Captain's BLog

October 19, 2005

Closed-minded open-mindedness

Two men encounter each other on the street. One man (we shall call him Mr. Blue) proudly displays a t-shirt which reads in large, bold letters; Marriage is not a privilage it's a RIGHT. The other man (whom we shall call Mr. Red) also sports a t-shirt bearing large, bold letters, only his reads; Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Mr. Blue is appalled by what he reads on Mr. Red's t-shirt and excalims, "You closed-minded bigot!"

Excluding for the moment the possibility that poor Mr. Red is blind and wasn't aware of what his t-shirt said, what else makes Mr. Blue's verbal attack unwarrented? As my good friend Donald once put it, "for [Mr. Blue] to be truly open-minded, he must be open to my closed-mindedness."

This statement, though at first glance confusing, is entirely accurate. The truth is, we're all closed-minded, the "open-minded" liberals are simply in denial of their true state (we might say the same about certain evangellical denominations, but I leave that discussion for another time).

Or, if you wish to look at it a different way, we are ALL actually open-minded (and by all I'm referring only to those who have made their own REASONED decisions on issues, based on all available information, since that is the basic definition of an open-minded person).

In short, a person is NOT closed-minded when he has formed a reasoned belief and after he encounters an opposing reasoned belief (and after weighing all the evidence for each) he does not change his mind. This person has simply determined that his reasoned belief is still better. Likewise, a person is not open-minded simply because he forms his beliefs based solely on popular opinion.

After reading some of the comments made by liberals on Dustin's blog the other day, the ridiculous contradictions within their arguments were abound. They yell and curse at conservative biggots for their views, yet claim to be open-minded. Suppose homosexuality really is an abomination? Wouldn't a truly open-minded person be open to that view as well? Next they cry out that their freedom of speech is being trampled upon, yet they seek to silence the clcosed-minded, dogmatically driven conservative biggot for his oppressive views. Forget being open-minded, these upstanding crusaders of justice and equality need to work on a basic understanding of foundational logic first.

And the truly ironic thing of all? Closed-minded opinions are often formed based on strong negative emotions...the kind of strong negative emotions that conservative beliefs seem to evoke in their liberal opponents. Not that I'm insinuating anything. :)

So here's the big question; Are we, the Christian right, open-minded? In the strict sense, yes we are. We have formed reasoned beliefs based on Biblical knowlege and rationality, and the simple fact that we refuse to sacrifice our integrity to "keep up with the times" does not make us closed-minded. In the sense that the secular (aka, irrational) world views "open-mindedness", no we are most certainly not, nor should we strive to be. Without delving into the idiocy of relativism (since this post grows far too long already and the hour grows far too late) Christians have no business trying to be more accepting or tolerant of secular ideologies. There is right and there is wrong. Period. God gave us sixty-six books worth of information on what is right and what is wrong, and if we claim to be Christians who believe in and follow His word, we should be anything but (from the world's point of view) "open-minded."

7 Comments:

  • Mr. Nilsen,

    Your words are well meant but all together incorrect. You see, as it turns out, the Bible as you know it (ala the KJV etc..) is fallacious, bigoted, and discriminatory.

    David, our Bible and the story there within is not powerful enough to change lives - we must change it to make it more impactful on the culture around us. Our Mother-Father God clearly desired us to use inclusive language and was most disappointed in the Apostle Paul (that idiot homophobe bigot Jew monger) for his oppressive and hateful language about the homosexual lifestyle.

    It's amazing that you right wing Christians can emphasize the "Thou Shall Not Murder" and "Patriarchal" and "Anti-Gay" parts of the Bible while COMPLETELY BLOWING OFF those parts that clearly reveal that money is of the devil and rich people have money and the eye of the camel and that whole thing w/ a needle business. Furthermore, you RIGHT WING DOLDTS don't give a crap about the poor and impoverished in this country (screw the Salvation Army, they don't exist). What about welfare! YOU VOTE DOWN ALL OF OUR SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT WE TRY TO PASS TO KEEP THE POOR AWAY FROM US AND OUR MANSIONS IN MASSACHUSETTS! err, ah, I mean...

