#109 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Thursday August 5)
Good morning!
BEFORE WE TALK, YOU FIRST MUST LEARN MY GOSPEL
During Covid, a non-profit board on which I sit was confronting a productive dialog on unintended racial inequity that we can work harder to address (although progress has been made over the past decade). But in order to begin that discussion, we were issued a copy of How Not to Be a Racist, by Ibram X. Kendi. As I have suggested in early observations, Mr. Kendi espouses one possible theory., But, while Mr. Kendri’s theory is an important one, it is not the only one and his book certainly is not a textbook. I read it.
A few years ago I was debating with an orthodox Rabbi about religious observance, including kashrut (the dietary laws). His response to my questioning was that I simply had to study more Torah before I would have standing to discuss these great issues with him. Some have espoused this reasoning in a somewhat similar context when questioning why young Jews aren’t more observant (“they just need to learn more Torah”). I’ve studied Torah on and off much of my life (though perhaps not as much as my orthodox friend might want). I think I have standing to discuss its applicability to the current world and the need for reformation in modern times (after all, the Conservative and Reform movements were founded based in part on this concept).
During COVID, a friend of mine who is a climate-change denier argued with me that I was only listening to the “main-stream” media and main-stream scientists in reaching the conclusion that human-generated climate change was real and needed to be arrested or slowed. He maintains there are “many” scientists who disagreed with the consensus on human accelerated climate change. He said I had to become more conversant with the other point of view (as if science is about points of view, versus observed fact). To prove his point and demonstrate that climate change was, indeed, far from settled science, he sent me a book by an author (self-published) purporting to dispose of the climate change argument. I read it. The author did not successfully make his case. His data was selective and incomplete and his science specious.
And then a few days ago I was debating an issue with a Millennial about some insignificant issue. She instructed me that I had to read a particular article before I could have a meaningful discussion with her about the subject (even though I’d read several synopses of the book). I will (and, trust me, reading a single article on this subject would not persuade many people).
What these examples all have in common is a phenomenon I’ve been encountering with greater frequency these days. In order for some people to “allow” someone else to converse with them, the other person must first educate themselves on the other person’s point of view.
These people won’t accept that the other person has done learning themselves. The person with the alternative point of view first must educate themselves to the level and sufficiency required by the other person. It is not enough that we are two adults seeking to exchange ideas, share our views, and find our truths. One must first become informed (as the other party defines it).
I consider myself a reasonably educated and well-read person. I think on most issues I can hold my own and have read both sides of the debate. Plus, I ascribe to the view that one must enter all conversations with an open mind and a willingness to be proven wrong. I find the assertion that the “price of admission” or a demonstration of my seriousness or understanding of an issue requires a thorough review of the other person’s political point of view (through whatever means that person elects) to be stifling of meaningful and intelligent debate.
Have a good day,
Glenn
Click here to subscribe to Musings.
From the archives: