Issue 30.15
The polarization of our country along religious, political and ideological lines continues to increase because people do not understand a basic concept of civility and respectful debate. That is the ability to agree to disagree. I am very opinionated and most of those I consider close friends also feel strongly about their opinions and beliefs. Many of them hold to ideas that I strongly disagree with, yet we are still friends.
This is not because we just avoid subjects that we disagree on. On the contrary, we debate (sometimes heatedly) the philosophical and moral basis of what we believe is important. We listen and try to understand the differing points of view and even try to find common ground or ways to accommodate each other’s views. At the end of the day, we make an effort to help the other know that we have heard them and have an understanding of their position. And, we part again as friends, not often changing our core beliefs on the issue, but hopefully having a better understanding of the other.
One of the biggest problems in public discourse and even in law today is that some people are not willing just to be heard and understood. They want everyone to agree with and condone their position and will seek to force that agreement through law. The old statement that “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” is a truism, but seems to be forgotten by ideologues that want to force their opinions on others.
There are a few examples of this in recent court and news opinions. No one I know feels that someone who believes in Islamic ideals should be punished or discriminated against for having those beliefs. If, however, those believers decide that they must force others to believe as they do at the point of a sword or by insisting that disagreeing with them in any way constitutes a “hate” crime, they have moved beyond Constitutional protection of their belief into an area of forcing others to condone or agree with their ideas.
Another issue in the news is the recent Supreme Court decision requiring all states to recognize and perform same-sex marriages. As noted by those justices that disagreed with the decision, this moves beyond protecting people from abuse or discrimination. It smacks of state approval and sponsorship of same-sex unions and in fact provides special rights for these couples – not equal rights. When the courts decided that a baker must be fined $150,000 for refusing to provide a wedding cake for a gay marriage, they effectively put them out of business. This in spite of the fact that many other bakers would have provided the service and the only harm was to the business owners – not the couple. That is unless you feel that the baker’s disagreement with the lifestyle choice and unwillingness to support that which they strongly disagree with constitutes damaging the couple.
Under that standard of thinking, I should be able to sue anyone who publicly or personally denigrates my faith or my choice to have a lot of kids or homeschool or any number of other personal decisions. Isn’t that a hate crime? After all, they hurt my feelings or created doubts in my mind. They must agree with me or be punished. They must support or provide their work for me if asked regardless of their disagreement and moral concerns. I could go on and on, but hopefully you get the idea – disagreement is not abuse or discrimination. The path we are on is a slippery one and it violates the intention and the letter of the freedoms of religion, association and conscience guaranteed by our founding documents. We violate them at the peril of our freedoms and future.
The old cliché is “can’t we all just get along?” A big part of that is learning that it is okay to “Agree to Disagree” without being disagreeable.
Lynn West is a thinker, a teacher and a patriot. You can reach him through email at forgingthefuture2021@gmail.com or through this newspaper. Liberty is a state of being which must be continually created. These articles can help all of us discover the ways we can contribute to that outcome.