themselves. But gosh I just have to love all intolerant people, bless their hearts! Thanks for the great post! And all the wonderful comments! It’s just terrific!


  14. on August 9, 2012 at 1:07 pm Kim Phillips

    There are actual cases where people really are closed-minded, wrong and hateful, and to call it what it is isn’t exemplifying anything but discernment. I read this post because it seemed to be inviting a discussion that it turned out not to be. http://www.getlucid.net/2012/08/how-to-deal-with-trolls/


    • on August 9, 2012 at 1:45 pm Steve Woodruff

      From your link, Kim:
      “Relentless positivity doesn’t change minds any more than relentless negativity does.”

      Nicely stated.

      I also understand your point about closed-mindedness and religion (you’re in Nashville, right? I went to Vandy, and spent 7 years in Nashville. Love that city). There are some peculiar pressures that you and Olivier will feel more deeply in the South, just as there are some (in a different direction) that I feel more deeply here in New Jersey.

      Discussions about Right and Wrong (capital letters) can lead us to re-trench into our worldviews. I’m finding Jonathan Haidt’s book The Righteous Mind to be exceptionally helpful in trying to shed light on the roots of both liberal and conservative thinking (Haidt is a liberal, by the way). Highly recommended. http://righteousmind.com/


  15. on August 9, 2012 at 1:56 pm Kim Phillips

    Thanks for the book reco… I’ll check it out. I’d also like to suggest Bright-Sided by Barbara Ehrenreich. She meticulously researches the origins of the American preoccupation with “positivity.” My position has always been that all the positiveness is often a convenient escape from thinking about or doing anything about genuine problems. And, yes, it’s hard on liberals here on the Buckle of the Bible Belt. Especially religious liberals… they really don’t know what to do with us. ;-)


    • on August 9, 2012 at 2:10 pm Steve Woodruff

      That book looks interesting, with lots of feedback on Amazon. Just reserved it with my local library….thanks!


      • on August 9, 2012 at 2:17 pm Kim Phillips

        Just downloaded yours to my Kindle. ;-)


  16. on August 9, 2012 at 2:26 pm Joe Cascio

    Steve, as you know, I certainly appreciate and share with you the idea that freedom of ideas and speech, which include religious ideas and speech should be encouraged, and that mutual tolerance and respect is key to that exchange happening in a productive way. Anyone living in the US should see that as crystal clear.

    It’s when you start talking about appropriate times and places for these exchanges to happen, though, that things get not so clear. When is it appropriate to bring up one’s religious or political thoughts? It’s then not a question of rights, but of common courtesy, of considerate and civil behavior.

    As I’ve related to you in the last day or so, I got involved in what turned into a very nasty exchange on Twitter a couple of nights ago about the custom of certain denominations to inject gratuitous and what seem to me very presumptuous statements or references to personal faith into any context.

    The specific case in point was athletes who go out of their way in press conferences and interviews to say, “First I want to thank My personal Lord and Savior Jesus Christ from whom all blessings blah, blah, blah…” when asked, “What club did you use to make that shot on the 18th hole to win the tournament?” When I opined that I find this practice annoying and really overbearing, I got slammed and called some really nasty names, but chiefly “intolerant”.

    Maybe this is a generational thing (I’m 65 years old in Sept.), because when I was growing up the First Rule of Tolerance was, Don’t Shoot Your Mouth Off Around People You Don’t Know. Throwing your religion in other peoples faces is itself intolerant and basically just bad manners.

    It’s walking around with a bible on your shoulder and daring someone to knock it off. It’s the preemptive strike. It’s assuming you have the right to spout your particular beliefs and everybody has to listen. Firing the first shot like that is inconsiderate to anyone who doesn’t share your point of view and abuses and exploits their tolerance. It’s really a case of TMI. I don’t care about your religion, I didn’t ask, it’s not germaine or appropriate to the situation, it’s none of my business, and don’t accuse me of intolerance when you’re trying to force your ideas down my throat.

    Everyone has the right to speak, but nobody has the right to an audience.


    • on August 9, 2012 at 3:38 pm Steve Woodruff

      Joe, you and I have had long discussions about these topics, and I see you as one of those people with whom I can have respectful, while yet very vigorous, dialogue with a full understanding of our different worldviews. I treasure the fact that we can passionately express our convictions, while still sipping a cup of coffee together, hanging out, and helping each others’ business. It’s just what I’m advocating for in this blog post and discussion.

      Your point seems to be this: are there lines that should not be crossed in the public sphere of expressed worldviews? Particularly in the realm of religious belief?

      The whole issue is important for an even bigger reason – if it’s bad manners to talk about one aspect of worldview in certain settings, who is to determine where the lines are? And what are the acceptable/unacceptable categories of speech? Who gets to determine “offensive”?

