Food for thought.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/21/20, Andy Baracco <wq6r@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Edwin Cooney
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 7:20 AM
Subject: the equality of opinions-what a concept!
Hello Everybody,
Because it is so compelling, I'm going to feature reader Dennis from
Colorado’s reaction to my recent column, "Balancing The Free and the Fair."
This is a bit challenging, but it’s a wonderful opportunity to address some
socio/political topics of the day. Dennis writes:
“Getting along is hip nowadays. We are supposed to just agree to disagree
with somebody with opposing views. We are supposed to see one man's views
equal but different from the other man. This is easier said than done. Maybe
you can write an article about how to get along? For example, if Right wing
Willy believes in blocking gay people from owning homes but Left wing Larry
knows it’s wrong to block somebody from owning a house just due to who he
sleeps with, how are those two viewpoints equal? One blocks the very pursuit
of happiness that is promised by the constitution. Those two views are not
equal, and agreeing to disagree trivializes the true effect on the person in
question, and it brings into question the goodness of a person who holds
such anti-human views. Same for other issues like statues and so on. All
views are not all equal, and it’s hard to just agree to disagree with people
who want to negatively uphold or destroy various parts of people's lives. In
theory, getting along is nice. In real life, it’s a lot more complex. A
person's beliefs reflect the type of person they are.”
That concludes Colorado Dennis’ challenge. Here are some of my responses.
What say you!
Warm Regards,
Me, E.C.
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2020
THE EQUALITY OF OPINIONS - WHAT A CONCEPT!
Opinions equal? Really? Perhaps valid would be better, but even an invalid
opinion is still just an opinion or, if you prefer, a point of view!
Opinions or points of view may be dangerous enough as cultural tendencies,
but some become downright lethal if and when they become law. At the outset
of your message you insist that the idea of getting along is hip nowadays.
Hip, really? Then how do you account for the "culture war" through which
we've been passing as far back as 1973, the year of Roe v. Wade?
How are we supposed to just agree to disagree with somebody with opposing
views? We are supposed to see one man's views as equal but different from
the other man. This is easier said than done. You're right, Colorado Dennis,
that not all views are equal in applicability, but as mere points of view,
they invariably invite legitimate objective analysis. Furthermore, they
reflect the depth of public reaction to a controversial issue by a national
constituency.
First, I suggest that few people, politicians included, are as ideological
as even they often represent themselves as being. Also, we too often refer
to one another as “far left” and “far right.” We revel in radicalism with
ideological references too few of us really understand. For instance, if
there's a radical left or right, by definition there must be a near or
moderate left and right! Thus, who's on the moderate left, the moderate
right or even in the exact center needs to be defined. It's my guess that
most people try to be practical rather than ideological.
Let's tackle the increasingly popular view that Civil War statues should not
remain as valuable historic relics.
In order to have an informed comprehension of what this point of view is all
about, it's necessary to understand the significance of the Civil War in
American history. First, it’s important to put the Civil War in context.
Remember that for 18th and 19th century citizens, what was realistic was
local. Most people were born, lived, and died in locations approximately 15
square miles apart. Few Americans were nationally-oriented. Thus when
General Robert E. Lee left the United States Army and accepted the
leadership of the Army of Virginia at the outset of the Civil War, he did so
because in his heart, Virginia was his "home" and country. To General Lee,
the Union was merely an entity Virginia joined for its benefit. To
Northerners, General Lee was a traitor. To Southerners, he was a patriot.
Both Northerners and Southerners have been more or less locked into these
values for the last sixteen decades. Hence, southern heroes are largely
military heroes connected to both Civil War history and, yes, even to
family. Historically, few Southern heroes are Black. Of course, an abundance
of Black Americans have been, and are, heroic. Perhaps had Southern
leaders begun actively celebrating their heroism, the recent backlash
against Civil War veterans wouldn't be as strong as it is. It's important to
keep in mind that the protectors of Civil War heroes have historically been
quick to call “social heroes” Socialists.
One of the saddest aspects of American history is our ongoing suspicion of
immigrants. Most immigrants come to America to earn a better living. You
can't earn a decent living when you come to destroy the system you seek to
join. The very idea back in 2018 that a bunch of homeless and unemployed
immigrants were about to invade America seriously lacked substance.
As for the abortion issue, I have yet to read or hear of a solution to the
availability of abortions. Overruling Roe v. Wade merely restricts the
availability of abortions to the wealthy. Well-heeled Americans have the
resources to go to Canada or Mexico to obtain an abortion which is "none of
anyone's business!" and return healthy and happy to practice their favorite
brand of politics. A ban on the accessibility to abortions for one class of
people doesn't outlaw abortions. There's an irony here. Only a few years
ago, both during and after Roe v. Wade, social conservatives complained that
too many poor people were having babies to collect money from the government
for the raising of children. They were called welfare queens. If abortion is
a question of morality, isn't assistance to the poor likewise a question of
morality? After all, what does "love thy neighbor as thyself” mean? What is
"do unto others what you would have them do unto you” all about? Those
admonitions go back as far as both Confucius and Christ!
Here's a fundamental question. How interested are you and I in doing all we
collectively can when it comes to giving people the benefit of the doubt?
All of us are in some ways inconsistent in our attitudes and outlooks. Too
many of us are willing to dehumanize political leaders with whom we have a
conflict, be it attitudinal, intellectual or personal.
In Colorado Dennis's letter, he asserts that a person's views on public
questions are a reflection of their decency. Some issues, such as white or
Black nationalism, tolerance for or against LGBTQ behavior and marriage,
may seem unhealthy or even anti-social to some, but it's reasonable to this
observer to take the position that no behavior that doesn't interfere with
who I am, who I admire, or who I love is in any way my personal business.
LGBTQ people aren't thieves, killers, child molesters, or agents of any
political or subversive party. If you're interested in tolerating others,
there's no law of which I'm aware that prevents you from being wise, just,
smart, gentle, caring, sharing, practical, and patriotic in all things! All
of us are free to be tolerant of one another. I maintain that some of the
most disagreeable people are ultimately pretty harmless.
I'm grateful to Colorado Dennis for his letter which invited me to write
what's here. I hope I've been responsive!
The late, great showman, humorist, and columnist Will Rogers, who was known
for his observation "I never met a man I didn't like,” once told of a
congressman who became unhappy when one of Rogers' columns was read into the
Congressional Record. "I object," said the congressman, "to the remarks of a
professional joke maker being read into the Congressional Record." Rogers
went on to point out that the unhappy congressman had it wrong. "If I make a
joke, you can take it or leave it, but any time Congress makes a joke, it's
a law.” Then, after a pause, Rogers said, “…and any time Congress makes a
law, it's a joke!"
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
