Tell Me About the God You Don't Believe in...

Yeah, I know, I said I would stop, but someone pushed one of my hot buttons, so what the hell?
It has become "in", of late, to claim to be atheist. Understand, I am not talking about the increasing number of unchurched, "spiritual" people  who repeat endlessly, "Yeah, I believe, but I don't to go to church or anything like that; I'm spiritual but not religious."
No, I'm talking about the can't-tell-the-difference-between-atheist-and-agnostic person who was turned off by some of the horrors of the Church, whether fundamentalist, Roman Catholic, charismatic or other variety of authoritarian, closed-minded Christianity. (Why just Christianity? Surely there are some born-again atheists from Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu backgrounds. Come to think of it, I know one!)
The trouble here is that such are not really atheists per se. Their vehement and evangelistic style for promoting their non-belief (pause here for necessary reflection on irony involved) seems to consist more of anti-theism. They are so focused on what they are rejecting that they become rather unclear as to what they do, in fact, believe.
No one can go through life without a place to stand, a set of values, some understanding of right and wrong. Well, ya could, but you'd end up in jail or dead or in a mental hospital. A sense of right and wrong can't grow just from human logic or common sense, any more than an infant can become a complete human being without guidance and learning.
A person without any recognition of Something Greater, whether we call that God or a Higher Power or some dream to follow, is a very sad person indeed. As the old Zen saying goes, if you don't know where you're going, you'll end up someplace else. That doesn't mean being rigid about life, or insisting that everyone else do what you're doing. It means knowing what is important to you, and following that.
When I was in college, my closest friend was an avowed atheist (even though I was even then preparing to go to theological school.) But our endless debates would end in stalemate when I asked him, "Tell me about this God you don't believe in." Not the God that others taught, but what exactly was he rejecting? Too often he would bog down when he would repeat some conservative doctrine that I didn't believe in either. Even today, he can't really answer that question because he is so fixed on what he doesn't believe that he has no notion of what he does.
Yes, it is easy to attack the straw man of certain forms of established religion, to lift up the flaws and atrocities done in the name of a given faith. But can this group proclaim something that they believe that separates them from most believers? Science? Logic? Who do you think kept them alive during the centuries? Recognizing the value of people? Hello, this is a faith teaching unconditional love. The arts? Medicine? Religion.
So tell me, my atheist friend, tell me about this God you don't believe in.



This is for Jon.

Adieu and Farewell

Two old Yankees are sitting in the back of a political  rally. This was the days before PA systems, and the speaker has a low voice. Finally, one of the old-timers turned to the other in frustration. "Whut's he sayin?" he asked. His compa triot leaned forward, straining to hear. Then he leaned back and turned. "He don't say!"
Many people with nothing to say still find much to talk about. That has been the biggest obstacle to writing this blog in an on-going way At first, it was a marvelous format for venting that had been lost when weekly sermons were no longer available. And it appealed to that inner child who enjoyed the attention, the showing off before others. But then I began to run into my own limits. Writing even a short blog takes time. I was constantly reminded how little I knew about so much. And I had little feedback, so the necessity of an audience became more and more obvious.
There is much recognition today of the importance of silence. People spend much time sitting in silence, go on silent retreats, encourage silence as the unanswerable argument. As I was told back in Vermont, it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and  remove all  doubt.
I have never been good at silence. Maybe it is time I found the wisdom of that Still, Small Voice. So this blog is going on hiatus. I appreciate those of you who read it (both of you) and wish you well. I reserve the right to speak up if there is some issue that demands a comment.
In the meantime, I will seek other ways to express myself.

Sticks and Stones

It seems that more and more people are coming forward with stories about being bullied in school, even the bullies themselves! Hesitating to participate in a mass movement that, lemming-like, doesn't accomplish much more than a communal purging, I nevertheless would tell my story of abuse.
My father was an ambitious man, and he was promoted over and over during his career. This resulted in my family moving many times in my childhood, sometimes staying in any one place only for a matter of months. We moved up and down the East Coast, and even overseas.
I was a quiet and bookish child, believe it or not, and made friends slowly and seldom simply because I never knew when we might move again. My classmates in the various schools I attended treated me as the outsider I was. My rapidly deteriorating eyesight made things worse, as I couldn't make up for my lack of social experience by any athletic skills.
Teachers in those days didn't know how to bring newcomers into the closed world of an elementary school. I can remember vividly one time when the class was to copy a picture from one of our classbooks. The teacher gathered these drawings and put them up for all the class to critique (presumably some sort of art lesson.) I am no artist, to be sure, but it quickly became obvious who was the class goat. As the teacher stood by, student after student picked out my picture- and mine alone!- to point out flaws.
Not until high school did I begin to fight back, futilely and franticly. Of course, I was disciplined when I reacted to the whispered teasing from the kid behind me in class by overturning his desk. Of course, I showed up at parties I thought I had been invited to only to find no party there. And we will not be distracted by talking about the young women who ignored me, denied any offer of a date, even plotted with my classmates to make me look ridiculous in public.
Two things saved me, and they are strangely linked: my faith and my acting. In my home church I found the acceptance I found nowhere else. And it was also there that I discovered an ability to act on stage, to transform into someone else.
That does not means the teasing, the nasty words, the rejection stopped. It took years before I came to terms with who I am, regardless of what others thought or said.
But it did leave me with this: because of all the hurts I have suffered, I can recognize and empathize with the hurts of others. Not that I would recommend that path to such a goal; As Mark Twain reported when he interviewed a man who had been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail: "If it weren't for the honor, I'd just as soon have walked."

