Solving Our Problems: Let’s Go "Multi"

Perhaps you’ve heard the old joke that goes: There are two types of people in the world, those who divide people into two types and those that don’t. One of the smartest people ever, Steven J. Gould, wrote about people’s disturbing characteristic of dividing things into two’s. That makes it easier to say that someone is for us or against us. This dualism adds to our dueling.

It also prevents us from seeing solutions to our problems. In local school districts, it’s either whole language or phonics (in reality, just about any reading program has both). In politics it’s liberal versus conservative. In Washington, DC politics, it’s black versus white. In the Bible belt, one finds Christians versus anyone who isn’t.

The radio bands are cleanly divided into liberal and conservative camps, and ratings depend on one side demonizing the other. The country isn’t served by this. When pressed on his liberal credentials, then-President Clinton said, "That dog won’t hunt anymore." Like him or hate him, his effort to blur the distinction might have merit.

Around the Internet there is a campaign to paint the world as a coming battleground. The Muslims are coming and coming fast! Soon they will take over Europe, then "Islamify" the US. Then won’t Christians who ignored all the signs be sorry!

In matters of race, we have issues, but we show progress. The quiet progress comes from interracial marriages and mixed race neighborhoods. Moreover, it comes from mixed race people. Tiger Woods signaled, by his notoriety, a change in our concept of race. Black/white distinctions are being blurred by the idea of multi-racial.

Our true selves as Americans show up not as blots of black, white and other, but as a mix. If Tiger by virtue of his parentage is cool, having a mixed-race president is way cool.

Religious distinctions, products of our minds and not physical characteristics, should be easily bridgeable. But we insist on exclusivity. Maybe it’s time for "make it cool" to be multi-religious. Mike Mansfield in his book The Japanese Mind describes how the Japanese can, with no internal contradictions and no social discomfort, be of several beliefs. They may be Christian, Buddhist, and Shinto at the same time, choosing rituals from each, as they deem fit.

And why not? Why can’t I choose a theology drawing on the Wisdom of Solomon and David, the meditative awareness of the Buddha, the poetry of the Quran, and the humility of Jesus? Religion at its best creates community, and our diverse society is rich in the wisdom of the ages.

Yet we feel we must choose one and only one.

I know someone whose wife is a Muslim Moroccan who followed her white, Christian husband to the U.S. from Spain. She believes in celebrating everyone’s holidays. She enjoys St Patrick’s Day with the relish of the Irish, Christmas with the sense of joy experienced by Christians, and Eid with the reverence of her own faith.

But that we all could embrace such an outlook. But we seem stuck in our dualist nature. Pro-Con. Go-No-Go. We argue to argue. We can, however, be more than the residue of our little philosophical encampments.

I admit there are limitations. One cannot, for example, be both a Red Sox and Yankee fan. That would be silly.

About A Civil Disagreement Blog

A Civil Disagreement Blog is sponsored by A Civil Disagreement. Its purpose is to provide a civilized forum for users to discuss national & international politics and social issues. The information can be anything related to politics or society and it is meant for everyone. We encourage a lively discussion though we insist that any disagreements remain civilized. Please keep it clean. The editorial staff reserves the right to remove, or edit, any posts they feel are inappropriate for this community. The editorial staff also reserves the right to correct the spelling and/or grammar for any post on the blog. If anyone reads what they interpret as an inappropriate post, please send an email to customer-service@acivildisagreement.com immediately.

This blog is meant for entertainment purposes only. A Civil Disagreement Blog and its editors are not responsible for the safety or effectiveness of any information, or claims made, within a post. It is the total responsibility of the reader to do his/her homework with regard to any information contained within a post. It is also the total responsibility of the reader to understand that all posts are solely the opinion of the author and it is the reader's responsibility to ensure all information is correct and accurate before they use the information for any purpose.

At A Civil Disagreement, we believe there’s something missing - a place where regular Americans can go to contribute well-thought-out opinions on politics and today's social issues. Our mission is to provide a respectful and thoughtful forum for different voices - liberal, conservative and alternative views - on a new political question each month. We hope you enjoy politics from this vantage point. We hope that this is a testament to the idea that WE THE PEOPLE have something of value to add, and that political thought is not the monopoly of politicians and professional political operatives.