Reason with me or against me - but use reason

Candidate's pandering
reflects his desperation

To my loyal readers: Relax, both of you. I don’t often attempt this serious stuff, for good reason. Bear with me just a bit longer, will you? I’m still working on it.

In a previous article, I hoped to illustrate that only through a willingness to look beyond what we accept as “Truth” can we have absolute confidence in that truth. Can the rigid concepts and assumptions we follow stand up to in-depth examination? Should we even be motivated to care?

I think where we left off, I had just quoted Stuart Chase’s statement: “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”

I had intended for that observation to solidify my position - that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pry open a closed mind.

That intent actually betrays my own prejudice. It assumes that persons with closed minds have always been that way and never put their assumptions to a test before becoming totally convinced of their “Truth.” It fails to give credit to the possibility that persons of great faith, for example, might have worked through periods of doubt, but satisfied themselves that their faith was, indeed, well founded.

After working through what they consider the important issues, they see no reason to look further. Rather than characterize them as having closed minds, perhaps they should fall under the category of “Satisfied.”

I think I should just cut to the chase here. Why this subject disturbs me is found in the American political and social scene as it presently exists.

In particular, I am deeply concerned that my children and grandchildren may very well find themselves living in a negative, dictatorial world similar to the youth of Nazi Germany. Just as the naïve but extremely patriotic young boy in “The Sound of Music” believed it his duty to betray the Von Trapp family for the state crime of dis-loyalty, I see more and more instances of good Americans accused of being “Un-Patriotic” for daring to attempt to examine both sides of an issue.

There is less and less tolerance for variety in American thinking, and how ironic is that? Isn’t this the great historical experiment to see if a conglomerate of very diverse people could all work together under a set of agreed-upon laws? Wasn’t the idea to give a wide latitude to people of all faiths and interests to have a corner of their own? Lincoln called this the “last, best hope on earth,” and stated that it was up to us to “nobly save or meanly lose it.”

The word “meanly” was not chosen lightly. Lincoln was referring to the rabble, who, much like today, existed only for the emotional charge of destroying all that was good in the name of small-minded short-term thinking.

A candidate for the U.S. Congress here in Arizona rants, “Obama is the worst President in the history of the United States!” and you can hear a large contingent echo, “Yes!”

I want to answer: "Really? Based on what? Would you care to discuss it?"

But, of course, there is no intent to discuss it. It is based on generating a gut response, not a cerebral one.

The chant has a life of its own. It strongly resembles the horrific cry of a pack of coyotes running down a defenseless prey. Rationality be damned.

In his desperation to be elected to office, this candidate has discovered pandering. It isn’t original, but it used to be depicted as the desperate slur of a person unfit to represent decent folks. Today, it finds a home in a segment of society unwilling to deliberate differences but zealous in the pursuit of shallow emotional dogma.

Over and over, I see instances of distorted and false claims about The President of The United States on the Internet. They are not differences of opinion. They are intentional undermining.

An open mind, seeking real truth, easily spots the irrationality or strained logic of these cowardly attacks, but they strike and duck back into the shadows, leaving behind a residue of miss-conception in minds far too willing to embrace them.

Let me be clear - if any person or group is willing to examine the actual provable facts of any position or situation and determine that there is a good and adequate reason to reject them, then, of course, that should be encouraged and supported.

That is not what is happening, however. There is a strong and growing segment in our society today which shuns dialogue or debate in favor of the quick and easy “Big Lie.”

Truth, completely unexamined is whatever they wish it to be. Intellect is seen as a threat, and mocked.

One might have hoped that three centuries of fine tuning the amazing experiment called America would have resulted in a lofty, well educated and progressive society - one that relies upon considered wisdom, not shallow dogma.

Open minds want to know truth, and aren’t afraid to examine claims to determine what is logical and real. Closed minds are terrified of losing their desperate clinging hold on what constitutes their uneasy world.

That kind of thinking almost stopped Columbus’ voyages. It ex-communicated Martin Luther from the unassailable authority of God‘s Church. Visionaries such as Galileo, Newton, and a long list of others had to overcome shallow minded dogma, frequently in the face of hysterically closed minds incapable of allowing investigation.

Surely, events like The Inquisition and periods like The Dark Ages are behind us. The path of enlightened mankind always leads onward and upward doesn’t it? Have we come this far only to regress to a society of fearful sheep?

For the sake of my children and grandchildren, I pray not. I want them to always be able to think things through and use their logic and intelligence in the fresh air of an inclusive world. I expect them to challenge devious self serving miss-use of The Truth. And I want them to know that their grandfather thought it important enough to do exactly the same.

Reason with me or against me - as long as you use reason.