After several days of hearing the same sound bite, one thing finally stood out to me. I'm not going to argue for or against gay rights today, though I am a libertarian when it comes to people and their ability to exercise civil liberties, so you should know where I stand on the issue. But, thats not what I'm blogging about. What was interesting to me was, the apologetic way that Miss California attempted to qualify her answer. I'm not going to do like others and try to make fun of the way she articulated herself. Im sure she was just nervous, and its not as if she was asked a controversial question on national tv, anyway, right? As if most Americans, not anticipating the question, could have done any better. Judgmental idiots...
The only thing that stood out to me, is that in the midst of stating her position, she made the comment...
"thats how I was raised"
That phrase has to be one of the most asinine comments ever uttered. What it really means is, I dont think for myself. So... one would think... that would be one of the last things someone would want to say when trying to intelligently articulate a defense to a position they hold. And if you can't defend a position... then perhaps... you shouldn't hold it.
Now, Miss California is not the first or last person to use the phrase, and I'm not trying to beat up on her. Im sure the people who watch pageants dont watch them expecting to get intellectual stimulation.
"Wow, that Miss Idaho... I found her speech on the DIRECT corrolation between socio-economic issues and crime rates to be very fascinating."
That never happens. But, its just the concept of anyone saying 'thats how I was raised' which has always irk'ed me. Because, the first thing that comes to mind is always... 'so what?' Who said the way you were raised was good? There are too many examples I could use... but, America, IRONICALLY ENOUGH, has a long history of Xenophobia. What if all the children who grew up in those homes just held on to the positions of their parents... JUST because they were the positions of their parents.
"My papa told me not to trust Italians." - 16 year old growing up in 1890's New York City, who is ironically a 7th generation American whose descendents came from Italy in the 1750's
Its like the guy who has spent his entire life in (lets say... a pentecostal) church and "knows" he has the truth.
I'm not (usually) a relativist, I believe in absolutes (depending on the topic) however, I question someone who has never stepped out of his or her "box." I once knew a fool from the pentecostal church... or "asylum" as I now affectionately refer to it... that I grew up in. He was born and raised pentecostal. His parents and grandparents being DEVOUT charismatics, not just sunday morning Christians. And he was QUITE proud of the fact that his form of pentecostalism was all he ever knew. He had never strayed away. Never been duped by the lies of the Catholics... the Baptists... the Lutherans... the Methodists... the Presbyterians... the Episcopalians... or any of their ilk. Never considered there world and their perspective. He was strong. He fought away the poison of such philosophies.
The weirdest thing to me, about that (lack of) logic... is that there are people who do the exact same thing in other backgrounds that are antithetical to yours, yet you consider them fools. Lots of people. And not ooooooooooooonly that, the craziest thing to me... HOW LUCKY ARE YOU... TO BE ONE OF THE FEW... THAT DIDN'T HAVE TO GO LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH... BUT HAPPENED TO BE BORN INTO IT!
That right there... has always been the strangest thing about people who think based on how they were raised. Have they never considered that?
"Wow, I must be... freaking lucky..."
I would try to discuss positions that the charismatics hold, which I find... simply put, to be quite moronic... yet, questioning or even considering an outside position was not a possibility. Not an option. Just like Miss California... and others like her... These people have one objective...
defend what you believe
defend what you believe
defend what you believe
I'm not sure why thats even appealing. I'm not saying one should change the way they think every 2 years, but, you should always be learning. You should always be open to question and challenge presuppositions and be EAGER, not relunctant, to throw out what you can't substantiate. Personally... I look at my mind as the potter who molds clay.
I dont throw out the entire vase and start over, however, I'm always reshaping the clay. Fine tuning the curvatures of the vase. What doesn't work, I pull out. What's illogical, I cut off. And we refine again. Over and over. Learning becomes an adventure. Something you enjoy, rather than something that you tell people to beware:
"You better watch out... listen to them nerds long enough, they'll have you thinking its okay for gays to marry."
A little skepticism never hurt anyone. Natural inquiry. When its working right, the press (our Fourth Estate) is built on it. "This is what the government official said, but we tried to see if we could substantiate his claims."
I'm also a big history guy, I love the history channel and shows about antiquity. A lot of things that we've come to learn over time was based on questioning the world around us.
"Why..."
"Why not..."
"Lets see..."
"What if..."
"How does..."
And my two favorite people in ALL of human history were people who were not afraid to question. I'm NOT saying these are the two most important people in human history, doubt such a list could be created, but they were both extremely relevant to the future of their "spheres" of influence.
Martin Luther 1483 - 1546
Galileo Galilei 1564 - 1642
Unequivocally, my favorite two people... bar none. And just saying that should give you a glimpse into my mindset. I dont consider either man to be a true "skeptic" in any capacity, however, both men studied and questioned... and ultimately took positions that pit them against... quite literally, the entire "world" of their day. Both facing off against the powerful Holy Roman Catholic Church. Both ostracized by the world they knew. Both called to "testify"... to give account... for their heretical beliefs before the authorities of their day.
I wont give their bio's here, (go read up!) though both are very interesting stories.
You have Martin Luther (depicted above) being questioned about his religious beliefs and how they relate to the Roman Catholic church's official stance on Christianity.
And less than a hundred years later, you have Galileo Galilei (depicted above) being questioned about his scientific beliefs and how they relate to the Roman Catholic church's official stance on the Astronomy.
Religion and science would NEVER be the same again. Steven Hawking calls Galileo the father of "modern science." And they were questioning in a time period where it was quite "unhealthy" to question or disagree with Catholicism. A time when there was NO separation between church and state. Where men could die for their views. Where you were not only disagreeing with the majority of men, but you were told you were also in disagreement with God almighty. Neither man being an athiest, such an accusation would be taken seriously. Both men faced not only the strong possibility of execution, but also the burning question of...
"who am I... to question everyone else? can they all be wrong? am I defying God? Can I, alone, be right?"
And that singular question is what makes their stories so similar and so compelling to me. It wasn't just blind unsubstantiated defiance (rebellion just for the sake of rebellion), but, having the courage and conviction to know what you believe... to know why you believe it... and taking a stand (though Galileo would later recant near the end of his "trial" when threatened with medievel torture). I had to point out that these would be torture techniques that were sanctioned in the 1600's... I mean come on... you would have done the same. (click here)
Its hard to even concieve of living in such a position in this day and age. This would not be something a man would have done just willy nilly. Where you live in infamy. Where everyone knows your name, and most people think you a misguided fool. Where you are arguing against the entirety of the religious or scientific community of the day.
"The church has been this way for 1500 years... many a great theologian has come before you and made great articulate defenses of the Catholic system... God has placed a Pope on Earth who clearly explains scripture... do you have insights better than them all?!"
"Astrology and astronomy have affirmed a geocentric universe since their inception... its what God says... its what we all accept... its even what the entire scientific community agrees upon... are you claiming to be smarter than the entire world?!"
Both men could have easily went with the flow... they could have easily just thought what they were told to think and accepted it. Because... as you know, if they had given in and accepted what they were told to think, could anyone fault them? They would have just been living based on...
...how they were raised.
Posts
