...in (probably) the first time I've ever been quoted in any newspaper. Three pastors are quoted - a Roman Catholic priest, a Christian Church minister, and a Southern Baptist pastor, and I'm the moderate on this issue. I chuckled.
The quotation comes from a piece I wrote about logical, clear thinking, using the wet/dry vote as a thoroughgoing example. I wrote it for the religion column, but the newspaper editor decided to run it as a letter to the editor. My church and several pastor-friends told me they couldn't tell whether my original "letter to the editor" was for or against making our small county a 'wet' county in the upcoming vote (Oct. 20). I was encouraging people to think clearly about the issue and to ignore 'red herrings;' it was not an opinion piece.
I'll dig out my 2-page piece and post it in the comments.
2 comments:
What I submitted as a religion column:
I like truth. I do not have a corner on truth, so I try to be grateful to people who disagree with me for specific reasons. When someone tells me he disagrees with me, it is hard not to take it personally. It is much better if he gives me reasons why he disagrees with me. Then, I can try to understand his position. Here’s good advice I’ve heard more than once: “You have no business disagreeing with someone until you understand his view so well that you can state it back to him in a way that satisfies him.” Try not to read a person’s motives; instead, try to understand his position and his reasons for believing it is true or best.
The wet/dry debate in our county, like most debates, has produced plenty of heat. Many people are passionate about their positions. Have you tried to understand why people believe this or that position is the best for our county? We have felt the heat, the passion, but have we noticed the light? Maybe I can help you look for some light in the debate; it might be that your opposition in this debate has some good points to make that you have refused to understand.
First, we need to define the debate carefully. We are not debating whether drinking alcohol is right or wrong. Our law says drinking alcohol is wrong for anyone under 21, and there are specific limitations for public drunkenness, DUI, etc. With those legal definitions, people are free to live out their personal convictions. You might think drinking any alcohol is wrong; you might think some is fine. Whatever your view, this is not what we are debating.
We are debating whether allowing alcohol sales will be good for our county. Those who want to keep the county dry argue that alcohol sales tend to bring other problems and expense to the community. Those who want to make the county wet argue that alcohol sales will bring extra revenue to the county: by keeping money here that would otherwise be spent outside the county for alcohol, by attracting new businesses, and these, in turn, will create more tax revenue. Both sides are tempted to argue that long-term effects on our county they anticipate are certain to come true. That certainty seems mostly like heat.
Second, we need to look for light in the debate – facts that actually speak to the economic benefit vs. social & financial cost of going wet. Some statistics and predictions might stir up your passion because heat produces heat. Don’t make your decision on the heat, though. Look at the light – the probable effects, both positive and negative, and understand the other side.
Calling you a moderate is...well...moderate. I'll call you a raging liberal!
J/k. Well-written article. Taylorsville benefits from a great mind like yours. Alcohol is an issue that, in the south, is divisive because of the "heat." Thanks for bringing light to it.
Post a Comment