War and Acceptance in 2020

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

--- Aristotle

Dialogue is the reciprocity of acceptance, and it begins with the 'selfie'.

Climbing any high mountain is most arduous at the very last step. Why? It's something psychologists call ‘approach-avoidance’ that often prevents us from taking that last step to secure our long-cherished goal. Fear of both failure and/or success stunts many victories. Reaching the panicle of A Year Without War in 2020 requires that last step we most want to avoid; acceptance. This fourth in the five-part series was supposed to be the hardest to write. Instead, it wrote itself. As demonstrated in the previous three posts, forgiveness requires mercy, and reconciliation requires forgiveness, so too acceptance requires reconciliation to arrive at peace for one year in 2020.

But acceptance seems a step too far. It seems to demand more than what we are able. The price seems too steep for so little return on investment. Recent headlines provide ample cases we can parse though our formula. It’s easy to practice mercy. It’s more difficult to practice forgiveness. Reconciliation takes a depth of character rarer than great intelligence or bravery in battle. Acceptance, now there’s an impossible task. Yet we must apply ourselves in acceptance to arrive at 2020 A Year Without War. Acceptance is enduring the unendurable.

Cases:

1. Bemusing is it not? Not all homosexuals are ‘gay’. If ‘gay’ means politicizing your same-sex preference, and if not all homosexuals politicize their same-sex preference, then not all homosexuals are ‘gay’. The recent kerfuffle over ‘gay-marriage’ is an existential exercise in the practice of acceptance as a character virtue. Even after the LGBT victory lap painting every conceivable object and personal profile picture with the ‘gay’ flag filter, nevertheless millions do not accept ‘gay’ but they do accept homosexuals. Those who ‘lost’ the political battle over redefining marriage face the opportunity to accept the result despite their aversions to the unendurable. It will take an enormous strength of character to take that step. For many it’s asking too much. Conversely, those who ‘won’ the battle to include same-sex unions in the new definition of marriage face the opportunity to accept that millions will abide by the outcome, but many will never approve of their sexual habits and perceived peccadilloes. Both sides realize the divide still exists. Both sides want the other to give way. "You can legislate tolerance. You can't legislate acceptance" as a popular lesbian activist, Ash Beckham, reminded her audience recently.

Her distinction seems justified. Polls taken immediately after the SCOTUS decision ‘legalizing’ same-sex marriage spiked an alarming increase in the number of Americans that do not accept same-sex unions regardless of SCOTUS. Many credit this backlash to LGBT acting like ‘sore-winners’ rubbing everyone’s nose in their ‘victory’. How then will acceptance be brokered? Reciprocity. Often never mentioned in arbitrating social divisions, reciprocity is the key to social acceptance as much as it is the key to lasting personal love. If love is a one-way street, then that will doom any relationship no matter how beneficial otherwise.

And, similar to reconciliation, acceptance does not work as a purely mental thing. It must be reciprocated in actions taken to heal and unify. So, what would such reciprocated acceptance look like and sound like on this homosexual marriage divide? In the recent Republican Party presidential candidate gaggle, Ohio Governor, John Kasich gave an existential example. While Kasich strongly supports the traditional definition of marriage he said this in response to a question of how he would react if a son or a daughter wanted a homosexual marriage;

“Because somebody doesn’t think the way I do doesn’t mean I can’t care about them or can’t love them,” Kasich said, adding that the Supreme Court has decided and marriage equality is the law of the land. “If one of my daughters happened to be that, of course I would love them and I would accept them. That’s what we’re taught when we have strong faith.”

“We need to give everybody the chance, treat everybody with respect and let them share in this great American dream that we have,” Kasich said, noting he recently went to his first gay wedding. “God gives me unconditional love, I’m going to give it to my family and my friends and the people around me.”

Supporters of traditional marriage definition not only lost the battle, they lost the war. If they want civil peace, then they must practice acceptance. So do the ‘gay agenda’ crowd in reciprocity. All out attacks on religion will only harden hearts and decrease same-sex acceptance. Both sides need to stop demonizing the other. Both sides need the healing balm of reciprocal dialogue that builds respect and friendships with opposing interlocutors. Dialogue, not demonization, is the mechanism of acceptance. Reciprocity of acceptance is the micro-mechanism of war and peace.

2. Where do you stand on chopping up aborted human fetal parts and selling them to the highest bidders? ‘Gay-marriage’ pales in comparison to this divisive question. Fault lines here are wide, deep and visceral. If there ever are predicates for a second American Civil War, this will be one of them. Abortion is the religious war of out epoch. Abortion issues are trench warfare waged in the courts, the media, and academe dividing nations, states, religions, and cultures. It pits family members against each other in bitterness, hatred and even murder. The emotions over the very life of the unborn agitate the deepest recesses in the human psyche; life, death, blood, heritage, legacy.

If a human fetus is a human person from the nano of conception, then abortions, except to save the very life of the mother, are cold-blooded murders plain and simple. If, on the other hand, a fetus is merely tissue that must pass a viability test to be credentialed as human being, then abortions are a women’s health issue only decided by her and medical practitioners. The one side is not merely the contrary of the other. They are contradictions. How is it even possible to expect any reciprocity of acceptance over this contradiction? Most conflict resolution experts throw up their hands in despair at the suggestion. There is one group, however, that tries with some success.

Using ‘consensus-building dialogue techniques', a Washington, DC group called Common Ground Network for Life and Choice, is building relationships without converting opinions among ‘enemies’. In over 20 cities in the U.S. and Canada the group brings the warring sides together in one-day dialogue workshops. A labor lawyer, Mary Jacksteit and a Benedictine nun, Adrianne Kaufmann originated the Network, Mary Jacksteit and Adrianne Kaufmann, designing a dialogue process focused on the common ground of relationship, the shared need to build trust and community, and a desire for fresh ideas about a divisive issue. Ignoring the skeptics and naysayers denying that common ground can be found on the issue of abortion itself, they forged dialogue techniques based on mutual trust in which opposing views were not from ‘enemies’.

"Common ground dialogues," as they are called, seek first to harness the passions and energy of people involved in the abortion conflict to prevent further intergroup polarization and abortion-related violence, and to search for areas where joint action is possible. The dialogues are not designed to change the views of participants about the issue of abortion, not do they seek new "objective" information that can help participants reach a compromise rather, trust is built through sharing stories and examining perceptions held by each side of the other. From this base, relationships are built, leading to mutual action and dialogue about the abortion issue itself.” (source: mediate.com)

The result? Promising success. Two attendees reported;

"Any effort to bring people together who are dealing with intense feelings and issues is healthy at a fundamental human level," said one participant. Another noted that "the dialogue puts the issues and people into a more personal light, which makes it harder to dismiss others as just being lunatics." (source: mediate.com)

Accepting someone with a point of view you find intolerable even vile and disgusting does not require that you accept and adopt their view as your own. Quite to the contrary. You’re not required to become them. You are required to accept them as a human being with emotional and conceptual struggles like your own. You don’t even have to like them. You can still object to their view and their life choices. You can still refuse to associate with them. But if you want to advance humans along the road to 2020 A Year Without War, then you must engage them through a dialogue that is the reciprocity of acceptance. You must entertain an idea without accepting it while accepting the person who holds it.

____________________________