Part 1 Follow-up: Why Do They Disagree With Me?
In my last post, which was clear back in January, I promised to next share my concerns about specific aspects of the “Christian Nationalism” agenda. I had pulled my thoughts together in an outline, and figured I’d have the next post done in under a week. But then a Scripture verse I’d been memorizing stopped me in my tracks. Well, actually a single word in that verse.
Philippians 4:8 says “Finally, brothers—whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.”
The word that gave me pause is the word “true.” If I’m going to publicly disagree with an agenda, I need to make sure of what I’m disagreeing with. So I’ve been fact-checking myself to make sure I don’t pull an “Emily Litella,” railing against some dreadful thing that isn’t actually happening.
Both MAGA adherents and more left-leaning people don’t merely disagree about what’s best—they often accuse each other of evil intent. Assigning a motive to people you haven’t even met is pure conjecture, reaching way past context or objective fact. Isn’t that kind of presumptuous? Have you ever had your own motives misinterpreted?
Here are a couple of examples:
Issue 1: Responses to Vaccine Controversy
LEFT: Support vaccinating all children against measles and other childhood diseases.
MAGA: Oppose schools requiring any vaccines.
Fact: Since vaccination rates declined, the US has experienced several outbreaks of measles. Many children have become ill and a small number have died from the disease.
LEFT assumption: “MAGA wants children to die from measles.”
No, they don’t.
MAGA’s actual motive: Sincerely believes that vaccines are dangerous/harmful, and that the news media are greatly exaggerating the outbreaks. They see no connection between the lower vaccination rates and any harm to children.
Issue 2: Responses to Responses to MAGA “Election Integrity” efforts.
MAGA: approve of the practice as necessary to halt widespread election fraud.
LEFT: oppose the practice as unnecessary and undemocratic.
MAGA assumption: “The left wants illegal aliens to vote.”
No, they don’t.
Fact: Voter fraud exists, but only at miniscule levels. Bipartisan analysis reports that non-citizen voting amounts to less than 1% of ballots cast, and is likely only a fraction of that 1%.
LEFT’s actual motive: Sincerely believe that strict measures are a response to a nonexistent problem—that elections are already fair. The concern is that an added burden of proving citizenship serves only to suppress legitimate voting.
What to do?
Let’s say you and I are on opposite sides of a given issue. I believe your preferred policy will end badly, and I’ve made up my mind about the motive behind your opinion. My assuming “He/she wants [negative outcome]” makes actual discussion impossible.
Let’s go back to my desire to make sure I speak truth. If I disagree with you, how can I know whether your motive—the rationale for your opinion—is what I think it is? Sigh… if only there were some way I could understand your reasoning! Oh wait… I could ASK you! Without, you know, calling you insulting names.
Allow me to propose some peaceful example questions in response to a statement you believe to be wrong:
“Oh? Why do you say that?”
“If that law is passed, what outcomes would you expect? Who would benefit most?”
“How did you reach that conclusion?”
“What kind of evidence are you relying on?”
“Is the action you support consistent with your ethics/values?”
“Suppose someone from the Other Party suggested that. Would it still be a good idea?”
I for one am really tired of the constant yelling and bullying and name-calling. Intelligent, well-intentioned people can disagree sharply about what’s best. And none of us knows everything. Let’s keep that in mind and respect others. At least, give them a chance to explain their thinking. You never know… they just might have a valid point that you haven’t considered.
Thanks for reading– and keeping it civil,
Jan
YOUR TURN: Have you re-routed a potential argument into a civilized discussion? Do you have any other suggestions for calming a discussion? I welcome your comments in the box below.
jj
Jan C Johnson, Author 