There is a school of thought that teaches that dissent or contention is to be avoided at all costs. That it is the most important thing to have peace and tranquility in all conversation and every interaction. That one must go along to get along.
I can certainly see the merits of such a point of view. Arguing seldom achieves any real great purpose. Convincing someone of something - being persuasive - generally is accomplished a lot quicker and easier when one is solicitous and patient, rather than argumentative and judgmental. One can bend like the willow rather than break like the oak.
And yet...
Sometimes people need to hear a different point of view. Sometimes it is important to stand up for what one believes. Sometimes the right and moral thing to do is disagree. Strongly. Vehemently. And to not back down from what one asserts to be right.
A couple of cases in point - my son was involved in a discussion yesterday in one of his classes. The class has been doing a unit on the Nazi movement in Germany and trying to understand (if such an understanding is even possible) how it is that an entire culture could give way to such fanaticism and misguided theories. Specifically, they were talking about eugenics and trying to ascertain whether or not the goals of such a theory or practice were desirable. Clearly the desired conversation was that it was a bad thing, but Ammon (I'm sure I don't know where he gets it from...) took a contrary point of view. His assertion was that genetic selection goes on all the time anyway, and that eventually we will reach a true global mix of genetic features and markers. The thing that impressed him (and me) is how much opposition he received - like he was some kind of heathen or horrible person. This especially came out when he tied in eugenics with global politics and economic theory. Capitalism, he said, is a kind of de facto eugenics, ensuring the survival of certain families and tribes at the expense of others. Whether or not you agree (I mostly do), it's the exchange of ideas that is helpful and beneficial. If everyone in the class was of the same mind, no real progress could be made, and no interesting and memorable discussion could be achieved.
I was reminded of an English class I was in when I was a junior (which is the year Ammon is in currently). My teacher was Mr. Spencer - a great guy and one who never backed away from a discussion. The topic that day was burning the flag - a constitutional amendment had been proposed banning the burning or other desecration of the American Flag. Now, to be sure - I'm no flag burner. I'm a great believer in the United States, both as a country and as an ideal. I consider myself to be a patriot - I love my country and would willingly give my life to defend it. I have, in fact, taken an oath to do so. But in the class, I took the position that at the end of the day, the flag is just a piece of fabric. Any symbolism that we assign to the particular arrangement or pattern of this fabric is arbitrary, if meaningful. It is just this meaning, however, that makes the burning of the flag so important of a statement. I received a lot of bad looks and much negative discussion as a result of my assertions, very similar to what Ammon experienced. It was a very eye-opening experience for me.
When I was in grad school, we did a project where we created a scale model of several downtown blocks. The thing was four feet wide and sixteen feet long, and we put tiny little buildings made of cardboard. As the semester progressed, we made changes to the blocks, removing some buildings and replacing them with others. We were bound by certain constraints - initially we had to abide the existing zoning and building codes, but as the semester progressed we introduced changes to the code, which changes could not go into effect until two weeks after their introduction. This meant that if I wanted to change a particular element, I had to do so a full month before I could construct something based on the new changes I'd proposed. Further, any changes to the buildings that were made had to stay for at least two weeks before they could be removed/replaced. So on our last turn to change the code, we eliminated the height restrictions. This went largely unnoticed, as I figured it would be (someone could have changed it in a subsequent code change, if they had desired). On our last "construction" week, our team (mostly instigated by me, if I'm honest) did a very large, tall skyscraper type building in what was otherwise a very low-slung neighborhood. It was a very pretty building, if I do say so myself. It was also very, very obvious. Glaring. Obnoxious, even. And it still makes me grin when I think about it. Nothing else that was done in the class garnered either so much discussion or so much anger. People were ANGRY - said I'd ruined the model. I asked them just what did they think the point of the model was - to carry on the existing patterns or to experiment and try new things? It was fun, and it got people THINKING.
Ultimately, that's what it's about for me. I like it when people think. Sometimes the things I think make people uncomfortable. And that, in the main, can be a very good thing. Sometimes in order to progress... no, strike that. ALWAYS, when people would progress, they need to get off their comfortable, passive, inactive positions and consider that which they had not already done.
I was asked why I'm such an instigator. Didn't this seem to go contrary to Christian values of love and fellowship and seeking harmony?
I admit that from a certain point of view, having one's beliefs and views challenged is disconcerting, particularly when that challenge comes from someone who is respectable, respectful, articulate, considerate, and intelligent - all of which I strive for.
And yet, in a larger sense, the Gospel of Christ is a challenge to the status quo. That's why He met His demise, ultimately - because He challenged the authority of the Priests, the Sadducees and the Pharisees. He said he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. I don't think that the Prince of Peace meant anything other than that He wanted people to consider their beliefs and come to an understanding of the truth. He understood very well, however, that the truth He was teaching would be uncomfortable, particularly for the ruling elite, the rich, and the proud and lofty. Every aspect of His life and teachings was an affront to the aristocracy - born in a stable (not in a palace), raised as a carpenter (not as a scholar), teaching temperance and love (as opposed to disobedience and rigid traditionalism), etc. In the end, they crucified Him because He destroyed what they worked so hard to achieve - perceptual dominance and unrighteous authority, in addition to a comfortable material living.
