Many of us desperately long for political dialogue where the participants would simply say what they mean. Unfortunately, what we are getting more of--too much of--way too much of--are participants who say everything they think. It doesn't take long. I'm not really surprised at that. James spoke of the uncontrolled tongue two millennia ago (James 3:1-12). What seems different to me--and bothers me a lot--is that this lack of discretion, ad-hominem on steroids, mouth-rage, or whatever you call it is looked on by many as an acceptable, even desirable, way of arguing. My concern is increased by the fact that these outbursts are related not to who will win the world series, but who will set the course of our nation's future.
Good rhetoric often involves a smack-up-side-the-head--the equivalent of the 2x4 in the old joke about getting the mule's attention. The problem I see is so often there is nothing in the way of actual intelligent discourse to go along with the verbal shock-&-awe. We call someone an "idiot" not because we have evidence to show their lack of intellect, but to intimidate any who might disagree. "Perhaps if I defend X, others will think I am an idiot as well." When the words in play have to do with what is called the "world's oldest profession" or what is technically the name for a female dog, the effect, and the damage, are even greater.
If I tell these mouthpieces-desperately-in-need-of-control (Psalm 141:3) to be quiet, they will probably just call me a "bigot," "fascist," "First-Amendment-basher," or maybe even a "Fundamentalist." I figure so much blood is rushing to their tongue that they can't hear, so I make my appeal to the rest of us. Don't listen! With remote, subscriptions, and voting machine, lets say we expect more.
It's STTA.
No comments:
Post a Comment