      Let’s take a current example. Swap out the athlete talking about Jesus, and swap in a Gay Pride demonstration. What if that worldview is offensive to many people who are heterosexual and/or who operate from a differing moral framework? What if I’m subjected to misogynist rap music (there’s worldview in music, yes?) or GoDaddy ads in a public setting? (btw, I choose not to patronize GoDaddy for that reason).

      Some public expressions are “in your face” by design (remember the raised fist gesture at the 1968 Olympics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_salute) and there can be all kinds of dispute about both the means and teh ends. Who makes the call? That’s above my pay grade!

      Whether it’s Carl Sagan saying, “the cosmos is all there is, and all there ever was, and all there ever will be!” or Billy Graham saying, “You must be born again!” – we’re all ‘firing a first shot’ when we express our convictions.

      We can get defensive and choose to take offense. We can choose to respond by giving offense. Or we can live in a pluralistic society and seek to find what common ground can be had.

      I don’t have all the answers by any stretch, but there are all kinds of questions about the place of public expression and I sense a very slippery slope in your line of reasoning. There be dragons when we seek to muzzle others who are different from us, or disparage (preemptive strike? really?) them for expressing their beliefs.

      As to public manners: what is sincerely and appropriately expressed devotion/cinviction vs. overly-aggressively proselytizing? Man, I’d hate to make THAT call about a whole bunch of different belief systems!

      We all do have the right to express our POV. And we all do have the right to withhold our attention and audience from that which we don’t care for. Beyond that – what do some others of you think?


      • on August 9, 2012 at 3:42 pm Kim Phillips

        I think that would be heaven. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)


      • on August 9, 2012 at 6:25 pm Joe Cascio

        It seems pretty simple to me. Is the mention of one’s personal religious conviction unsolicited (did anyone ask?) or gratuitous (is it germaine to the subject at hand?). If the answer is no to both, then bringing it up is only to satisfy your own personal need to demonstrate something.


  17. on August 9, 2012 at 2:57 pm Kim Phillips

    Joe, you’re right on. I don’t know where you live, but where I live, the first question to a newcomer is often, “Where do you go to church?” That pretty much lets them know who they’re dealing not only religiously but also usually politically. And, when they do that, it let’s me know who I’m dealing with…that’s just how it works here. But online, it’s different. Aggressively yapping about religion makes an assumption that you share the viewpoint and, I agree, that is intolerant in and of itself. And I see it every single day. One can speak of bigotry without being a bigot, and one can speak of hate without being a hater. To say that doing so makes you into the very thing you are criticizing is the intellectual equivalent of sticking your tongue out and saying “takes one to know one.” Real playground stuff, not to be taken seriously.


    • on August 9, 2012 at 3:09 pm Joe Cascio

      I grew up in New England, where people tend to mind their own business, especially when it comes to religion. Maybe that’s why I find these very deliberate and immodest professions of faith to be so off-putting.


      • on August 9, 2012 at 3:41 pm Steve Woodruff

        Joe, you and I share the (keep it to yourself) New England upbringing. I did find the cultural adjustment to and from the South to be pretty dramatic.


  18. on August 9, 2012 at 3:18 pm Kim Phillips

    Amen.


  19. on August 9, 2012 at 6:05 pm Joe Cascio

    What’s interesting is that for a long time and even today, many denominations considered discussing one’s faith in the public arena to be an act severely frowned upon, even considered a sin of pride. I’d agree.


    • on August 10, 2012 at 6:49 am Steve Woodruff

      Joe – that presents an interesting conundrum. Because for Christians who take both the words and the examples in the New Testament seriously, to NOT discuss one’s faith publicly would be considered sin. Now HOW it should be done is a different question (and may have many cultural considerations) – but THAT one owns his/her relationship with Jesus Christ is a matter of a disciple’s grateful obedience. it’s not optional.

      In other words: your opinion about appropriateness of expression (in the broadest sense) is not normative for people of faith. They answer to a higher master. That doesn’t mean that your opinion doesn’t matter in how, for instance, I might interact with you in a given discussion – it matters greatly. But it is, in all, your opinion (appeals to any denominations notwithstanding).

      I love my wife. I’ll tell anyone that. I hold hands with her in public. We publicly took vows, and I’m not ashamed of that relationship and that devotion. If someone else doesn’t share my feelings, or is offended – then do I have a problem? And should I then restrict my expressions of devotion because someone else doesn’t like it? Not on your life!

      Should Chevy owners be muzzled because, in expressing their dedication to the brand, they might offend Ford owners?

      Trying to isolate faith into a backwater where it cannot be publicly expressed is a dangerous game. If you start with religion, where does it end up? What other aspects of worldview become verboten??

