This is hardly breaking news, but lately I've been noticing that in America, there a choices between democrat and republican, conservative and liberal, pro-choice or "pro-life," or religious or non religious, but most of these come down to one simple thing- a group that says do things only my way, and a group that says people are free to do what makes them happy.
A few friends recently kicked off a debate on abortion. Personally, I'm pro-choice, which does NOT mean all abortion, all the time. If a woman wants to have a baby, cool. If a woman doesn't want to have a baby, cool. If a woman accidentally gets pregnant and gives the baby up for adoption, cool. So long as she's making the choice she feels is right, good for her. But some of my friends who are against choice don't feel the same.
But it's not just that they feel abortion is wrong, which I can understand. It's that they feel EVERYONE should take their view point, and don't see how anyone could see things any differently. They can't wrap their minds around the fact that some people don't believe exactly what they believe. Craziness! People having DIFFERENT OPINIONS on something you can't really prove one way or the other?
It comes up with regards to religion as well. One of these same friends (who it will be very hard to be around in the future, after all of this surfaced) chastised his dad for his religious beliefs. You're probably thinking "so the son is one religion, and his dad is another?" No, though that would make sense. They're both Christian. The son just doesn't think the dad is Christian enough . He ranted about how his dad believes that believing in God and being a good person is foolish, and he should "seek the truth." Um, what if that IS the truth in his dad's eyes?
The theme here is that I'm tired of people insisting that they have the magic answers to life, that everyone else is wrong. People have different opinions. People have different tastes. Can't we agree to disagree?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: My Way Or The ... Wait, No, Just My Way.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16739
Can I stir things a little?
You take the pro-life camp to task because "it's that they feel EVERYONE should take their view point, and don't see how anyone could see things any differently."
Fair enough. However, one must be careful about using that argument, because it can be used by all camps, in other circumstances.
For example, you might feel that pornography is bad. If you said that it should not be allowed on the streets, then it could be argued that you are anti-choice. And that you "can't wrap [your] mind around the fact that some people don't believe exactly what [you] believe."
The arguments are endless!
I have no opinion on abortion, but I am always struck by the poor arguments used by both camps. (But that is not relevant to this debate.)
What I find unsound is the argument, used in the OP, that someone who has strong beliefs is somehow inferior or worse than someone who does not. Someone who is strongly opposed to murder, for example, should not be dismissed as someone who has belongs to "a group that says do things only my way".
Quite frankly, I'm not sure I want to live in a society where the ruling group thinks "people are free to do what makes them happy".
Maybe the OP will disagree with me, but that's fine!
I understand the inclination to put the "my way or the highway" label on right-wing viewpoints -- and many can be fairly characterized as such.
That being said, the "my way or the highway" crowd can come from either side of the political spectrum. And, the fact that someone ascribes to an "I'm right and you're wrong" stance does not necessarily mean they're wrong. In fact, many strident moral "my way or the highway" cases were and are liberal causes, and were/are absolutely right. It seems to me that any moral judgment about right and wrong in human activity can be considered such a case.
Most cases for social justice are moral judgments, leave no room for disagreement, and thus are "my way or the highway"-type cases. For instance ...
- The moral judgment that all races are/should be equal (i.e. an individual should not be allowed, regardless of his moral code, to discriminate based on race);
- The moral judgment that all genders are/ should be equal (i.e. an individual should not be allowed, regardless of his own moral code, to discriminate based on gender);
- The moral judgment that the environment should be preserved, and that excessive pollution/ consumption are undesirable (i.e. that an indivudal, regardless of his personal moral code, should not be able to pollute indescriminately);
- The moral judgment that abortion should be a right, and legal (i.e. a government entity, even if 100% of its constituents are adamantly pro-life, should not be allowed to ban abortion);
- The moral judgment that the consumption of animal flesh is wrong (i.e. an individual should not consume meat);
These movements are not about allowing people to live by whatever moral code they want; they are about controlling the behavior of others through legislation, legal action and social stigma.
kbz
The religious debate is especially tricky, to me, at least wrt Christianity. Converting others is what their religion tells them to do--of course, that section of the Bible was written when it was as much a survival reflex as anything else. Religious tolerance wasn't really on the table.
I think the worst thing Christianity does (to itself, anyways) is discourage questioning faith. That attitude prompts the church to divide against itself, because we all subconsciously question our religion, and we come up with different answers. And really, if faith can't survive being questioned, is it really strong enough to be worth holding on to? I know mine is stronger for having been doubted, because in the end I chose to hold onto it, rather than holding it because I was told to. (I really envy Judaism sometimes, because they have a much richer tradition of scriptural interpretation. It's very intriguing.) I think if the Church encouraged people to question their faith, it would lead towards more tolerance of other beliefs, and create a stronger Christian community overall.
It seems to me it is also important to consider the frame-of-mind of the "converter". The majority of Christians attempt to spread the "truth" out of genuine love and concern for non-believers. True hatred is believing that you have discovered the path to eternal Salvation, and keeping it to yourself. Christians are called to evangelise, but they are also moved to evangelism out of a desire, not to conquer, but to spread the joy and Salvation that they have found to others.
I am a Christian, so it is difficult to know how it must be for a non-believer to be evangelized to ... but I saw Penn (of Penn and Teller), an atheist, express a similar opinion in a YouTube video ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM
Christian evangelism can be a problem when it becomes pious, prideful, arrogant or at all obnoxious. Christians must realize that they are called to spread the word, not to win converts to the faith. We are simply to spread the message in a loving, generous way ... whether someone is converted or not is between them and the Almighty.
kbz
We have all at times been indebted to all or nothing thinking, forgetting that everyone has freedom of choice and free will. Sometimes this comes out in patently offensive ways that claim "we're right and you're wrong" and sometimes this comes out when society makes sweeping decisions based on good intentions that are unintentionally condescending.
Lecturing people in poverty about what they're not doing to rise up out of it and expressing incredulous attitudes as to why more don't do more to reach out to social service agencies designed to help them is one such example. The reality is rarely as simplistic as many would like to paint it.