When to Withdraw Respect: a Look at Honest Debating

I've been looking for ways to disagree with people, without seeming dismissive or demeaning. For whatever reason I often see things differently from others which often is quite tiring. For a long time I viewed it as my responsibility to make sure that my "true" opinion was being supplied into the conversation - almost as though I would be doing a disservice to truth if I kept my mouth shut. More times than not, this just led to further arguments and a greater divide.

Originally my biggest concern was with the whole "everyone deserves respect" thing - which made me question whether suggesting someone may be wrong could be done while still respecting them. This obviously led me to separating the person from their ideas - - something that is so rarely maintained publicly. Because we have become so attached to our ideas - when someone disagrees with them, they are disagreeing with us - and therefore attacking us. This isn't just a philosophical conclusion - if you watch people (me included) you can see physical reactions to their ideas being confronted and challenged. Speech quickens, hands fidget, logic blurs.

The thing is - if we are going to honestly pursue truth - we have to foster an environment where it is okay to have wrong ideas - as long as when they are proven as such - we unhitch ourselves from them and pursue truth. Since we are often emotionally tied to our ideas, to the point where they often become part of our self-identity - accepting that the idea is invalid is quite difficult. Few of us have probably never "lost" an argument - - which is a testament to how ineffective our modern approach to dialogue is. Our culture draws thick lines around what we believe. Whenever one of these lines is proven to have been drawn outside of reality - we shame that person - causing them to thicken the line, rather than erase and redraw. This further broadens the divide between individuals - and between our society as a whole.

We no longer have much of a "group identity" - and that's a shame. Now, I'm not suggesting that everyone just hop on board to everything that I think is true (that would probably be tragic) - - but what I am suggesting is that we seek for a group identity founded on the honest pursuit of truth, rather than the pursuit to convince the world that we are right.

The problem is that most of us at this point are probably thinking that we already do this - but we don't, I don't. When someone brings evidence against my position I either dismiss it immediately or challenge the source - I never accept it straight away. These two reactions are opposites regarding the pursuit of truth. Because of the dishonest and logically incoherent approach of so many "news" sources and studies  - to honestly pursue truth we must question and challenge the validity of all sources - both those which support us and those which prove us wrong.

I would love to be part of a society that would collectively pursue truth even when the result is the requirement to reevaluate and update our own views. I am a strong supporter of honoring all people. As human beings created in the image of God, we are inherently deserving of honor. I don't believe that respect is inherent. Respect must be earned and can easily be lost (please take a second to review the definition of "respect" if this sounds weird). We must be willing to withdraw respect from those who stand behind positions not founded on fact and truth. If someone is willing to relentlessly hold to positions and ideas that are not able to be supported with truth and that stand in the face of critical thinking and reasoning - we must still honor the person while simultaneously withdrawing respect for them. Be mindful - this is different from disrespecting them, because disrespect is devoid of honor.

So honor - don't respect - but don't disrespect. Fight for truth - fight against dishonest, illogical and unfounded positions.

Why I Left Politics-as-Usual

Why I left Politics-as-Usual

By Cameron Ventura

                The day that Gov. John Kasich withdrew his active campaign for the President of the United States, my whole idea of politics faced a whirlpool of questioning and criticism. I was forced to accept that there wouldn’t be a Republican or a Democrat candidate who stood for small government, fiscal responsibility, liberty, and positive immigration reform. Essentially – I wouldn’t find a candidate who aligned even remotely with my idea of good government. That is when my perspective of what was ideal in a candidate and in a party began to transition.

                As we are now in arguably the most polarized social state since the Vietnam War, the idea of any true majority backing the same platform is less and less likely. This is why the GOP can have 12 drastically different candidates who each garnish a fairly substantial following. We can no longer agree on what is “best.” Enter the Libertarian party.

                As I asked questions regarding the role of government I began to see that the consistent factor throughout history is how we don’t need the government to make legislation regarding every aspect of our lives. There is great value in only creating regulations where regulations are necessary. For all of my Christian sisters and brothers out there – there is freedom in realizing that regulating sin is no more holy than not regulating sin. Whether or not a nation decides they will punish sin doesn’t change the morality of its people. Freedom exists in stepping back and allowing people to make their own choices with God, the Holy Spirit, and the consequences to be enough – we don’t have to add legal reprimands.

                The Puritans outlawed sin to a much greater extent than we do currently and history tells us that rather than this creating a more holy community it bred more lies, deceit, and hypocrisy. The Christian ideal shouldn’t be a country that outlaws all sin. The Christian ideal should be a country that fights for your freedom to make your own choices and stands by you through whatever the Father chooses to use to teach you.

                This is why I have embraced the Libertarian platform. I believe Gov. Gary Johnson is the best thing for our country right now. I believe legalizing marijuana, defunding excessive governmental programs, limiting governmental terms, turning NSA’s focus away from American citizens, returning Education to the state and local level, allowing adults to purchase and keep firearms, pulling back international intervention, and introducing a flat tax is a fantastic direction in which to move.

Three Candidate General

The Three Candidate General

            On February 16 several major news stations covered Donald Trump’s claims that the RNC has violated the contract he signed late last year pledging to be loyal to the party and forego a third party presidential bid. In an election year where Trump is constantly pulling between 20 and 40 percent of the Republican vote, we are headed toward an obvious issue.

            If Trump wins the Republican nomination he will face either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton in a traditional Republican vs. Democratic standoff.

            If Trump doesn’t win the Republican nomination - things get interesting. His recent broadcasting of the now voided RNC contract is a clear indication that he would run as a third party candidate. Though Trump has had solid numbers since the beginning of the race, his supporters are boldly more supportive of him than of the party. So what happens when the Republican party loses up to 30% of the party votes? Hello President Clinton/Sanders. Who will be able to garnish enough votes to overthrow a Democratic President? Not Jeb. Not Rubio. Not even Cruz. Each of these candidates does well with hard line, far right conservatives - but none of them appeal to the swing vote. With these candidates against Trump AND Hillary/Sanders - we lose.

            So what’s the alternative? Enter John Kasich. When Trump begins his third party bid and exits the Republican scene, we need a candidate who will appeal to republicans and moderate democrats as well. A candidate with a proven conservative record. A candidate who is tough on abortion, fiscally conservative, and who has a proven record of fighting against Obamacare. Kasich stands out as a candidate who appeals to members of both parties. He is clearly republican in values and voting record - while also maintaining a common sense approach to dealing with issues such as immigration and medicaid. Ohio is a prime example of how he confronts issues like poverty and drug abuse with the end goal of enabling the non-working class to become contributing members of society while achieving fiscal and physical health.

            Rather than running from tough issues such as healthcare, he confronts them head on with practical approaches that produce documented results. Rather than launching personal attacks on fellow candidates, he confronts them head on with facts and a positive message. The Republican party needs to be strategic and intelligent with their selection to represent the party. This election is no longer just about who has the best personality or who has the most money - it is about who has the cards to be successful in the General Election.

           

-Cameron Ventura