The Ties that Blind

For those of you who read yesterday's blog post about my grandparents, be assured that I listened to the CD (it was actually a DVD!). It was incredible; I'll tell you about it later. Until then, I wanted to pause and reflect on the conversations in the local and national news about what's moral, legal and right.

First, there's the Supreme Court argument about the Affordable Health Care Act and whether the individual mandate should be tossed, or perhaps the whole bill. People on both sides wonder how the other side can be so blind. How could they not see things the way I see them?

Then, there's Anchorage's raging debate on Prop 5, up for vote on April 3. For those outside of Anchorage, Prop 5 would add gay, lesbian and transgendered folks to Anchorage's current anti-discrimination policy for jobs and housing. The debating, advertising and rhetoric is getting hot and a little crazy. Those for Prop 5 cannot imagine why folks wish to deny gay and lesbians their rights. Those against Prop 5 worry that religious freedoms are in question. Both sides evoke God, Jesus and the Bible as proof that they're right.

It's frustrating, to say the least, especially for those of us who spend our lives grappling with the religious truths that come from this ancient book of narrative story, poetry, legal codes, household codes, apocrypha and persecution literature. The problem is, of course, that the Bible isn't a how-to manual, see http://www.theruthlessmonk.com/ , and is often used the way a drunk uses a light post - for support rather than illumination.

Regardless of my angst on this issue, perhaps the problem is deeper than religion. Perhaps the problem is politics, and the ties that bind and blind.

I heard a great interview this morning http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/03/29/morals-liberal-conservative with Jonathan Haidt, a social and moral psychologist who discussed how people in our country are growing more and more divided, living in isolated worlds where we seldom interact with those who differ from us. And why should we? It's so easy to go on the Internet, TV or Facebook, find people who support your side and just click (or think) "like." I confess, I do it too.

It's harder to really understand where the other side is coming from. It's harder to listen and to think about what is motivating the other side. Haidt suggested thinking about what is sacred to each side. So, for Republicans it might be the flag, the cross, personal freedoms and the importance of authority. For Democrats, it might be compassion, equality, fairness and doing no harm. These are broad strokes, but Haidt gave an interesting "for instance." When it comes to freedom of expression, he said, a Republican might be offended if the flag was desecrated. Perhaps a liberal wouldn't like it either, but might be more offended if the desecrated image was something that party had fought for, like civil rights.

Further: in the recent congressional debates about contraception, Republicans argued for religious freedoms and Democrats argued for women's rights.

Who's right? Republicans or Democrats? It's not an easy answer, and it wasn't the point Haidt was making. His point was that we don't understand the deeper motivations of each group. We think we are all operating an a level of moral reasoning, but we're really guided by those deeper values, those gut feelings, the mindset that we label each other with as R and D. The subconscious is like an elephant, Haidt said, and our intellectual reasoning is like a small boy sitting atop the beast, trying in vain to guide it.

Haidt blames, in part, the changing congressional schedule that allows congress folks to fly in and out of DC for a few days a week, rather than stay in the city and socialize over weekends. When you're only in town for a few days, you can hang with like-minded folks. But when you socialize, live and work with those of opposite opinions, strange but good things can happen. Haidt said that if a good friend share with you a difference of opinion, it's much harder to dismiss it as you might if you saw the same idea on an anonymous Internet post.

So, people, let's get together. Seriously. I commend Rev. Michael Burke, leader of Anchorage One movement for Prop 5 and Jim Minnery, president of the Alaska Family Council and opponent of Prop 5, for getting together and having coffee. I know this because one of them told me so. He said they prayed together and listened to each other and it was a powerful experience. We need much more of this kind of dialogue in every church, community and governmental organization. I'm pleased that two people of faith took this seriously. It gives me hope, more than anything else that I hear from liberal or conservative media.