Presented to the Gulf Coast Unitarian Universalist Fellowship sometime in the late 1990’s.
In a recent issue of World magazine a writer voiced concern over the professed love of humanity among UU’s, but the apparent lack of tolerance of diverse views among many of our people.
The author described how angry many UU’s became when they heard views that differed from theirs, and he lamented some of the language used to describe their opponents.
This caused me to ponder why it is that so many of us refuse to tolerate, or even listen to, opposing viewpoints; and how we might remedy this problem for the betterment of all humanity.
After the riots that occurred, in his name, Rodney King pleaded, “Can’t we all just get along?” And I would like to ask the question, “Is it POSSIBLE for us to all get along?” “CAN We All Love Each Other?” I mean, REALLY like each other, in spite of our differing views? I don’t mean our group. We seem to be doing OK. I’m looking at the general public, which each of us in this room is a part of, once we walk out that door.
Concerning “differing views”, I’d like to categorize, in general, what I see as the three views held by Americans:
Liberals, in general, seem to think that, “if we just make people act the way we think they should, people would be a whole lot better off”
Conservatives seem to think that, “if we can just prevent people from acting in ways that we think are bad for them, people would be a whole lot better off”
Libertarians seem to think that “if we just leave people alone, everyone will be a whole lot better off”
Three distinct viewpoints, with a very strong bond holding all three tightly together….all these people want a better world, for everybody
Is it bad, that we disagree on how to achieve a better world? No. In fact, disagreement is good. So long as we maintain respect for one another, disagreement can only lead to enlightenment.
Is it surprising that we should disagree on such important matters? No! After all, we are UU’s for goodness’ sake!
So what’s the deal? Why so much anger at other people’s views? How many times do we see people from opposing political camps, shouting and shaking their fists at each other, calling each other names, simply over differences of opinion?
I’d like to relate a story from the teachings of The Buddha, as it was told in a book titled, “Before He Was Buddha”, written by Hammalawa Saddhatissa:
“There was once a king who, seeking some entertainment for himself, had a number of people who had been blind since birth brought together in front of him. An elephant was then led in and made to stand in the midst of them, and they were instructed to reach out so as to feel the part of the animal nearest them. Accordingly some felt its head, some an ear, some a tusk, while others felt its trunk or its foot or its tail, and one felt the tuft on the end of its tail. The king then asked the blind men in turn to say what they thought an elephant resembled. Those who felt its ample head said: “An elephant is like a cooking pot.” Those who had felt an ear said: “Like a basket for winnowing grain.” A tusk suggested a ploughshare, the trunk the shaft of a plough, a leg a pillar, the tail a pestle, while the man who had felt only the tuft of the tail said: “An elephant is like a broom.” A great argument developed among the holders of these varying opinions and before long they came to blows, to the huge amusement of the king.
This story applies to people with sight as well. It shows that, for one thing, none of us has the whole story about anything. Each of us may know a lot about a few things, but we don’t know everything about anything.
Each blind person had only a piece of the whole picture, thus, each person’s knowledge of the subject, the elephant, was incomplete.
The result was that each person had a different idea about what an elephant was. Is this disagreement, by itself, sufficient cause for fighting? Or is there another factor involved?
What if each person simply said, “You think an elephant is like a cooking pot, while I think it is like a basket for winnowing grain. Isn’t that interesting?” Would we see fighting then?
No. The fighting broke out when each person tried to convince everyone else that he had the correct description! It was only when one person tried to IMPOSE his view on everyone else that the trouble started. I’d like to point out that, had there been one person who had felt the elephant all over and arrived at a correct, complete description, his view would have been met with just as much hostility as those of the others’, had he tried to convince everyone of his view.
Obviously, this story applies to people in general. Just as with the blind people, each of us fails to see certain aspects of an issue.
So why do we cling so tenaciously to our views; insisting they are THE ONE AND ONLY ANSWER, and then strive so mightily, to the point of open confrontation, to impose our ideas upon others?!
I don’t know.
But I think the reason we do this is that we forget that we don’t know the whole issue; and in our rush to save the world, we see opposing viewpoints, from others who know a different part of the issue, as outright HERESY!