    My point is simply this. YOU ARE A BIGOT BECAUSE I AND MY FRIENDS SAY YOU ARE based on our understanding of reality which is cooler then yours (and that’s why WE are popular with MTV and Tony Campolo).

    (Pause)

    ...Bigot...

    For further education, please read the following article: http://www.worldmag.com/displayarticle.cfm?id=11157

    (Turns indignantly to walk away)

    (Pause)

    By the way, the book of Revelation is heretical and should’ve never been canonized. John Calvin doesn’t hold a candle to Joyce Meyers.

    By Blogger D.R. Steeve, at October 18, 2005 7:44 PM  

  • Are you saying that it was the liberals who took the clue out of inclusive?

    By Blogger david, at October 18, 2005 11:19 PM  

  • See my post on Dustin's blog, but as my mom made me aware of my new theme text:

    A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left. Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NASV)

    My new reaction to liberals who I debate is to just nod my head and smile. I use my pretended agreement to ingratiate myself to them, and if I ever get a proper opportunity, I'll screw all of them over as hard as I can.

    I no longer debate with liberals, I no longer debate with pretty much anyone. I might discuss views with people who are similar to myself, but when there's a genuine disagreement between us, I just ignore them.

    I'm sick of liberals ignoring my reasoned responses just to spit back their previous statements in a shiny new package. Now I don't even give them the respect of my attention, they don't deserve it.

    They can all kiss the very fattest part of my ass (and there are plenty) if they don't like it.

    By Blogger Donald, at October 19, 2005 1:11 PM  

  • That verse is awesome. You should end all future blog posts with it (and it's NASB).

    Good strategy too. I'm not generally confrontational with liberals either, and when I am I don't usually get anywhere anyway. All that Progress For America business last spring was a perfect example.

    By Blogger David, at October 19, 2005 3:16 PM  

  • I don't know guys. Somehow, engaging in the debate of thoughts and ideas with liberals is stimulating and exciting.

    Sometimes, it's just a game of "best one-liners." I hate those kinds of discussions.

    We must never get caught up in our own self-righteous indignation towards those of the opposing viewpoints lest we become stale in thought, the poison of the mind...

    By Blogger D.R. Steeve, at October 20, 2005 6:39 PM  

  • 90% of all discussions with radicals quickly degenerate into the game of best one-liners (and mind you, the game is entirely one-sided). Thus, being a patient man, it is the remaining 10% for which I reserve my most heartfelt reasoning. Which isn't to say that I stay silent 90% of the time, but at the exact moment the conversation turns south I no longer have much interest in continuing.

    And as far as what Donld said about ingratiating himself into the fold of left-wing wackos, I know from experience the success that strategy yields. I spend most of my time with Candice, for example, in idle conversation, and only on two occasions have we come to blows over serious political and philosophical issues. However, on those two occasions I was able to back her into a corner and force her to think about what she believes. Part of it is that I've known her for 14 years, but we've only been ideological opponents since late high school, so it still has a lot to do with her knowing what kind of person I am and respecting my opinion. As you've seen, they don't give a single word you say a second thought because they don't know you and every time you talk to them it's to start a debate. Obviously their behavior is irrational and their arrogance is frustrating, but that is exactly the reason that continual confrontation would get me nowhere with them. And the truly unfortunate thing is that they are not a few exceptions, they are the majority.

    I don't think Donald is suggesting that we become complacent, but intellectual debates rarely take place on street corners as they did in the hay day of the Greek philosophers, and while a college classroom may be an ideal setting for such debates to take place with every opposing viewpoint you encounter, it seems the best way to win hearts and minds on those street corners is to be trusted by those you wish to win over (and of course, a little patience and perseverence don't hurt). Shuold we be trying to take the debate to the streets? Absolutely, but ultimately we will gain more from trust than from attempting to force irrational people to be rational. After all, there are pleanty of irrational conservatives, so it's not like we can't win a few more. :)

    By Blogger David, at October 23, 2005 12:21 AM  

  • Geez, I hadn't read the responses again till today, but David, you hit on exactly what I was getting at, and you spelled it out much more clearly than I did...Bravo.

    By Blogger Donald, at October 23, 2005 10:16 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
hit count
Internet Providers