-- --- Brian D. Wassom, 1L, Case Western Reserve School of Law, Cleveland, OH bdw2@po.cwru.edu http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/2253
-- BEGIN included message
- To: NDT-L <ndt-l@uga.cc.uga.edu>
- Subject: Religion and Debate
- From: Brian Wassom <bdw2@po.cwru.edu>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:06:17 -0500
- Organization: Case Western Reserve University School of Law
- Reply-To: bdw2@po.cwru.edu
To the Debate Community; I'm writing in regards to a disturbing tendency I've observed in the debate community towards hostility and dismissiveness of any argument based on a religious conviction. My comments are based on the Q&A session held Saturday at the NDT with Rev. Jerry Falwell, though they are consistent with the experiences I had during my time as a debater. I will admit to a predisposed feeling of skepticism towards Rev. Falwell. Falwell. As a well-known Christian evangelist and conservative politician, he falls into the stereotypical category of "sleazy televangelist" in the minds of many. As a Christian, my distaste and distrust for such people is perhaps more acute than for most. A notable few people fitting that description have done much to give Christianity in general a bad name. I also didn't go in knowing much about Rev. Falwell specifically, beyond his caricature in _Larry Flynt_. But I came out with a new respect for the man; I thought he handled himself intelligently, and uncompromisingly defended his religious convictions. Many, if not most in the audience that day treated Rev. Falwell with respect. To be sure, most questions were posed by those who evidenced complete disagreement with his positions. But I have no problem with skepticism, disagreement, or provocation; that's the essence of advancing understanding and of what we do in debate. My concern is with the distinct lack of respect for the speaker demonstrated by a significant number in the audience. I witnessed several downright rude and quite audible comments, and people drawing pictures of Jesus in various poses. But what disturbed me most was the snide and dismissive laughs, giggles and jokes Rev. Falwell elicited every time he he made an argument based on religious faith. For several of those who overcame their disgust and submitted to being in Rev. Falwell's presence, he served not as a speaker but as entertainment. What concerns me is not Rev. Falwell's feelings being hurt--he's a big boy--but the attitudes that these behaviors demonstrate, and the level to which they are held by our community. Society in general has witnessed a rise in hostility and intolerance by both sides of the religious divide. But polite society also seems to increasingly view religious ideas as quaint, superstitious notions unworthy of the educated mind. If anything, the debate process should teach us openness and tolerance towards all ideas, and to respect those with different opinions and different assumptions upon which their beliefs are based. I find it peculiar for so many in the debate community to embrace various unpopular causes and philosophical positions and argue vociferously for their acceptance and respect, and yet dismiss out of hand any religious argument as uncouth or "incorrect." Moreover, I don't think it's unfair to say that this trend is largely directed at Christianity in particular. As the only example that comes to mind, I doubt that Emory's Anjan Sahni (apoligies for spelling), a very cool guy who I respect, enounters open mockery for the Sikh turban he wears (nor should he, by any means) by fellow debaters (correct me, please, if I'm mistaken). Indeed, minority opinions and beliefs seem to be celebrated by the enlightened debate community, as if evidence of our tolerance. We bend over backwards to avoid offending any number of social groups. And yet the central figure of Christianity--Jesus Christ, who Christians believe is God incarnate--is merely our favorite expletive. My point here is not to denigrate any other beliefs or individuals; quite the opposite, I believe all viewpoints and all personal religious convictions should be accorded deep and equal respect, even if we don't agree with their tenets. This is the true meaning of tolerance and enlightenment. Again, let me stress that my intent here is not to single out, criticize, or be mean-spirited towards any individual, or the community. I doubt that most readers will disagree with my basic premise. Nor do I hold myself out as more informed or wise than the rest of the community; I have a great deal of respect for the innumerable educators and peers that made debate one of the most enjoyable and beneficial experiences of my life. I truly believe that debate is among the most educational activities available, and my observations surely apply to a minority of those who participate in it. But as often as we pat ourselves on the back for being so enlightened, progressive, and tolerant, it wouldn't hurt to perform an occasional reality check to make sure we truly practice what we preach. Brian Wassom Wayne State Alum p.s. compliments to Liberty on a very efficiently-run and well-provided for tournament, and to Brian and Daveed on their well-deserved championship. --- Brian D. Wassom, 1L, Case Western Reserve School of Law, Cleveland, OH bdw2@po.cwru.edu http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/2253
-- END included message