What makes things worse is that we don’t know, and can’t foresee, all the consequences of our ideas, either. For those with whom we are fighting, the part of the issue that THEY know may be some of the adverse consequences of what we are proposing. Consequently, they strive against us to prevent us from causing harm.
So now, we’ve arrived at the conclusion that our fights stem from #1, our belief that we know the whole answer to the world’s problems and, #2, our desire to save the whole world, in our own lifetimes.
Do we really believe that to be possible? CAN we save the WHOLE WORLD, in our own lifetimes? And if we can’t, are we not then, perhaps, wasting a lot of time and energy trying to save it? Is there a better way to spend our lives, while still striving to reach our noble goal?
To para-phrase the late Karl Hess, “If you want someone to adopt your way of living, don’t preach at him or berate him. That will only drive him away from you. Instead of preaching your ways to others, trying to convert them, why not just live your beliefs? Show people by your example that your way of doing things is better.”
Thomas Jefferson, writing about the several states which were uniting to form the USA, stated that each state, or county in each state, or town in each county, etc. would serve as a laboratory of experimentation in the governance of people. Each different area could learn from the others what worked, and what did not.
I believe Mr. Jefferson was wise in this view of our nation. Understanding the greatly varying viewpoints of the citizens, and seeking to achieve a peaceful union of those same people, he recognized that the ability of one group to force its views upon another would only result in strife. A “perfect” union could only be arrived at by mutual consent, not through coercion.
What about those of us who feel we need to change things NOW!? “There’s just too much pain in the world to not do something right away!”, they say. And for a long time, I was among them.
I spent just about every waking hour thinking, writing, speaking, and yelling; trying to get people to see things my way. And what did I accomplish? NOTHING! At least, nothing good. People hated to be around me. Or they poked fun at me. They couldn’t be bothered with my ideas. They had their own views, in which case they’d yell back at me, or they had no opinion of my issue at all, in which case they’d laugh and walk away. So for WHAT GOOD was all my effort and striving?
A few years ago I realized something that helped transform my life and enable me to at least work toward peace and harmony with others, and within myself. I realized that the only part of the world that I had any true control over, was myself. I realized that the sphere of influence that I had was very small. But that’s OK. I now realize my proper place in the universe. I now know my sphere of operation.
Now, when I go among the populace, I don’t scare people away. People seem to enjoy being around me. I can engage in political discussions without preaching, or shouting. Well, most of the time, at least.
But, what about those of us who still believe they can save the world, and can do it now?
To them I would ask, “Are you SURE you have the right method? Has it been tried and found to work well, with no adverse, unforeseen consequences? What if you’re wrong? What if, like the blind people examining the elephant, you only know part of the problem, and thus have an incomplete, or incorrect, answer? Would it be good to impose an erroneous “solution” on everyone, quickly?
And even if you ARE correct, in every way, are you sure you have the MORAL justification to force your way upon people?
Would it not be much better to seek out those who agree with you, form a group, publish your views, and then LIVE your views? Let the whole world see! Here we are! Here is what we believe in! And this is how our beliefs shape reality!
That is called leading. The other way is called coercion.
Sadly, government coercion is the way most people seek to implement their ideas. I have a saying: “Leaders are at the head of the parade, showing us the way. Politicians are at the back of the parade, prodding us along with guns.”
This is the state of affairs in this nation today. We have as many warring political factions today as the king had blind people fighting over the description of the elephant! And with incredible irony, our condition was brought about by people’s desires to do good things! To make our world better!
CAN we all love each other? Yes, I believe we can. But in order to be able to love each other, we must be as children. Just as a young boy and young girl would, in their complete and joyous innocence, say, “Show me yours and I’ll show you mine”, we, as grown children, should turn to the person next to us and say, “Tell me your ideas, and I’ll tell you mine. Maybe, from our differing viewpoints, we can both come away with a better understanding.”
Imagine that. No shouting, no fighting. Just enlightenment. Humanity has advanced a lot in the past 1700 years. Overwhelmingly, that advancement was achieved by people thinking and sharing, not fighting.
Thinking and sharing. Those are the methods that will make for us a perfect world. That world will be in our future. But at least, during our lives, we will enjoy peace and enlightenment, and the pleasure of living our lives in the manner that we believe best.