      If some Jehovah’s Witness came up to your door and starting proselytizing with a bullhorn – even after being told to stop – you could and would legitimately take offense. If you and I were sitting down at DD for some coffee and debate, and I explained to you how the moral law reaches down all the way to the thoughts and intentions of the heart, and you decided you’d heard enough and told me so – then you could legitimately take offense if I pressed you on the issue. But to take offense at what is said in public, as if it is aimed at you and infringes on your comfort zone – that’s a choice you make, and lashing out invites backlash. At least, that’s the difference as I see it…


      • on August 10, 2012 at 8:02 am Joe Cascio

        Well, it’s clearly not a binary issue. It is a matter of degree and context. In fact, you raise a good analogy with public displays of affection. I think few people take offense to a couple holding hands or walking arm in arm or embracing when they meet or part. But what about prolonged passionate, slobbery kissing, what if they start groping each other, moaning and grinding in public. (Don’t laugh, a friend of mine actually saw a couple getting it on in the busy kiddie play area at a McDonald’s). When does a couple’s affection for each other drift over the line into, “Get a room, yo?”.

        It’s very much the same for public displays of faith. A couple of nights ago, an American woman won a gold medal in a running event. When asked by a reporter how she felt, she said something like, “Well, I just thank God I was able to win against that talented field.” Now, I don’t find that offensive at all. It’s equivalent to holding hands or a peck on the cheek and a loving glance. But when it becomes an extended and obviously rehearsed rote recitation of faith, that’s when it drifts over into “Get a confessional, yo?”.

        I’m sorry but it still seems to me a big presumption that one can intrude one’s beliefs on the public common simply because it’s customary in one’s particular faith. That is a slippery slope, too. And here’s an actual example why.

        The shop owners in downtown Mystic had some trouble a while back with a religious group that was regularly and very loudly demonstrating on a busy corner. This was not a one-time protest or demonstration. This was a frequent and periodic regular occurrence that included attempting to waylay pedestrians, yelling slogans, and generally making a real nuisance of themselves. Now, I’m certain that this group felt that their faith justified and called upon them to do this. What’s the limit of faith’s right to intrude unbidden on other people’s lives?


      • on August 10, 2012 at 6:22 pm Liz Pullen

        Sound reasoning, Steve. I’m with you. If we censor ourselves from saying anything that might possibly offend anyone, we are limiting ourselves to talking about the weather.

        Whether it is sharing ones faith or a person telling me of their love for their same-sex partner (or both!), I don’t see that as “shoving their view down my throat”. It’s called getting to know someone.

        Who wants to put themselves in a position to tell someone else what they should or shouldn’t talk about? If a topic is making you uncomfortable, change the subject or end the conversation. But don’t blame the other person for your discomfort…that is your issue, not theirs.


  20. on August 10, 2012 at 8:50 am Steve Woodruff

    Joe – really excellent points. As you say, it’s not a binary issue. Lots to think about here…


  21. on August 19, 2012 at 11:20 pm eL.

    I think the breakdown – particularly amplified by everyone having their own soapbox via social media – is “treat others how you want to be treated.” Oh, how our society has lost it’s grasp on that one, very simple, virtue. It transcends any religious foundation, political affiliation, or national association.

    Most of the abuse we have all witnessed online between parties of opposing world views would never occur if the “passionate” players weren’t hiding behind the safety of a computer screen.


  22. on August 20, 2012 at 6:18 am Our Government Lord and Savior « Steve's Free

    [...] on Steve’s Free blog: Pardon, but Your Worldview is Showing | Fish Out of [...]


  23. on September 2, 2012 at 8:16 am Blessed Confusion « Steve's Free

    [...] on Steve’s Free blog: Pardon, but Your Worldview is Showing | Fish Out of [...]


  24. on September 16, 2012 at 7:57 am Election Anxiety « Steve's Free

    [...] on Steve’s Free blog: Pardon, but Your Worldview is Showing | Fish Out of [...]



Comments are closed.

  • Connect with Steve Woodruff


    SteveWoodruff.com
  • Subscribe!

    Subscribe in a reader
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Bookmark

    AddThis Social Bookmark Button
  • Add to Technorati Favorites
  • Alltop, all the top stories
  • Recent Posts

    • What a Jesus-Follower is Like
    • Satisfied
    • The Balance of Freedom and Form in Personal Devotions
    • Clueless Birds
    • My Idea of Justice
  • a

  • Archives

    • April 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • September 2007
    • June 2007
    • May 2007
    • April 2007
    • March 2007
    • February 2007

Blog at WordPress.com.

Theme: MistyLook by WPThemes.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers

Powered by WordPress.com
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this: