Alf Gordon

Practice What You Preach: A Commentary on Tolerance and Diversity



Posted: Sunday, February 04, 2007

by

I subscribe to several newsgroups on the Internet. Recently a member in one group posted a link to an article in a leading magazine quoting a popular Christian leader and pro-family advocate. The individual in question was sharing statistics about how children are affected by the family situation in which they are raised. The opinion of the Christian leader was that a traditional family with a father and a mother provided for children a more secure and nurturing environment than other possible scenarios, including single-parent families and same-sex partners. The member of the newsgroup wanted everyone to link to a Web site and sign an on-line petition protesting this “discriminatory" opinion, and ended the post by saying that people with opinions and attitudes like this need to be “exposed for the terrorists they truly are".

I happen to know this member’s sexual orientation, and understood quite well why comments like this would be irritating. So my initial reaction was to ignore the post, as I had so many others on the subject. However, the more this particular message rolled around in my brain, the more it bothered me. Here were two people, each expressing an opinion, something which all Americans are entitled to do through the First Amendment of the United States of America . One was printed in a national publication, while the other was posted on a public forum on the Internet; both were read by people who more than likely never asked about this individual’s views on the subject . One offered the statistical information that was used to come to this particular opinion; the other shared nothing but personal feelings to convey why the opinion was so important. So I have to ask: What right does a person have to condemn another’s opinion? Why is it considered acceptable to silence one opinion in favor of another?

It’s been said that opinions are like backsides: Everybody has one. They are neither true nor false; they are what they are, a person’s belief or feelings on a given topic . An opinion remains as such until there is sufficient data to either prove or disprove it with consistently verifiable facts. Once that occurs, it cannot be considered an opinion; it then becomes either a truth or a lie.

For example, I can say, “I am of the opinion that the sun is red." You can respond, “No, the sun is yellow." We can share our feelings about our particular stance until we’re blue in the face, but we are still dealing in the realm of opinion, as neither of us is basing our comments on provable facts. You may say, “But look at the sun! It IS yellow! Even little kids know that!" The sun may appear yellow when it’s high in the sky on a clear day; but at sunrise and sunset, it does indeed appear red. Both of our opinions are based on our interpretation of what we see around us, and neither one is wrong.

Opinions can change over time, again based on the way we view our environment and the new influences our surroundings bring to us. I may look with you at the noonday sun and agree, “My goodness, you were right. The sun IS yellow." My experiences have changed and I have modified my opinion. However, neither one of us has gone beyond our personal experiences to see if what we believe is true. In fact, the sun is neither red nor yellow; science has shown that it is closer in color to green. The reason we don’t see a green sun in our sky is due to a combination of the Earth’s atmosphere refracting the light waves and the way human eyes distinguish those light waves (to our eyes, green light waves appear white). We can continue to hold to our opinions about the sun’s color in spite of knowing the facts, but we are believing in lies. The truth, which we both now know, is that the sun is really green . (The moon, however, is not; neither is it made of cheese of any kind.)

When stating his opinion, the Christian leader mentioned above did not make the claim that his opinion was “right" or “wrong"; he simply stated that this was his opinion. Neither did he state that others who opposed his opinion should be silenced or asked to change their opinions to match his. The person who opposed his viewpoint, however, had no problem stating that he was “wrong", calling him a “terrorist" because of his beliefs, and demanding that he be silenced through public response.

I have a problem with this particular accusation. The word “terrorist" can be used to define physical threats or acts of violence against a person or group (the definition we’re most familiar with in our day and age) as well as verbal threats and onslaughts. Assuming that this person meant the latter definition, the implication is expressing an opinion that opposes another’s can be considered an act of terrorism. That being the case, could this person also be considered a terrorist for expressing an opinion that was contradictory to the Christian leader’s viewpoint? Should we garner support through an online petition to have this individual silenced for acts of terrorism as well?

What concerns me more is who is given the license to determine what is considered acceptable personal expression and what is not. Do we allow our elected officials to decide? They cannot even agree upon issues like how to end the war in Iraq , how to better our economy, or how to spend our tax dollars. I seriously doubt they could handle something of this ilk. Do we set up a non-biased group to make the determination? The individuals will have to answer to somebody, and that means there will be bias of some sort or another. Or do we set up laws that let the individual decide what speech can be considered an act of terrorism and have the perpetrator placed under arrest? That could lead to anarchy, which we do not want to support in this country.

What bothers me the most about this entire situation is the dissenter in this case is a member of a group that loudly boasts that it is tolerant of diverse opinions, beliefs, and lifestyles. The group encourage others to do the same; unfortunately, their response to anything that isn’t specifically positive towards their viewpoint is to clamor for the silencing of the dissenting opinion. It’s evident from their practices that what they really mean is, “We expect you to embrace our diversity, and if you don’t we’ll harass you until you do; but don’t expect us to be tolerant of anything that you do because you obviously oppose us." This is hypocritical at best, and in the end can actually damage their efforts to promote the new standard they so ardently want to impose on society.

People are entitled to their personal opinions, and they are entitled to express them. Sometimes sharing those opinions can be painful to listen to, and sometimes they can be downright offensive. However, sharing differing opinions on the topics that affect us today is neither evil nor wrong. It is only when we disagree that we can look at all aspects of an issue, test the suppositions, and determine if things are acceptable as is or if they need to change. When everyone agrees on everything, nobody gets to talk about anything - and that is definitely wrong.

Alf Gordon is a consultant and has been writing on various topics for many years, both in the public and private sectors. He and his wife live in Houston, Texas.

This Article has been viewed 704 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)
» left by Danny Smith
 4 years 360 days ago.
I can't agree with you more. This article is well-written and the point is well-articulated. Job well done!
» left by Anonymous
 4 years 358 days ago.
Based on your definition of terrorist, all our politicians would qualify. Scary thought.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.