Consensus Yes?

My friends in the Society of Friends (that's Quakers to you) have a way of deciding things called consensus. When one of their committees or boards seek a resolution to whatever, everyone there must agree with the decision. That means when even one person objects, won't go along, finds just one detail unacceptable, the group must keep seeking some common ground.  No voting, no majority rule, no compromise that pleases no one.
Even amongst some coummunity action groups that do not follow this practice, there is a tendency toward consensus. I have been in such meetings where someone who is otherwise sympathetic and cooperative, becomes an obstacle to getting something done. They may be highly idealistic, impatient with the dirty details sometimes necessary, or just having a bad day personally. The resulting group dynamic is the same, with people trying to placate, manipulate, or sometimes abdicate,  just refusing to play any more
This might give some insight to those amongst you who cannot understand the (ir)rationale behind what is happening, uh, not happening in Washington these days. We have a president who still draws on his time as a community organizer (and please spare me from right-wing screeds about ACORN or its ilk). He does at times fall into the role of assertive manager and head of the whole shebang, but most of the time  he seems to expecting that Congress will show the sort of openness and tolerance associated with reaching consensus. He honestly thinks the best of people!
So he offers various suggestions, not realizing that the people he is dealing with interpret such as a concession, not a move toward consensus. Open-mindedness is seen as empty-headedness 
But there are politicians today who will not (can not?) seek a common ground. Such might be seen as (gasp!)weakness. In our winner-take-all society, the very word bi-partisan has become a meaningless noise. So when someone takes a stand, there is no possibility of convincing that person to move from that place.
Granted, we are all separate and unique individuals. But when we insist on everyone doing things our way, there are some who will reject anything we suggest, no matter how valid (or crazy.)
We share more than we differ. Isn't time to consider consensus?

Win or Lose

It is one of the most chilling moments in the Academy award-nominated documentary, The Gatekeepers. An Israeli security official is talking with a Palestinian doctor, who surprises him by saying, "We're winning." How can you think that, the Israeli asks. Your fighting forces are being wiped out, your people are being pushed farther and farther into a corner. We're winning, the doctor asserted, because we're causing so much pain and suffering for you!
That has become a more and more common attitude toward differences and contention. The goal has become not to acheive one's goals and dreams but to stymie one's opponents from reaching theirs! In other words, the battle becomes an end in itself where winning or losing are not merely out of reach, but not relevant at all.
So we have national elected officials who spend as much time preventing anything from happening as they do actually doing what obviously needs to be done. The goal would seem to be to cause as much pain and suffering as possible for the other guy.
And we have relationships where no one seems to want anyone else to achieve anything. Husbands stand in the way of wives going to work or for further education, even though they need the income and there is nothing to be done at home. Or, in a warped sort of caring, some parents encourage their children not to go for higher education, not to move on in a personal life, under the pretense of protecting them from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Such scenarios result in an on-going tug of war without any discernable reason or goal.
This modern-day version of the Red Queen's Race (see Lewis Carroll's Through  the Looking Glass) results in running as fast as possible while staying in the same place: frustration, despair, confusion. Oh, but our very resistance to anything productive enables us to continue our stance as helpless victims and to avoid risking responsibility.
I have never been a fan of our society's idealization of competition. If anything, studies have shown it as one of the least productive ways of interacting. But what we have now is nowhere near the old capitalistic ideal of winning and losing.
When we regain that sense of directions, goals worth working toward, then we can get past this societal gridlock where the struggle is all.

Never Say Always?

