A Snapshot of Division

I’ll be using an issue that is of fading significance but that represents a general trend of division within the “United” (sic) States of America.

Proposition #1 ~ Citizen Group A:[1]

·         Believes that science (specifically, in this case, medical science) is corrupt. At best it is in the pockets of Big Pharma and Health Insurance. At worst, some in Group A believe medical science is a part of a global conspiracy to . . . (you fill in the blank. Not being a conspiracy theorist, I won’t skew the perspective by entering what would be an opinion, rather than a conclusion based on evidence.)

·         Believes a small minority of medical sources that say COVID-19 is not a serious threat. It is exploited by a corrupt medical science sold out to Big Pharma and Health Insurance.

·         Therefore, since they believe COVID-19 is not a serious threat, they believe it is a matter of personal choice in which their personal rights are infringed by mandates (1) to wear masks, and (2) to be vaccinated.

Proposition #2 ~ Citizen Group B:

·         Believe science and the scientific method (specifically, in this case, medical science) are valid disciplines that provide the best available information upon which to base protocols and practices.

·         Don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but neither do they believe scientific conclusions should be taken as inerrant, but as conclusions based upon the best available evidence at a given point in time. Scientific conclusions are received as trustworthy, acknowledging that subsequently discovered evidence may require adjusted conclusions.

·         Believe in the consensus of medical research and pursuant recommendations related to a serious pandemic that has predictable impact.

·         Believe in the consensus of medical research and pursuant recommendations that reduce the risk[2] of (1) contracting the virus or (2) spreading it.

·         Therefore, since they believe COVID -19 is a serious threat, they believe it is the responsibility of the whole of society to abide by the recommendation to wear masks and maintain “social distancing” when in public and to be vaccinated.

·         They believe masks and vaccinations are a responsibility, rather than a choice, and believe their rights to reduced health risks are violated by those who refuse to comply with the recommendations of what they consider to be valid and trustworthy medical sources.

Argument: There is a collision of values; specifically, the value of perceived rights:

·         Citizen Group A argues that their right of freedom of choice is abridged if they are required to (1) wear masks or (2) be vaccinated.

·         Citizen Group B argues that their rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness include reduction in risks to infection of life-threatening disease, and are abridged when recommended precautions are not required.

Resolution: Whose Perceived Rights Take Precedent?

·         Does the right to free choice supersede the right to the reduction of threat to health or life?

·         When there is no common ground for discerning precedent, whose choice should be validated? On what basis?

Hypothesis: This has become a matter neither of choice nor of civil resolution; rather, it is a street brawl in which a strategy of “the ends justify the means” predominates. Philosophically and ideologically, Citizen Group B historically has demonstrated a willingness and an endeavor to work toward a win/win resolution in which all parties participate on a level playing field, while Citizen Group A historically has demonstrated a willingness to abandon values and civility, and to resort to whatever means required, including disrespect and violence, in order that their position prevail.

Conclusion: As a conflict resolution consultant, I have learned that any divisive issues can be resolved, but only if all parties truly want to resolve them. In far too many cases, at least one party in a conflict does not want to resolve the issue; rather, it seeks only to “win the fight.” As long as any one group is willing to resolve differences ONLY on a “winner-take-all-violence-if-necessary” basis, America will remain a house divided—a house which cannot stand.

This same process and conclusion can be applied to virtually every issue that divides American culture, including abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, 2nd amendment rights, elections, the Democracy vs. Republic dichotomy, race relations (and the history of racism), the place of women in society, immigration, and the color of the sky.

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my worldview.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

[1] The citizen groups herein referenced are intentionally unnamed. If the shoe fits, wear it.

[2] No guarantees of absolute prevention were ever stated or implied.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Elephant in the Room

  I had a defining moment in the shower this morning. A lot of my defining moments come when I’m in the shower, probably because that’s one of the few places I’m not engaged in some project or on my way to the next one, and my mind has a chance to catch up with my body. Last week I finished the first draft of a book, and I’m in the process of submitting a proposal to a publisher. In filling out the publisher’s form, I’m asked for an annotated Table of Contents—basically, summarizing the book in a few sentences, chapter by chapter. With hot water relaxing my neck and shoulders, and with shampoo stinging my left eye, I pondered how to compose that annotated Table of Contents, and it came to me that, in developing the argument of the book, I had found in the Judeo/Christian Scriptures, and particularly in the Hebrew Scriptures, what amounts to two distinct G(g)od images, each incompatible with the other; indeed, diametrically opposite. If I’m totally honest with myself and with my...
Read more

Tools

               I have a lot of hand tools in my garage: hammers, saws, screwdrivers, pliers, etc. And I have a lot of power tools: table saw, saber saw, drills, sanders, router, and even a power paint sprayer. My computer is a tool in my vocation. In our home we have a dish washer, and washing machine and dryer, vacuum cleaner, brooms and mops… But here’s the thing: none of those tools does anything—until I pick one up and use it. There is no inherent value in any of my tools. They are no better or worse than my skill level. Marketing is a tool. It has no inherent value except in theory. In practice, it is no better or worse than the one who applies it. Sadly, an increasing number apply it in ways that are “worse.” In his 1957 classic, Hidden Persuaders , [1] Vance Packard exposed the manipulative and exploitive ways marketing was being used. Today, marketing has become intrusive and even invasive. But that’s not the tool’s fault! Stat...
Read more

Is Our Testimony Attracting people to Christ? or Pushing Them Away?

       Not long ago our church had a booth at the local Pride Festival. We acknowledged that most of those in attendance had been hurt by some manifestation of Christianity, and we wanted to be a healing presence.      During that afternoon, a couple of guys approached us, one with an open Bible in his left hand, his right forefinger jabbing at a single verse, claiming they wanted to “have a conversation” with us.      They were lying, of course. They wanted to use the Bible to condemn us for reaching out in love to people guilty of the heinous abomination of homosexuality. Theirs was a daunting task, since there is no clear biblical injunction either condemning or confirming homosexuality.      In the first place, the biblical word that is translated “abomination” means “liturgically improper” and includes certain food prohibitions, like shrimp and other shellfish, wearing wool and linen fabrics in the same garment, and a...
Read more