... understanding ...

It's been awhile since I posted (work got busy, I hit the road for a bit), but I woke up yesterday, and I'm back in town. I was running around doing errands, and I hit a coffee shop I rarely go to. It was a Saturday morning, about 9 am, and once I grabbed my tea and ordered a bite to eat, I found myself sitting near four men who were older and engaged in a bible study conversation. Their conversation floated from scripture to the presidential election to homosexuality.

Their conversation bothered me. Quite a bit.

I haven't been able to step back and make too much sense of it, and I suppose writing about it here is some small step in making sense of it. So, forgive the visibility of my thinking here.

The line through their conversation was something like this ...  a) homosexuality is a sin, b) acceptance of homosexuality means that you accept sin, c) they weren't homophobic but were, instead, the victims of other people's intolerance of their religious beliefs, and d) they didn't want immoral people leading or teaching their grandkids. "There's a humanistic righteousness that's out there that isn't righteous at all," one of them proclaimed.

Then they cracked open their bibles and dug into Proverbs.

My initial thought was that it must be so exhausting to live life with the kind of fear that these men seemed to share. And that's the thing, I'm not sure exactly what they would say they are afraid of ... I think it might be that they see their duty is to make the world work in a way that is aligned with their religious beliefs and interpretations, and their cause slipping away. Maybe they're afraid of change. Maybe they're afraid of the unknown. Maybe they're afraid of what is different than themselves. I'm not sure, and I wish I would have asked them.

I mentioned this conversation on my facebook page yesterday, and a friend shared this link to William Saleten's review of The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Some nuggets from the review:

To the question many people ask about politics — Why doesn’t the other side listen to reason? — Haidt replies: We were never designed to listen to reason. When you ask people moral questions, time their responses and scan their brains, their answers and brain activation patterns indicate that they reach conclusions quickly and produce reasons later only to justify what they’ve decided.

***

Our task, then, is to organize society so that reason and intuition interact in healthy ways. Haidt’s research suggests several broad guidelines. First, we need to help citizens develop sympathetic relationships so that they seek to understand one another instead of using reason to parry opposing views. Second, we need to create time for contemplation. Research shows that two minutes of reflection on a good argument can change a person’s mind. Third, we need to break up our ideological segregation. From 1976 to 2008, the proportion of Americans living in highly partisan counties increased from 27 percent to 48 percent. The Internet exacerbates this problem by helping each user find evidence that supports his views.

It's this third point - breaking up our ideological segregation - that seemed to be challenged when I sat down yesterday: I was in a new place listening to people who understand the world differently than me. And, I don't understand them. Saleten writes of one of Haidt's points, "Liberals don’t understand conservative values. And they can’t recognize this failing, because they’re so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment." Despite going to church, despite seeing myself as religious, despite spending my entire professional career in public institutions, despite living in a wide range of places with different beliefs ... I am troubled not only by what these men were saying in such a public place, but also that I am not sure how I can understand them. Or, how I can help them understand people like me who disagree with them.

I don't have any poignant point to make here. Just questions and curiosity. Did these men really never meet any family and friends who were gay? If so, how could they not see them as real people with real needs and real contributions to make?

And, maybe that's it. Maybe I'm just skeptical and distrusting of people who believe the world is a rigid, black or white, up or down, right or left kind of place. I see fluid, gray, middle ground everywhere I go. I see people navigating the tension between being hopeful and fearful. I see a world where people are just trying to figure it out. I want a world where people can pursue their own interests, because when that happens we all benefit.

Perhaps this sounds Polyanna-ish. I don't care. I wonder, how do people learn to understand one another and, in turn, how does that understanding help them to make decisions together? I am trying to imagine what my conversation with them would be like. I'm not sure it would even be a conversation, maybe just people talking near and past one another. I'm left with questions and a sadness.

*****
Nick Lowe on Jools Holland, "What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding"