(How NOT To Win Converts To Your Cause Division)
Just saw a picture on Facebook of someone holding a hand-drawn sign that said:
Claiming that someone else’s marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you’re on a diet.
We could re-write this so it would be both a valid analogy and true:
Being ANGRY at someone else’s marriage because it’s against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you’re on a diet.
But that’s not what the sign says.
Here’s what I think:
Who says somebody doing something that’s against your religion results in you being angry?
Put it another way: If you do something that’s against my religion how does that mean anything to me other than we disagree about this or that aspects of our religions?
There’s an implicit intolerance in that sign, because it requires you and me to change our religious (and other) convictions in order to conform to someone else’s notion of morality.
Shaming people is no way to win friends for your cause.
Accepting differences, not just in sexuality, but in all of life, including religion, morality, and ideas—THAT will win friends. Maybe even converts.
I guess we’re always going to be arguing about intolerance of one kind or another.
I wish we could learn how to defeat intolerance with tolerance.
But as I look back over history, I don’t see that happening. Not often, anyway.
What we most often have instead is the triumph of one kind of intolerance over another kind of intolerance.
Today’s picked-on become tomorrow’s bullies.
My own recurring theme…
I drew this post together from a couple of Facebook updates I wrote yesterday.
As I re-read these thoughts, I’m sensing a recurring theme in my reactions to things:
Cleverness in sloganeering is no substitute for actually thinking things through.