Thoughts on communicating with "values voters"

Here's something I've been turning over in my mind for a little while...it has to do with things like name calling, making assumptions about what makes others tick as if we can possibly know what is in their hearts. And going from there to deeming people "not worth even trying to talk to".

Howard Dean has gotten a lot of flack lately, not just for misstating the Democratic platform with regard to same-sex marriage, but for even talking to "those people" in the first place. I guess I have an automatic, visceral reaction when I see *anyone* being written off as not being worth bothering with. Probably, as the mother of a gifted, special needs child, I am more sensitized to this sort of thing than most people. Because his challenges, rather than being obvious physical or cognitive limitations, are most often displayed behaviorally, there will always be people who quickly decide "bad parenting" or "bad kid" and at that point the case is closed for them. Anything that I, or anyone else, might say to try to pursaude them otherwise is just "making excuses".

Well, the way I see it, if I don't want people jumping to conclusions about myself and my family, then I really do need to avoid doing the same to others. So, while I admit that there is enough of a body of evidence to indicate that there is little chance of bridging the ideological chasm between myself and Pat Robertson, I simply can't make that same assumption about every person who watches his show.

What I do know is this--there is no real hope of change if we keep only talking to "our own". And the more we choose to immerse ourselves in like-minded environments (via the groups of people we associate with, programs we watch or listen to), the more polarized our thinking is likely to become. And the more we turn people on the other side into caricatures. I loved the calm image of Maryscott O'Connor on The Big Story with John Gibson, because it was a clearly visible contradiction to the "angry left" meme. And I've got to tell you, I have a tremendous amount of respect for people like Maryscott who, like Howard Dean, is able to venture into what is known to be "hostile territory". Because I know myself well enough to be fairly certain that is *not* my calling--I just know I wouldn't be good at that.

But what I *can* do, which might possibly be illuminating, is share a bit of my own perspective, and how that's changed over time. Because, at least early on, you could easily have perceived me as one of "them".

Some of you are probably aware that I was raised Catholic but, after a period of searching, was received into the Episcopal church two years ago. That, of course, is the short version. What it leaves out is the fact that Catholicism was a pretty significant part of my identity through much of my young adulthood. And being a person of faith has been a big part of who I am throughout my whole life, even when I wasn't quite sure what that faith was.

Even though I now identify myself as Episcopalian, my Catholic roots still show. Around the time that the Iraq war was gearing up, I started feeling a need to reconnect with the Blessed Mother. Well, right there is an example of how Mary is complicated for me--what I'm *used* to saying is "the Virgin Mary", but I simply can't buy the "perpetual virginity" teaching.

I am also, by the way, fully aware that Miriam/Mary, the first century Middle-Eastern peasant girl who was the mother of Yeshua/Jesus, looked nothing like the image in my Gravatar.

But it's Botticelli's Madonna of the Magnificat, and I *love* the message of the Magnificat...

He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.

Yeah, I'd like to see some of the mighty put down from their thrones. That needs to happen...seriously. But getting back to the Iraq war...no matter what I do or don't believe as far as *teachings* about Mary, I still connect her with the idea of peace. One of her titles is "Queen of Peace". Also, I vaguely recalled that there were stories of Mary appearing to people and enjoining them to pray the Rosary for world peace.

So, in 2002 I started to do just that. Not because I thought that the beads were magic, or the words of the prayers had special power, but because I felt the need to do something to center myself *along with* attending rallies, writing letters, signing petitions and everything else. I even resolved that I was going to pray for George Bush--that God could somehow change his heart.

The funny thing is, shortly after I started this practice of praying the Rosary for peace, I discovered that Pope John Paul II had recently declared October 2002-October 2003 the Year of the Rosary, saying:

I wish once again to entrust the great cause of peace to the praying of the Rosary. We are facing an international situation that is full of tensions, at times threatening to explode. In some parts of the world, where the confrontation is harsher - I think particularly of the suffering land of Christ - we can realize that, even though they are necessary, political efforts are worth little if one remains exacerbated in his mind and no one cares to demonstrate a new disposition of heart in the hope of reviving the struggle and effort of dialogue.

Wow. You gotta believe me--I had *no* idea that the Pope had declared a Year of the Rosary when I started my own practice. For all I know, he somehow got the idea from me. No, probably not, but one thing is for certain, I knew at that point that the Pope was not the boss of me.

I'm also notoriously bad at maintaining any sort of discipline, and after a few months the Rosary habit kind of dropped off. But in its place, I took to wearing a medal. I use it as a tangible reminder of my commitment to peace. I've found that I *need* tangible reminders of that commitment--especially when people tick me off.

This post has ended up a lot longer than I intended, but what I hope I have been able to convey is a sense that I am a sincere person of faith, while at the same time a person who thinks, questions, and reevaluates everything. My views on certain issues have changed over time--there was a time in my adult life when I felt strongly that both abortion and same-sex marriage should be illegal. I know full well what my fellow liberals say about people who hold those positions--and they often aren't kind words. As such, they would have been unlikely to persuade me. But at the same time, years of Catholic schooling had instilled in me the belief that I was compelled to work for social justice and world peace.

But if when you spoke to me, you said things like "If you don't like abortion, don't have one" or called me "anti-choice", chances are you would never have had the opportunity to discover what values we shared. Neither would I. So I believe it is *vitally* important that we talk *with* people who hold different views, rather than *at* them or about them.

Alternate link for comments