The young man calling was dismayingly common: he and his fiancee, with whom he had three children, were looking for couple's counseling. We ran into dat ole debbil moolah right away: I'm not eligible for Medicaid/Medicare, Husky, Title 19 or any of the  state insurance programs, and they couldn't afford even the minimum on my sliding scale.
But then he acknowledged they were just shopping anyway, so I could only suspect that they (or at least he) were just going through the motions.
It still raised the issue of relationships today. Ironically, at the same time that marriage equality has become an international battlecry for the LGBT community, straight heterosexual marriage has been more and more pushed aside especially by the younger  generation. The much-bandied-about statistic that nearly half of all marriages end in the divorce courts ignores the increasing number of couples who view matrimony as an expensive and extraneous institition. Justifying the lack of a wedding ring or marriage certificate as unnecessary for two people who are truly commited to one another, they move in together and go through very similar stages to their legally married brethren and sistern: buying property, having children, loving and fighting and reconciling like any husband and wife.
Of course, given the rocky status of matrimony, it should  be no surprise that the next generation might be wary of it. There is also a deep suspicion and rejection of traditional institutions such as marriage; we have a society that doesn't trust itself or any of the mechanisms which traditionally hold society together.
Inasmuch, as I said before, such couples might discard some of the legal ties (matrimony) but not others (property, children), it seems that people are being people and consistently inconsistent. Or may be it is a resistance to commitment.
Misunderstanding the reality of any relationship that no one is  signing on for forever, or at least shouldn't, couples should realize that,like everything that works in life, marrage is only for today, Carrying the issues of yesterday or worrying about potential issues of tomorrow keeps us from dealing with what is happening right here and right now. Otherwise, there will always be that little voice in the background that whispers, "You could always leave."
In any relationship, there will be days when things turn toxic. If we have made a commitment to keep trying, that is as much as anyone can do.

Boundaries

One of the givens today is movable boundaries.
No, it is doubtful that there ever was a time when there were consistently defined and universal standards, expectations of behavior, acknowledgement what is right and what is wrong. Sure, there were clearly codified rules ranging from Moses to Hammurabi, but we are talking about social norms rather than legal/moral dictates. And today it has become more fuzzy (or at least more obviously so) than in the past.
Part of this comes from the seismic social changes that have happened in recent times. Traditional ways (even those not always acknowledged or adhered to) have been questioned, even outright discarded. Yes, there are those who, even though they honored these ways more in word than personal deed, have sought to turn back the clock to times that may have never really existed save in nostalgic memory. And when it proves impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube, the blame game begins in earnest.
Does this mean we should give up any attempt to set appropriate boundaries? Of course we need to define who each of us may be and what we may be willing to do or tolerate from another; otherwise we fall into a psychological maelstrom of enmeshment between our issues and everyone else's. Nor should we give way to what one author referred to as "raging narcissism," where we only care for our own needs (paging Ayn Rand!)
One of the biggest tasks in most psychotherapy is dealing with boundaries. On one extreme is the client who resists leaving at the end of a session. On the other is the client who consistently arrives late (if at all) and wants to leave early. The spectrum runs from those who do not trust anyone at all to those who suffer greatly from the burdens of everyone else's problems. In addition, there are clients who want to know the therapist in every detail, and clients who come with their own expectations of the therapist.
So should we not seek any standards or accept and follow any ethical mores? There is some evidence that certain actions or behavior is universally condemned (incest, for example). And we all seem to have from childhood a sense of what is "fair" or not(butting in line.) Of course,  we have religious dicta that we carry from our faith, but that is where we get into the gray areas because they do not always mesh and can differ tremendously depending on how they are adhered to (do you eat pork?)
Before you begin thinking I have painted myself in a philosophical corner, let me suggest that the problem is not setting boundaries or what form of boundaries we set, but how rigidly we adhere to them. If we see our ethical/moral standards as goals rather than strict behavioral guidelines, we might be able live more honestly than we tend to do now. We might also save a great deal of emotional energy and anguish by not having to come up with rationalizations when we would not follow our own code of behavior, or feeling badly if we do. The point is having a goal to work toward, a sense of direction, something which might be at times beyond us but still whispers in our ear, come on! You can do better!

Just a Joke

He'd posted this joke on Facebook, and no I'm not going to tell it here 'cause (a) it weren't funny and (b) it was based on a series of sexist and ethnic slurs. Enough to say it was a regression to the old vaudeville gags based on insults and slapstick (which, as we all know, is really a comic form of physical abuse.)
Since I have this unfortunate difficulty tolerating that kind of thing, I pointed this out, in a low-key, polite kinda way of course. Next time I'll stick to something less hazardous, like wrestling alligators and poking bees' nests. Lighten up, I was chastised, stop being so "politically correct." It's only a joke.
Let us not be distracted by an old right-wing shibboleth, "political correctness." Let me, rather, introduce you to a little thing called "verbal abuse." When you use slurs, or stereotypes, even in a joke, you are putting someone down. You are belittling them, as in "putting them below yourself." Consider: would you say the same thing other than in the pretext of a joke?
Freud had a theory that most humor is akin to anger and hurt and humiliation. He might have had a point; consider the archetypal example of comedy: slipping on a banana peel. Why do we laugh at that? Is it because we feel superior to the poor person lying there on the ground?
Granted, there are variations on humor that depend on clever wordplay or identification with what is being talked about (Bill Cosby springs to mind.) But think of the most popular comedies out now: they are filled with people being hurt, humiliated, made to seem foolish. They are aimed at that particular stage in our lives when we can think of little funnier than putting down our peers. (In boys, as I remember, it happens around adolescence.)
And regardless of age, it is a common defense when confronted. I was just kidding. Only a joke, man.  But that elides the difference.
Yes, I have a sense of humor. Like to think that I am even witty. But when someone moves into that kind of humor that depends on putting someone down, where the laughter is a cover for tears, that ain't funny anymore.

