Compromise

Those close to me know I'm not real big on compromise.  It's not that I am completely averse to new or different ideas.  Nor do I think I know everything.  (Believe me, the older I get the more I realize how little I actually know!)  I guess I just need a lot of convincing before I change my opinions.

I've never really liked "reach across the aisle," "bi-partisan," euphemisms for compromise.  Of course there are places for compromise.  In a country of 300 million people we'd be in quite a pickle without any compromise.  But it isn't always a smart thing.

When, for instance, do we compromise our values?  If we give in a little on them here and a little on them there, pretty soon, where are they?

And, speaking of values, should personal values become those of society at large?  If, say, Christians are against gay marriage, should we outlaw gay marriage?  Can't Christians still live their Christian lives, themselves, without forcing their religious beliefs on others, that is, the gay marriage folks?  I don't see why not.  It seems that many of those who are so vocally opposed to Sharia law, perhaps becoming entrenched here in the US (which I think is a very remote possibility; but, again, what do I know?), try to dictate their own religious beliefs on others.  Can't Christians lead our lives and gays lead their lives?  Why is there a need for conflict?

Now, that's not to say there aren't values that need to be enforced.  I've written, if not directly, about a lot of them.  Respect for life is one of them.  This concerns the almost daily revelations of yet more murders in Detroit, abortion-on-demand ("Women's rights" is a clever, but misleading euphemism.  It can be shot full of holes.), and more.  We shoot others because we want their cars or shoes or because we have been "dissed?"

We've also become accustomed to getting entitlements (although that word is becoming quite tiresome, too).  I'm not merely talking about individuals, but also corporations.  Why should others pay for one's college education?  (Bernie Sanders)  Why should others pay (at least in large part) for a new arena for a professional team owned by a billionaire?  Why do we subsidize bad behavior under the guise of "fairness?"  (Now, there's another clever euphemism.)

Here's a question.  Should the private/personal convictions of owners or CEOs of corporations lead to boycotts of those corporations?  I'm thinking here of companies like Hobby Lobby or Chik-Fil-A (spelling?).  I've never patronized either place, but that's only because I don't think I've ever seen one of them.  If we are going to boycott such companies, why, then, don't we boycott goods from China or Saudi Arabia or.....?  After all, don't those companies commit egregious (I like that word!  I just hope it doesn't become trite/overused incorrectly like so many other words have become.) atrocities, particularly regarding human rights?  But not only don't we boycott, we actively seek trade with them.  Our own governor, for instance, has traveled to China on such a mission and then touts success.

And why do colleges ban certain speakers from campuses?  The latest is Williams College, as I've noted.  Where in the world should opposing viewpoints, however odious, be exposed if not on college campuses?  Again, I think we let a very small minority, vocal though they be, dictate.  Invite the speakers and then protest/demonstrate outside of the talk.  But get those ideas out there so they can be slammed.