Bias Is Difficult to See and Hard to Overcome

Today another blog site, and another mis-conception.... Whenever one is seeking to prevent the previous "worldview" from holding authority over one's understanding, then one can and often does prevert hearing what is being said about that particular subject. This is a hard-line bias. And it happens whenever we have things that we need protecting, as well as agendas we want to pursue. We must ask ourselves the question about what we are protecting and what we want to pursue. These are questions that might be very revealing to motivations and attitudes about one's bias.

Bias can be just as opinionated against something as for something, and it is hard to see when one's worldview, context, values, goals and identity is at stake.

Tomorrow a friend and I are going to the Newmusuem. The times I have gone there before, I remember reading a number of quotes about bias in the media. There is also a film about Bias in the Media. I am taking my notebook to write down this information to process how I might be subject to similar short-comings and to help me reflect enough on my own bias to ask myself questions.

I share all of this to help others understand how bias is hard to see and prevent and can distort communication, views of reality, and other such important matters.

Humans are story tellers from the earliest days of communication. Needless to say that this is still the case in the modern day world. Myth is meaning making. Myth defines reality for most. And myth is just myth to some. And that is the question I need to resolve. Is myth really important or valuable to be human? I don't think so, but maybe I am biased. So, I will investigate.

Tolerance is Another Name....

A lot of "talk" today is about tolerance, mainly, I think because there is so much diversity and those that are intolerant want others to be "tolerant" to them.....This got me thinking.

Tolerance is another Name for submission to those you don't like, and/or agree with. What is wrong with this picture? Well, it depends.

Those who one doesn't like can range the gambit from how they dress to what they do. What someone does that is wrong, is not to be "tolerated". "Wrong" is trespassing. And wrong is not loving, kind, or tolerant. So, should we be tolerant of those who are terrorists amongst us?

I think that sanctions work in giving another a boundary, so that there will be no more trespassing. Trespassing in this regard is disregarding another's "person", whereas disregarding a standard of dress is trespassing against another's taste or personal opinion. One annihlates and destroys a sense of security, whereas the other offends.

Tolerance should never be granted to those who are hardened toward another's very life. Life is not up for grabs and should not be a tolerable mistake.

No, trespasses of this kind demand an accounting. This is why negoitiating with those that do not adhere to the same values of life is dangerous, because their ideology drives them beyond the bounds of reasonable dialogue.

The Question of Inclusion

There are many issues that touch upon the issue of Inclusion; immigration, terrorism, gay rights, and "difference", in general.

Today I visited my hairdresser who had just come back from representing the Episcopol Church as a deputy. He had been informing me of the discussion facing the larger Anglican community concerning "gay rights" and today, informed me that the American Episcopal Church was to be separated partially from the larger Anglican community. Why? The issue concerning "sexual orientation" was of uptmost concern. This particular gay bishop had served faithfully for, I believe, 26 years was a main focus of 'discussion'. This saddens me, as I believe that one can be a person of integrity and be ostercized due to a "protocol", "interpretation", and "difference". This bishop had not been disorderly in his conduct, had served, and loved his church, and yet, is suffering under the judgments of Church he has served.

This is one reason why I believe that our country is so great. While we have had hot debate over immigration policy and all of it has still not been resolved, we do not allow terrorists to intimidate us in maintaining our identity. We are a people who are ruled by law. Public opinion may sway representatives, but let one person "take it to court" and the law will prevail. This is how it should be.

But, some would question whether the judicial branch should be so active in forming our government's society. These believe that progression must be balanced with "tradition", or we will dissolve the very basis of our society and become uncivilized in our pursuit of litigation.

Life consists of conflict. And conflict must be resolved in a way that hears all valid opinions and voices, so that our representative government will truly be representative. This was the basis of Affirmative Action and minority rights, although some believe that these rights have been taken too far.

On the radio today, I heard that the "inclusive healthcare plan", all 1000 or so pages, was read by a jounalist from the Washington Post. She revealed that Dr. Ezekial Emmanuel would be heading up the "new" beauracracy overseeing healthcare. Dr. Emmanual is Ron Emmanuel's brother. Where did the laws against "nepotism" go? As I have said before, universal healthcare under the guise of inclusion, will bring an inclusivity to a "new aristocracy" that will govern us all in overseeing our decisions and limiting our choices. Inclusion is a relative term, in this sense.

I don't know about you, but it seems that our culture is ridden with all kinds of questions, values, and opinions, that do not bring any resolution only difference and disassociation. Disassociation from those that differ from oneself in a free society like ours, dissolves our country's unity. Our unity is in our freedom of diversity, so we should celebrate it, and not be so dogmatically opinionated about our view that we cannot understand another American, who values freedom just like we do.

Tired of the Littleness

Little minds, which think they know everything, are those whose minds are closed to anything other than what they think. These are not only the uneducated, but the educated that are determined to prove their point. And their point is the only point they see. They cannot get over their own view, their own opinion or their own position.

Little hearts are not open to others in expressing their opinion, nor are they open to new ideas. Their hearts are heardened by their heads, because their truth has blinded their eyes to see anything other than their own frame of reference. Little hearts don't seek understanding, or wisdom, but only want to give out advice and lead. They have hearts of stone that cannot be written upon because they have closed minds, which has hindered the oil from keeping their heart from hardening.

It is not in having strong opinions, or in being convinced or having strong convictions, or even in expressing an opinion, even expressing with intensity, but in allowing others to have a differenc of opinion, another way of seeing and doing and being in the world that is important. Otherwise, there only needs to be one person in the world and it is the person whose mind is closed and heart is hardened....

Thomas Jefferson on Good Government and Freedom of Inquiriy

"A wise and frugal government shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

"Fix reason firmly in the seat and call to her tribunal every fact every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Freedom of Speech, Moral Order and the Challenge to Change

Our Constitution guaruntees each American the right to the freedom of speech. We experience our freedom with the diverse views that are represented in our news media and positions of power. While most choose to identify with their particular "color" of view, some choose to go across the borders of conformity to wisely discern how to challenge the prevailing view, so that it can be expanded. Do we do this as private citizens? Do we choose to watch, or buy something that is antithetical to our view, so that we can really learn what the issues are really about, instead of stereotyping and dismissing the other side of the story.

When we talk about the moral order of the social structures, whether government or family, we must challenge ourselves in our free society to not limit our views to a certain position, but challenge ourselves to discriminate, and discern, what and why something is important or of value. This is seeking an education of oneself and can only enlarge our world, expand our understanding and heighten and hone our reason to defend a certain conviction.

We have experienced many changes in our society. These changes have not come about without resistance from the status quo. Power structures which are based on matienance of what is, do not seek to change positions, no matter the costs. Change is costly, but especially to power. Change challenges us to consider something we haven't considered. Change can be uncomfortable, especially to those who do not want to learn or grow. Change for change's sake is also not wise, unless it is warranted for the right purposes. And purposes themselves, are not about moral or immoral, but, sometimes just a priority of value.