Posts Tagged opinion

The Soul of American Discourse – The Rev’d Dr. Frederick W. Schmidt – Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary

patheos.com

German notion of Zeitgeist or “spirit of the times” was first promulgated as an alternative to the theory that great men and women are the ones who shape our history.  There are difficulties with both theories, of course. On the one hand, influential figures can make a dramatic difference.   Witness, for example, the sweeping impact of people like Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, or Eleanor Roosevelt.  It is also true, however, that talented people are themselves a product of their times.  World War II decisively shaped Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, for example, and it is difficult to imagine a biography of Roosevelt without the crucible of that war.

The debate over whether history is shaped by Zeitgeist or great women and men is, then, really a false alternative.  Individuals do have a decisive impact on history.  No individual makes choices that are not conditioned by the “spirit of the times,” and no one exercises freedom in a vacuum.  But there are also times when our leaders and the spirit of the times are all but indistinguishable in their temperament or soul, leaving us to wonder whether the climate in which we live has shaped our leaders or our leaders have shaped the times.

We are living in one of those moments, in part perhaps, because we now live in such instant connection with one another that neither our culture, nor our leaders possess enough distance from the other to recognize both the influence of our times, or the contingent nature of the choices that individuals make.  Things could be different, but we don’t seem to possess the will to make them different.

The result is a presidential election in which narrative is more important than fact, in which falsehood and distortions are a regular feature of both candidates’ campaigns, in which a discussion of issues has taken a backseat to a conversation about the personalities of the candidates, in which the language of division has supplanted language about shared goals, and in which the issue of looking presidential has taken precedence over the question of being presidential.

Similarly, although reporting on the election has occasionally touched on the issues, a far greater amount of time has been spent measuring public opinion.  Reporters give very little attention to the nature of the challenges that we face, the complexities involved, the facts that are available, the policies we might pursue, and the intended, as well as unintended consequences of the choices we might make.

Sadly, however, we can hardly blame the candidates and the press alone.  Check the comments section on any article, follow your Facebook feed, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, or any of the social media and it is clear that the conversation among those of us who are mere voters is much the same.

From the vantage point of the question, “What drives history?” our leaders and the tenor of American discourse seem to be on the same page: The candidates do not offer an alternative to the spirit of the times.  The media does not press for something different, and we as voters do not insist that our leaders function differently.  It is tempting to conclude that it is not just the spirit of the times, but the soul of American discourse that is in peril.

There are things we can do to save that soul:

  1. We can insist on integrity and take the candidates to task for lying and for behavior that disqualifies them.
  1. We can insist that they discuss the issues.
  1. We can drill down and examine the intended and unintended consequences of the policies that they recommend.
  1. We can abandon an exclusive commitment to the special interests of the tribes to which we belong and pay attention to the greater good of all Americans.
  1. We can remind the candidates (and their parties) that we are electing a leader for the entire nation and not just the voters that they believe they will need to be elected to office.
  1. But if any of those remedies are to take hold, we will also need to be even handed in our insistence that both candidates, not just one of them conform to those expectations.

If we do, we might find that groups of people can both save the soul of the times and nurture a new kind of leader.

 

 

Tags: , , ,

“3 Ideas to Keep Your Online Discussions Civil” Terrell Carter – www.ethicsdaily.com

3 Ideas to Keep Your Online Discussions Civil | Terrell Carter, Civility, Disagreement

One would think that this diversity in opinion would be seen as a good thing. Unfortunately, this is not how many of us feel, Carter says. (Image courtesy of imagerymajestic/FreeDigitalPhotos.net)

With the headline-grabbing political, racial and social events that have occurred in the U.S. over the past few months, people have had a lot to talk about.

From videos of brutality committed by both police and citizens, to the expanded attention toward domestic violence prompted by the misconduct of NFL players, to the rise of new terrorist groups like ISIS, to the spread of Ebola from another country to the United States, all forms of media are buzzing with commentary on these and other issues from both informed and uninformed contributors.

In today’s vastness of media options, anyone with an opinion on any subject can find a way for their voice to be heard.

From Facebook to Twitter to Snapchat to traditional radio call-in shows, there’s a medium for every person to have their say.

The opinions being expressed are as diverse as the media platforms available to make opinions heard.

One would think that this diversity in opinion would be seen as a good thing. Unfortunately, this is not how many of us feel.

We all regularly hear and read arguments between people standing on differing sides of an issue that would make the feud between the Hatfields and McCoys look like a kindergarten class tug-of-war.

Unfortunately, these arguments seem to be less about the issues being discussed and more about the fact that someone does not see the world the same way as I do. The fallout from these types of arguments can be dramatic.

We have all read posts from friends promising to never use Facebook again because people have been insensitive toward them.

We have all read comments posted by participants on a website classifying any group other than theirs as less than human.

We have all heard about family members who no longer associate with each other because they have offended each other to the point of no return.

As I hear and read these types of interactions on a daily basis, I am left with the question, “Who would Jesus ‘un-friend’?”

With so many lines being drawn in the sand, is there a way to wade through the unfriendly and unproductive chatter that is voiced so frequently?

I have three ideas that should help us all navigate the process of expressing our own opinions without making someone who disagrees with us into unnecessary villains.

First, we have to remember that disagreement is not a sin or an unforgivable offense.

We are not all required to think alike or to feel the same way about anything. Varying opinions are valuable.

Independent thought is admirable and has led to some of the more important discoveries and advances in the world.

History is replete with examples of people who held well-reasoned dissenting views being justified for their independent thoughts.

We can respect another person’s right to hold an opinion just as we want them to respect our right to do the same.

Second, we have to realize that wisdom can come in many ways, even if it does not come in ways that we anticipate.

Even though I am a Christian, I personally appreciate and cherish the opinions of my friends and family who do not hold to any religious faith.

I intentionally ask for the opinions of people who do not hold to the same positions that I do. I do this because I have learned that wisdom is not only found in my belief system.

Wisdom can be found in the experiences of people who worship God or in the experiences of people who do not recognize any god.

I have learned that those who may have differing values from me still care about the same things that are important to me and my family. We have a common foundation as humans.

Third, we must learn to distinguish between the person sharing their opinion and the issue being discussed.

The totality of a person, or a group of people, is not found only in what they think about a particular subject or the stance they take on a politically charged issue.

As much as we try, the totality of a person or group cannot be adequately summed up by their opinion on one subject.

My hope is that we would all do our due diligence and think through our own opinions before we critique those held by someone else.

If we are able to learn how to communicate more effectively with each other, we may be able to make substantial progress toward living together in peace instead of living separately in fear of each other.

Terrell Carter is minister of administration at Third Baptist Church in St. Louis and director of the Foundations in Ministry program for Central Baptist Theological Seminary in St. Louis.

Tags: , , ,