A few nights ago, I got into a political and religious discussion. I immediately was told "here we go again." So the seven hours I previously spent talking about pitchers and catchers reporting, the snow storm, the commercials during the Super Bowl and the people waiting to see Justin Bieber is conversation worthy, but arguing the problems with our living under this false pretense of a division of church and state isn't worthy? Opinions are like assholes, I'm told so often, but the thing is, what if the people you are arguing with are using opinions and you are using empirical data, actual quotes and complex factual arguments to state your case? I find it's during these times, that I am called names, get the eye roll or am ignored or my favorite, called biased.
Biased, by definition, means to show prejudice for or against something unfairly. The key word is unfairly. A friend of mine constantly calls the New York Times liberally biased, yet in nearly six months of arguing politics and religions, has never once been able to intelligently or accurately refute anything I've quoted from them. Thus, in these instances, the Times is not actually biased, but factual. This is something, this one individual has had a hard time with and the reason why his arguments usually lead to a change of topic or he runs off to spout his rhetoric somewhere else.
This weekend, I was the observant of two younger guys arguing politics, religion and there connections to each other. One person was trying to use force of language and conviction to prove a point, whereas the other was using more concrete arguments. The irony of the argument was they were both on the same side, agreeing that Christianity plays a much to large role in our laws and our interpretations of laws. The louder of the two denounced religion, but seemed to have anger towards religion, but not in terms of government using it as a base. The other, denounced religion, but spoke of the good things in religion, not as a base, but as simple humanity. Saying that these things, need not be taught, because they are inherent, whereas hate and bad behavior is taught.
I saw quietly, listening and watching, as their body languages changed. The louder, stood up leaned in and argued his case, trying to use his larger frame and more boisterous voice to push his view. The quieter and more convincing of the too, used humor and sarcasm, while occasionally agreeing with his more aggressive counterpart. When asked my opinion, I noted that one them understood religion more thoroughly and understood human nature more, while the other held deeper convictions, not all of which were unwarranted or correct. I picked things about both arguments that I agreed and disagreed with and told them, they both had completely justified arguments, but that where there was no grey areas, this couldn't be about opinion. I have strong views about people using the term opinion, when it is indeed a fact.
The synopsis of the argument was that one was arguing religion as the root of all evil, with a lack of understanding of many religions and the other's was land control was. I explained that the single greatest owner of land on the planet, that is not connected to a monarchy is the Catholic Church. How it obtained all this land isn't up for discussion and much of their control was brought on by tyranny, so in this sense, they are both correct. Where one was wrong and the other was right was the idea that our laws are all comprised from religious doctrine, when in fact, quotes from many of the founding father's felt that religion needed to be very separate from government, so as not to fall back into the same things they were fighting to begin with. This is where history is great, but largely misunderstood. All religions preach kindness and shun abhorrent acts, but that is because they are all forms of simple laws meant to control the less educated masses. Doing good to others is not something we necessarily need to be taught, but is innate, so to argue that religion is the basis for all laws is baseless. The argument was much more complex and we all agreed that religion should have no place in today's government as it, not the lack thereof, is what is tearing at not only our moral fiber, but that of the entire world. To cast off all other places in the world as "terrorist nations" when we can't control killings on a daily basis in our own country is irresponsible.
The conversation ended with the clinking of glasses and acceptance that our arguments were basically on the same page, with different angles and a group effort to educate ourselves more on each part of the argument we might have been lacking information on. As the one person whom I had met before (our conversations were usually limited to talk of fine dining), got up to leave, he leaned in and said "I just want to let you know how refreshing it is to speak to someone as intelligent as you, in a world where intelligence is fleeting." I thanked him, but little did he know how much it meant. Two people, within three days previous had called me names, demeaning my intelligence, because their opinions clashed with my facts and I was too tired to argue when it didn't matter how much proof I could lay in front of them. I tried to define bias to them, but it was I who was biased, by disagreeing with what the attractive newscaster had told them earlier in the evening.
Biased, by definition, means to show prejudice for or against something unfairly. The key word is unfairly. A friend of mine constantly calls the New York Times liberally biased, yet in nearly six months of arguing politics and religions, has never once been able to intelligently or accurately refute anything I've quoted from them. Thus, in these instances, the Times is not actually biased, but factual. This is something, this one individual has had a hard time with and the reason why his arguments usually lead to a change of topic or he runs off to spout his rhetoric somewhere else.
This weekend, I was the observant of two younger guys arguing politics, religion and there connections to each other. One person was trying to use force of language and conviction to prove a point, whereas the other was using more concrete arguments. The irony of the argument was they were both on the same side, agreeing that Christianity plays a much to large role in our laws and our interpretations of laws. The louder of the two denounced religion, but seemed to have anger towards religion, but not in terms of government using it as a base. The other, denounced religion, but spoke of the good things in religion, not as a base, but as simple humanity. Saying that these things, need not be taught, because they are inherent, whereas hate and bad behavior is taught.
I saw quietly, listening and watching, as their body languages changed. The louder, stood up leaned in and argued his case, trying to use his larger frame and more boisterous voice to push his view. The quieter and more convincing of the too, used humor and sarcasm, while occasionally agreeing with his more aggressive counterpart. When asked my opinion, I noted that one them understood religion more thoroughly and understood human nature more, while the other held deeper convictions, not all of which were unwarranted or correct. I picked things about both arguments that I agreed and disagreed with and told them, they both had completely justified arguments, but that where there was no grey areas, this couldn't be about opinion. I have strong views about people using the term opinion, when it is indeed a fact.
The synopsis of the argument was that one was arguing religion as the root of all evil, with a lack of understanding of many religions and the other's was land control was. I explained that the single greatest owner of land on the planet, that is not connected to a monarchy is the Catholic Church. How it obtained all this land isn't up for discussion and much of their control was brought on by tyranny, so in this sense, they are both correct. Where one was wrong and the other was right was the idea that our laws are all comprised from religious doctrine, when in fact, quotes from many of the founding father's felt that religion needed to be very separate from government, so as not to fall back into the same things they were fighting to begin with. This is where history is great, but largely misunderstood. All religions preach kindness and shun abhorrent acts, but that is because they are all forms of simple laws meant to control the less educated masses. Doing good to others is not something we necessarily need to be taught, but is innate, so to argue that religion is the basis for all laws is baseless. The argument was much more complex and we all agreed that religion should have no place in today's government as it, not the lack thereof, is what is tearing at not only our moral fiber, but that of the entire world. To cast off all other places in the world as "terrorist nations" when we can't control killings on a daily basis in our own country is irresponsible.
The conversation ended with the clinking of glasses and acceptance that our arguments were basically on the same page, with different angles and a group effort to educate ourselves more on each part of the argument we might have been lacking information on. As the one person whom I had met before (our conversations were usually limited to talk of fine dining), got up to leave, he leaned in and said "I just want to let you know how refreshing it is to speak to someone as intelligent as you, in a world where intelligence is fleeting." I thanked him, but little did he know how much it meant. Two people, within three days previous had called me names, demeaning my intelligence, because their opinions clashed with my facts and I was too tired to argue when it didn't matter how much proof I could lay in front of them. I tried to define bias to them, but it was I who was biased, by disagreeing with what the attractive newscaster had told them earlier in the evening.
Comments
Post a Comment