By Fr. Glenn Jones:

Often noted nowadays is the lack of class or even courtesy in civil(?) discourse—never more evident than during election seasons. Wild accusations abound, and commentators seem to vie in outdoing one another in vulgarity, as if that leads a greater credence to their argument rather than the reverse. But perhaps most evident is the propensity to disregard anyone’s position or argument other than one’s own, refusing to even listen to counterargument. We like to proclaim ourselves as open-minded, but are we really?

Unlike Goldilocks in the children’s bedtime story, many don’t bother with trial and error to discover that which is “just right”, but the “just right” is our own unchallenged opinion. After all, we believe our own opinions are the correct ones else we wouldn’t hold them. But if little Goldie refused to even try the other beds in the bears’ house, it would have been by default her “favorite”, even though other options were readily available. The first was “comfortable enough”.

This is like us when we refuse to even consider all ideas but our own. Like Goldilocks, we might have the readily-available options to explore other possibilities, but we must actually avail ourselves of the opportunities to judge the best. Yet we can become attached to a certain idea or philosophy and refuse to explore others, like an old man who refuses to try other brands of coffee or car. “I like THIS one!” Recalling my grandfather as an example, no matter what genre of restaurant we went to (and even those choices were normally restricted), he inevitably tried to order chicken fried steak. “Uh, Grandad … we’re in a French restaurant.” No expounding of the boundless limits of the palate sufficed: “I like THIS; it’s good enough for me!”

Likewise, if we refuse to expand our own thought horizons, we’ll never come to know the varieties which exist—and which we might actually prefer. In our day the silencing of others by shouting down, interrupting, etc., is becoming an unfortunate norm rather than the heretofore very rude (and counterproductive, and limiting) exception, compounded by immediately casting unwarranted aspersions based on unsupported assumptions. “If you don’t agree what me, then you must be of this or that extreme and vile class of person!”

Well, philosophers would be unimpressed. After all, the word “philosophy” itself means “love of wisdom”, but if we close ourselves to knowledge, ideas and experiences, how can we possibly grow in wisdom? “My way or the highway” severely limits one’s vistas and horizons. 

Had Plato, for example, written his famous dialogues so that Socrates just screeched at his interlocutors: “Shut up! You’re vile! You should be suppressed!!”, ol’ Plato would have been relegated to the dustbin even in his own time rather than be the milestone of philosophy he is.  What has enticed about his work over these millennia is not the silencing of ideas, but rather their attendant analysis and discussion. In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates himself addresses widely-held ideas of the day, but probes those ideas and common conceptions to discover inherent weaknesses. We would be wiser to do likewise.

Also, the suppression of even negative historical occurrences and events can lead to the forgetting of such history, and reminds of George Santayana’s adage of: “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.” The very ugliness of some history—slavery, genocidal regimes, bigotry, persecutions, etc.—reminds us of how grotesque such things were, and why we want to avoid recurrences. Many older novels, for instance, are increasingly banned because of the use of examples of racial bigotry. Yet, if we scrub ourselves of witness to bigotry, will we eventually forget its ugliness? We well-meaningly want to eliminate personal “offense” when remembrance of such offense to the wider society might be what is needed to avoid recurrence in the future. For example, vanishingly few would think of returning this nation to slavery, but if all media scrubbed reference to it, would it remain seen as ugly generations from now when mere idea replaced actual evidence and example? Already some are scrubbing pictures of the Holocaust and claiming it didn’t happen. Who would have thought in the modern age that genocide would be attempted, but there it was … modern “civilization” notwithstanding. 

And thus the wisdom of our nation’s founders in emphasizing the right of free speech, essential for exploring ideas—especially ideas which we reflexively find disagreeable at first blush.  Forced suppression of speech and ideas is Fascism 101. As a historical example, we might remember the “earth is round rather than flat” theory, which came to be found true only with further analysis and exploration. Or, more modernly, that cigarettes were conducive to health, as were radioactive products (radium-enhanced chocolate, anyone?). Only continued open research and exploration showed otherwise. 

This is concerning for religious persons in an increasingly secular age, as long-held religious values are often not aligned with modern values, and even may be in opposition to them. This concerns not only Christians, but Muslims, Jews and people of all faiths, often finding themselves now heretofore unlikely allies. Will this country experience executions of clerics and religious as has happened throughout history … and is ongoing even now in parts of the world? 

Jesus’ parable is at times applicable of the world’s view of faith: “To what then shall I compare the men of this generation…They are like children…calling to one another, `We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.” (Luke 7:31-32) … in part meaning:  “You are not doing what WE expect or approve.” Thus, again, we are grateful to our nation’s founders’ foresight for that explicit right for freedom of speech and religion, for the world’s values are as changeable as fashion. Yet … the nascent Christian faith was opposed by the mighty Roman empire … but which is still standing, and even thriving? Today’s “fashion” may be tomorrow’s rag.

So … think about it: What view do YOU hold that might come under scrutiny—even be attacked—should the fashions of the world change. Will you sacrifice principle just so as to not be controversial … to be “popular”? If not, I dare say: “Be prepared.” As Churchill quipped: “You have enemies? Good! That means you stood for something.”

Goldilocks would have never found the bed that was “just right” should she have refused to try the others. So let us remember that the brightest house is that which is most open to the new light.

Rev. Glenn Jones is the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe and former pastor of Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic Church in Los Alamos.