Agree to Disagree

Agree to Disagree

 

Divided. Opposed. So far apart.

To read that introduction, the average reader would not assume that I am describing the sentiments of citizens of a free country which calls itself "United." And yet citizens of this great nation have become quite polarized on matters ranging from gun laws to gas prices. Given the freedom of speech generously granted to every citizen of the United States of America, each American ought to feel free to exercise their rights to share their feelings even and especially when they differ from others.

 

It is a great blessing and benefit to be able to think and process freely without coercion or undue influence. This has been a cherished American ideal since its founding. In the process of forming opinions, we are naturally inclined to cling passionately to our personal paradigms. So what do we do when our thoughts disagree with someone around us? A natural response seems to be to put up a defense and fight for our truth. Too often, this defense turns into angry offense as we begin to belittle and demean others who carry a differing opinion. And thus the divide.

 

The United States of America ought to be a land of freely shared opinions that can be accepted and even argued. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is quoted having said “Argument is the oxygen of democracy.” The term “argue” need not carry only a negative connotation. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives a few helpful definitions for argue: “to consider the pros and cons of; to persuade by giving reasons.” Each of these definitions alludes to the necessity of providing rationales for your thoughts and statements. In the Jewish custom, Machloket l’shem shamayim

(“A disagreement for the sake of Heaven”), invites disagreement as a respectful method to come to truth, rather than to win, dominate or demean the other.

 

In his book Letters to a Young Education Reformer, author Rik Hess, speaking of the value of talking with those who disagree, stated that “it’s worth exploring why we see things differently and what we might learn from one another.” This is a productive pursuit, enlarging our own schema and extending possibilities of further truth. But why does this process seem to turn negative? I believe there are a few personal attributes that would help each of us have more constructive, not destructive, conversations.

 

The first of these is humility, in the form of meekness. This latter term refers to the willingness to argue for the truth and not for personal pride. It means listening first and genuinely considering the point of view of others. Humility is an acknowledgement that one does not necessarily have all the answers and would benefit from an active conversation towards the truth. A second attribute is charity, a willingness to extend love to others despite anything. Love builds community and acknowledges that everyone has worth. It is worth the sacrifice of pride and domination to seek truth through meaningful conversations which build unity.