As Thomas Jefferson said - I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.
I can certainly see the merits of such a point of view. Arguing seldom achieves any real great purpose. Convincing someone of something - being persuasive - generally is accomplished a lot quicker and easier when one is solicitous and patient, rather than argumentative and judgmental. One can bend like the willow rather than break like the oak.
And yet...
Sometimes people need to hear a different point of view. Sometimes it is important to stand up for what one believes. Sometimes the right and moral thing to do is disagree. Strongly. Vehemently. And to not back down from what one asserts to be right.
A couple of cases in point - my son was involved in a discussion yesterday in one of his classes. The class has been doing a unit on the Nazi movement in Germany and trying to understand (if such an understanding is even possible) how it is that an entire culture could give way to such fanaticism and misguided theories. Specifically, they were talking about eugenics and trying to ascertain whether or not the goals of such a theory or practice were desirable. Clearly the desired conversation was that it was a bad thing, but Ammon (I'm sure I don't know where he gets it from...) took a contrary point of view. His assertion was that genetic selection goes on all the time anyway, and that eventually we will reach a true global mix of genetic features and markers. The thing that impressed him (and me) is how much opposition he received - like he was some kind of heathen or horrible person. This especially came out when he tied in eugenics with global politics and economic theory. Capitalism, he said, is a kind of de facto eugenics, ensuring the survival of certain families and tribes at the expense of others. Whether or not you agree (I mostly do), it's the exchange of ideas that is helpful and beneficial. If everyone in the class was of the same mind, no real progress could be made, and no interesting and memorable discussion could be achieved.
I was reminded of an English class I was in when I was a junior (which is the year Ammon is in currently). My teacher was Mr. Spencer - a great guy and one who never backed away from a discussion. The topic that day was burning the flag - a constitutional amendment had been proposed banning the burning or other desecration of the American Flag. Now, to be sure - I'm no flag burner. I'm a great believer in the United States, both as a country and as an ideal. I consider myself to be a patriot - I love my country and would willingly give my life to defend it. I have, in fact, taken an oath to do so. But in the class, I took the position that at the end of the day, the flag is just a piece of fabric. Any symbolism that we assign to the particular arrangement or pattern of this fabric is arbitrary, if meaningful. It is just this meaning, however, that makes the burning of the flag so important of a statement. I received a lot of bad looks and much negative discussion as a result of my assertions, very similar to what Ammon experienced. It was a very eye-opening experience for me.
When I was in grad school, we did a project where we created a scale model of several downtown blocks. The thing was four feet wide and sixteen feet long, and we put tiny little buildings made of cardboard. As the semester progressed, we made changes to the blocks, removing some buildings and replacing them with others. We were bound by certain constraints - initially we had to abide the existing zoning and building codes, but as the semester progressed we introduced changes to the code, which changes could not go into effect until two weeks after their introduction. This meant that if I wanted to change a particular element, I had to do so a full month before I could construct something based on the new changes I'd proposed. Further, any changes to the buildings that were made had to stay for at least two weeks before they could be removed/replaced. So on our last turn to change the code, we eliminated the height restrictions. This went largely unnoticed, as I figured it would be (someone could have changed it in a subsequent code change, if they had desired). On our last "construction" week, our team (mostly instigated by me, if I'm honest) did a very large, tall skyscraper type building in what was otherwise a very low-slung neighborhood. It was a very pretty building, if I do say so myself. It was also very, very obvious. Glaring. Obnoxious, even. And it still makes me grin when I think about it. Nothing else that was done in the class garnered either so much discussion or so much anger. People were ANGRY - said I'd ruined the model. I asked them just what did they think the point of the model was - to carry on the existing patterns or to experiment and try new things? It was fun, and it got people THINKING.
Ultimately, that's what it's about for me. I like it when people think. Sometimes the things I think make people uncomfortable. And that, in the main, can be a very good thing. Sometimes in order to progress... no, strike that. ALWAYS, when people would progress, they need to get off their comfortable, passive, inactive positions and consider that which they had not already done.
I was asked why I'm such an instigator. Didn't this seem to go contrary to Christian values of love and fellowship and seeking harmony?
I admit that from a certain point of view, having one's beliefs and views challenged is disconcerting, particularly when that challenge comes from someone who is respectable, respectful, articulate, considerate, and intelligent - all of which I strive for.
And yet, in a larger sense, the Gospel of Christ is a challenge to the status quo. That's why He met His demise, ultimately - because He challenged the authority of the Priests, the Sadducees and the Pharisees. He said he didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. I don't think that the Prince of Peace meant anything other than that He wanted people to consider their beliefs and come to an understanding of the truth. He understood very well, however, that the truth He was teaching would be uncomfortable, particularly for the ruling elite, the rich, and the proud and lofty. Every aspect of His life and teachings was an affront to the aristocracy - born in a stable (not in a palace), raised as a carpenter (not as a scholar), teaching temperance and love (as opposed to disobedience and rigid traditionalism), etc. In the end, they crucified Him because He destroyed what they worked so hard to achieve - perceptual dominance and unrighteous authority, in addition to a comfortable material living.
As Thomas Jefferson said - I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.
Comments