Disagreements, Opinions, and Acceptance

This is a tough nut. My community (The Lindisfarne Community) has been having group discussions on our Understandings, which are the foundation for our Rule and way of life. 

The current one under discussion has to do with rejecting ‘party spirit’ and being comfortable in our differences of belief.

I was surprised to find that this discussion touched some of my tender spots, especially in the area of how to remain accepting of people when they are not accepting of us. I also noted that there was some real concern over whether, by accepting other’s beliefs, we might be failing to speak truth to those “whose beliefs are actually doing harm to others.”

I think I have a useful two cents to add to these concerns. I know that I’m speaking from a ‘place apart’, because my lifestyle as a ‘solitary’ means that I don’t have daily contact and interactions with other people. I think that’s useful, though, and even though these days I’m not dealing with daily circumstances which put me in conflict with other people because of differing beliefs, I do have the distance and space to put things in perspective. At least I think I do.

What came to me after reading the discussion notes that were posted online was this: folks were talking mostly about what we say and don’t say, not what we do. The thing that struck me the most was the idea that someone’s beliefs might themselves be doing harm. I don’t think that’s possible. I think that it’s only our actions which have the ability to do harm or good.

The discussion led me to memories of my police work, in which I had to maintain a fair and equitable attitude of respect and consideration based on human decency, while at the same time holding others to account for their actions, in terms of the law. Sometimes the things they did were mere violations of the law, like running a stop sign, and didn’t have much of an ethical or moral dimension to worry about. But sometimes the things they did were both illegal and just plain wrong, such as beating a child, or deceiving and defrauding an elder.

My point is that it didn’t really matter what relationship these actions had to the actor’s beliefs. I had no mandate to address their beliefs. My only obligation was to apply the law as it pertained to what the person had actually done.

The other point I wanted to make is that the law is not based on the beliefs or opinions of one person, but is, instead, a product of commonly held principles which are not subject to individual whims. As a police officer, I was expected to refrain from exercising my own opinion, and I was even subject to discipline if I were to allow my own personal beliefs or opinions to interfere with my impartiality.

I felt moved to include some excerpts from the law enforcement code of ethics to illustrate my point:

“I will maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others.”

“I will never oct officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs, aspirations, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions.”

“I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of  police service.”

So, I think that keeping our mouths shut sometimes is not only acceptable, but wise; especially when someone’s beliefs are only expressed in words, not actions. Also, if their beliefs result in actions which are only harmful to us specifically— like the “scorn or ridicule” mentioned in the code of ethics, then I think that the best response is not argument, but self-restraint.

I think the key thing to remember is that if we disagree with someone, we can’t set our own opposing opinion as the determining factor. Just like a police officer, we are held to a higher standard. It simply isn’t up to us to correct other’s opinions or beliefs, especially if our only standard is our own opinions or beliefs.

Speaking up, or in the popular parlance, “speaking truth to power,” becomes an issue only when we are dealing with actions. If someone says, “Spare the rod and spoil the child,” we can say “I disagree with that method of raising a child,” but that’s about it. On the other hand, if we see someone hit a four-year old child and knock them down, then we had better act immediately (and physically if necessary) to protect the child.

(I did apply this principle once in my own personal life, when a friend told me something that she believed which I thought was deeply wrong. I tried very hard to change her mind, but when she refused I spent a day in reflection and decided that I would go by her actual actions, rather than hold her to account for her words, and that’s what I told her. Even so, I think that disagreement was what ended our friendship, perhaps because I made it clear that I would not condone or agree with any action of hers that resulted from her belief, and that I would hold her accountable for any such action.)

Anyway, for me, the important thing to remember is, “It’s not about me.”

I think it’s safe to say that our pledge to follow the Way of Christ (as well as our Bodhisattva vows, if that applies) is similar in some ways to the oath of a police officer: to serve the common good. But, it’s not the law or the state constitution that governs our choices, and it’s not the ‘public faith’ to which we are obligated.

No, it’s the love, mercy, and mystery of G-d which rules our speech and our actions;

it’s G-d, and G-d’s trust in us, to which we are beholden.

That’s what sets our “higher standard.”