One would think that the craziness of this would end. Have people thought through this logic at all?
Assume that we are judged and labled by meetings we attend and people whom we serve and that is held as a liability.
Then should we never attend a meeting that might be controversial? Should we never listen to thoughts and ideas out of the mainstream? Should we never challenge beliefs or ideas because they make people uncomfortable?
I was once criticized because I failed to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Frankly as someone with conservative sympathies his message of intolerance and divisiveness scare me.
I was challenged to listen, to not agree. Rush is a master showman who’s influence on people leave dumbounded. I find it important to listen to what all people have to say, not just the ones who speak for me.
I admit that at times I find it difficult to listen. If you got in my vehicle and heard him speak you might conclude that I am a fan. I believe it is easy to hear what we want to hear and is difficult to listen to others.
The real danger is when we no longer listen and think for ourselves. Whether I chair a meeting with Bill Ayers, or Patty Hearst is not the issue. If we hold to the standard of surrounding ourselves with only those we feel represent what we think and are comfortable with is simply ignorant.
Feel free to measure me by my actions and writings; but be careful when you judge me by those whom I listen.
If we have learned only one thing from the last eight years, I believe it should be that absolute certainty that you are right is the most dangerous assumption you can make.
We should celibrate and reward differences in thought. If you don’t agree, you are well served to understand to at least understand those with different beliefs.
Ayer’s was never the problem here, intolerace is.
Here is a hint, listening to Rush doesn’t make me a fan. It does help me understand how his fans see the world.