By Sid Roberts / Herald Forum
I recently took a walk with a community member who is the head of a group that I can’t endorse. I have learned, however, that even when I can’t endorse another person’s cause or lifestyle, I can accept them as friends and as co-travelers on God’s green earth.
We all have the personal right to follow whatever cause we choose and should allow others to have their own convictions about such matters. Nevertheless, the required terms of peace frequently include more than acceptance. Very often, complete endorsement of their cause is expected. Additionally, if this endorsement isn’t given, there is tension and cognitive dissonance between the parties.
I believe that acceptance of others is life-giving to all involved, even if it is unilateral. The single act of accepting people opens the door to conversation and discussion. Acceptance of others, as a fellow human, can be granted without the requirement to sign on or endorse the other person’s cause. This olive branch also opens doors for dialogue.
If we can first accept those we disagree with, those who are flawed just as we are, a world of possibility and progress is opened to us. Life is not a zero-sum game anymore and being able to dialogue with another person — without the requirement to promote their cause — is key here. We should be able to trust that the other person honestly came to their convictions without the pressure on us to accept them as our own. Acceptance of others as human beings is the first step onto a bridge of conversation and progress.
However, acceptance often isn’t enough for many single-issue evangelists. They often demand others to be a card-carrying member of their cause and show buy-in and promotion. This is often a litmus-test battle, and they seem to believe that enthusiasm and formal endorsement for their cause are the only terms of peace. If one doesn’t climb onto their bandwagon, it is possible to be labeled as dishonest or maybe even as a bigot.
For good communication to happen around issues of disagreement, each party to the conversation must embrace their own cognitive dissonance while remaining open to dialogue. To have a win/win environment, we must first legitimize those in life we don’t agree with while maintaining the right to stop short of endorsement.
Unfortunately, there are some people today who’s “love language” is hate. While hate and anger can be empowering, as a society we need to move past this personal animus and begin to accept people where they are. Acceptance of those we disagree with doesn’t have to include endorsement of their cause. We can love people without joining their team and that might be the first step to winning a real friend.
To solve our many problems today, we need to genuinely accept people where they are at without passing judgement on their cause. Crossing the aisle to work with someone you don’t agree with should be acceptable and one should be able to do that without the requirement to endorse all that they stand for politically or socially.
Accepting the legitimacy of someone you don’t agree with is a display of grace and emotional maturity. We need more of those qualities in our world today.
Sid Roberts serves as the mayor of Stanwood.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
