By PETER S. FERRARA
Columnist
—
There is an old joke about two men arguing with each other. Finally, one says to the other: "You're an idiot!" To which the other man responds: "I'd like a second opinion." The first man replies: "Okay-- you're ugly, too."
It seems to me that what passes for differences of opinion in America has sunk to this level. I don't know why we no longer seem to be able to carry on a conversation-- especially about politics and religion-- without sinking quickly to the level of name calling and finger pointing. When did differences in these subjects become so dramatic that we can't even have a discussion about them without somebody going ballistic?
In doing a little research about this, I discovered that the roots of such uncivil behavior in America go back to before this country was even established. By the time we got to the Constitutional Convention of 1789, mudslinging had long been the norm in the political world.
Some of the Founding Fathers even went so far as to hire what we would today call publicists to invent hateful lies about their opponents and get these printed in the newspapers of the day.
Evidently, extreme verbal nastiness has long been the norm in politics. People can argue about facts and keep things fairly rational and civil. But opinions and political and religious differences seem to ignite a firestorm of bad behavior. President Andrew Jackson killed folks in duels over "affairs of honor." Senators and Congressmen were not above beating each other senseless with canes or furniture on the floor of the Senate and House. Holding an opposing point of view could have lethal consequences.
Today, such differences on topics like abortion rights or religious freedom still carry a risk of bodily harm or death. I'm not talking about fanatics who have decided that terrorism is the only way to achieve their goals. Warped fanatics have always been among the human population and it seems like they always will. But what about just wanting to talk over issues without becoming violent and unreasonable?
Have we now come to a place where no discussion is possible? Is the old saying "My way or the highway" the only path remaining? This is all the more important whenever we swing into an election cycle. I spent many years in advertising and promotion when I worked in Los Angeles and New York. One of the first things I learned when I wrote an HBO special on political advertising was that negative ads are more effective than positive ads.
If you can portray your opponent as some kind of ax murderer, it helps divert the voter's attention away from your own shortcomings. That's why we see more and more negative ads with every election. It's a lot easier and more effective to get folks riled up against your opponent than it is to win their vote on the basis of your own platform. "Sure, I'm not perfect," the approach goes, "but just look at my opponent! If you love this country and have a working brain, there's no way you could vote for anyone but me."
We have gone past being able to talk rationally about politics and religion. Of politics, the view seems to be that "Our side is good and decent and has a sound approach to leading this nation, whereas our opponents are deranged scum bent on destroying America!" Not much wiggle room there for any rational debate or exchange of ideas. The tendency is to draw divisions in stark bland and white terms. "We're the good, decent folk. Our opponents are either stupid, misguided, or demented and bent on world destruction!" It is from this point of view that many campaigns and social movements are launched.
Thousands of years ago, there was a phrase in Latin which comes to mind. It was: "De rei gustibus non disputandem." It means: "You can't argue about matters of taste." In that case, "taste" meant more than just how something you eat pleases you or not. It is about how you feel about various subjects-- like religion and politics. It seems that there are things we can discuss with civility and other things we can't.
"Never argue about religion and politics" is an old adage with -- unfortunately -- a lot of truth to it. I have often seen otherwise normal, rational people go utterly bananas when those two topics come up for discussion. We can hopefully all agree that two plus two equals four. But we will never all agree on the best way to pray or to govern ourselves. Does that mean we should stop talking about how to run this country or what church we should be in if we are to be saved?
Lord knows I have occasionally gotten myself in hot water by expressing my opinions. But the truth is I am still surprised when people react with extreme anger or hatred for my having written something with which they disagree. Yes, I have a lot of opinions, but I offer them only to give people something to think about if they want to. I have never been so arrogant or foolish as to think I alone possess the "truth" about anything. I have studied science long enough to have learned one simple fact: the "truth" keeps changing.
We used to believe the Earth was flat and that all the other planets and stars revolved around it. To believe otherwise was not considered just wrong by those in power. No, such disagreement was regarded as heresy and was punished by imprisonment, torture, and death, Humans seem to fear nothing more than they do ideas they disagree with.
For me, this world is divided into two groups of people: those with "open" minds and those with "closed" minds. The open mind is willing to accept the notion that they might actually be wrong about something they think is true. This openness extends across the entire range of knowledge we possess. One day Pluto is our ninth planet. The next day it isn't. The open mind is able to accept the idea of change.
The closed mind wants to freeze time from some point in the past. "This is it," the closed mind says, "and don't even think about changing it. This -- whatever it is being discussed -- is the absolute, unalterable truth and if you monkey with it you will suffer the consequences!" The old adage that "you can't argue with a closed mind" rings truer and truer as mankind progresses. Never mind that we are discovering things that really require us to think about what these new discoveries mean. "We're right. You're wrong. End of story!" is the new mantra for the ages.
Take stem cell research, as an example. There is ample evidence that one day scientists will be able to inject cells into us that will in turn instruct the body to make the kinds of cells we had when we were younger. What this will do is reverse the aging process. We'll be able to have our bodies become "younger." Carrying this premise out to its conclusion also means we will become immortal, at least those of us who can afford to employ this technology.
Doesn't the prospect of not dying, of actually living forever, bear some kind of analysis and discussion? How will we be able to consider the implications of such scientific "progress" if we can't even talk to each other without going into attack mode? This is but one of thousands of things which lie ahead of us to examine, providing we don't wipe ourselves out before we get to them.
The Bible is so full of wisdom that it can supply us with answers to these questions of civility if we know where to look. One of its most noble observations is in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. "Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, let us reason together... though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.... They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
If we are ever to achieve a world at peace and harmony, it will be because we have learned to discuss our differences with civility. I don't know who was the first to say it, but I would love to see humanity adopt the motto: "Let peace begin with me."
