Recently an acquaintance of mine told me I was often very negative about her religious affiliation on Facebook, and that my language was just as populist and insulting as the ones I oppose. Now, I realise that in the instantaneousness of social media my anger, frustration or ‘zeal’ can get the better of me (that why there’s an Edit button) and some messages are on the forceful side, though I reckon not with intentional insult. So I apologise!

Although I still disagree with her about the arguments in the debate, it did strike a chord with me and for that I’m grateful to her (he admitted grudgingly). So I thought I would share some thoughts with you on ‘the language of love’.

The whole parlance in conversation and debate and the issue of what is courteous go beyond the scope of FB and the like, it are matters that touch public opinion but also academic research and even the democratic process.

Let me illustrate by referring to those (in)famous cartoons of Mohammad in Danish and French newspapers that sparked a huge uproar in certain parts of the world, led to demonstrations, destruction, diplomatic rows and even murder. I’ve seen those cartoons and either didn’t get them or didn’t think they were funny (the Flemish and French apparently have very different senses of humour). I reckon they were tacky, crude and un-contributing to the debate they pretended to want to start off. BUT... there was of course an underlying issue: freedom of speech.

There is no freedom without responsibility and without limitation (else you infringe upon the freedom of the other) that much is evidently clear to any logical rational thinking person. So, where does the limit lie then? Ah, and there we have it: when does something become insulting or degrading, and when is it a means to spark conversation or does it have something useful to contribute in religion, science, wider society? Do I have the constitutional right to be insulting, mocking or otherwise? Do I have the constitutional right to be a dick?

My point is this: while being respectful and using ‘a language of love’ how can we be in conversation openly, honestly and in all frankness... with no limitations on subject matter! This is especially important for academic and political engagements!

If so-called political correctness (in itself a useless term because again who will decide what is ‘correct’?!) starts influencing the topics of debate deemed ‘correct and acceptable’ then that’s not debate, that’s deluding ourselves. If from the very start of the conversation some topics are untouchable and unmentionable, we might as well all go home! It also ends up becoming a rehashing of things that we’ve all nicely and friendly already agreed on.

It all turns a ‘language of love’ into bland platitudes, and let’s face it, we wouldn’t speak out, not out of respect but out of self-censuring fear and a false sense of propriety.

Another illustration. Father Guy Gilbert, a biker-priest who works with delinquents, once said in an interview that he always engages the youngsters into conversation with all the kindness he can muster. BUT... when stepping out of line, he would definitely use a firm “une droite évangélique” –an Evangelical right hand hook- to get the conversation (and rehabilitation) back on line. Here there are no limits on topic, neither on partners for debate.

In the Gospels Jesus called the religious leaders “a brood of vipers” and compared them to dogs and swine (both unclean animals in Judaism). And yet... He was constantly in conversation with them, asking questions, answering questions... no topic barred AND no discussion partner barred (even the ladies)! And of course, there was a purpose to all these discussions and fights and bitching.

So, after all these ramblings, it seems to me that it very much depends on a person’s tolerance level in what they are willing to discuss... mine is pretty high, also because I’m naturally cynical and critical (as many willing people will affirm). Must I therefore, in the name of love, keep my gob shut? Never gonna happen, peeps! ‘The language of love’ to me therefore is uninfringly free, frank, uninhibited and useful.

And perhaps that last one, ‘useful’, might to me become more of a guideline in the language I will be using hopefully from now on. After all, St Paul added, “everything is permitted but not everything is helpful” (I Cor. 10:23, ISV).

So thank you again, my acquaintance, even though I still disagree with you.

01-08-2013, 13:42 geschreven door jojanv