Control yourself

Due in large part to the tragedy in Newtown where an obviously disturbed young man and some weapons massacred 20 children and six adults, there has been a great deal of debate regarding controlling access of such people from such weapons. Nevermind that other such tragedies over the last few years also involved persons equally unbalanced, with no such discussion subsequently. Nevermind the reality that people supposedly quite sane have been responsible for gun deaths that were just not of that scope.
The suggestion (and the actual law in New York now) is to require some sort of registry  for those who have been identified as "mentally ill." Similar to the existent lists of convicted pedophiles or other criminals, those on such a list would be prevented from obtaining a gun. But this is where it begins to get murky.
The biggest issue, of course, is confidentiality. There is already a major law on the books strictly protecting patient confidentiality. Without written consent, the clinician cannot even disclose the fact that someone is in treatment, even to another clinician. The only exemption is if a person discloses to a clinician that he or she is going to hurt him/herself or another person. Called the "Duty to Warn;" you gotta notify the authorities, call the person at risk, make arrangements for the client to be hospitalized. The trick is, if that same discloses that they have in the past  done that same whatever, that comes under confidentiality and cannot be disclosed!
And that doesn't even get into the area of discerning the reality of the risk. Most of the current debate seems to sweep all mentally ill people into the same pile; so seriously disturbed and so violent (or potentially violent) as to be dangerous to the populace at large. Of course, not all those who we might label "mentally ill" fit into this same Procrustean bed. They are on a vast spectrum that goes from passing depression or anxiety to those who require on-going supervision and restraint. Even there, thanks to psycho-pharmaceuticals (and the cut-backs on mental health hospitalization resources), many people who would have lived their lives in a locked mental ward are now striving to live as normal a life as possible in the world around us (assuming, of course, there is such a thing as"normal.")
There is another whole issue here, to be saved for another day, of the tension between requiring medical treatment of whatever sort, versus the freedom and autonomy of the person who, for whatever reason, refuses to take the medication or have the operation. (The New York law rolls it all into one, not only registering the "mentally ill," but penalizing them if they resist treatment.)
Of course, identifying the mentally ill is complex; can we make the distinction between the obvious (the bag lady wandering the streets mumbling) and the peripheral (the functional autistic person who does what needs to be done but just wants everyone to go the hell away!) and the everyday (the arrogant/narcissistic politician)? Can we rely on the insights of the therapist to distinguish between the expression of temporary despair and anger as against the real threat of dangerous action?
And we must recognize that, as important as it is to provide the help needed for those mentally disturbed, this should not be instead of addressing the gun issue.

Tell Me What's Wrong

It used to be Borderline Personality Disorder. Just recently it has been Bipolar Disorder. The Diagnosis of the Day seems to change without warning or direction, depending in part on the newest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (that's DSM to you), on the differing meds the pharmaceutical companies have come up with, and on what sort of therapy is popular just now. It shows up in treatment plans, in supervisory sessions, even in the self-diagnosis made possible by the internet.
They can be what a former supervisor of mine called "garbage terms," vague categories covering damn-near anything and especially those cases where the clinician is stuck for a diagnosis. Even with the occasional second-guessing of the insurance people, no one really questions the therapist. Sure, a good therapist reviews a case every few months, revising the treatment plans and possibly coming up with a different diagnosis to add or replace. But in a time where most clinicians are scared silly of anything that might be seen as admitting a mistake, such changes are rare if not non-existent.
So the client can go along collecting different diagnoses, as he or she moves from therapist to therapist. (That's another change; people committed to therapy usually have several therapists over their lives, either because of the abomination known as "brief therapy, or because of a mistaken understanding of therapy as only meant to deal with any immediate crisis.) Lemme tell ya a secret: therapists don't always agree, and might come up with a completely different diagnosis and treatment plan for the same client. Yes, understandable; determining the exactly right thing is not always scientific, but more like chasing a black cat in an unlit room. Throwing darts blindfolded.
The insurance people insist on a diagnosis within certain parameters; they will not accept an Axis II as the primary diagnosis And the average person wants to know what's wrong right away! (Think it's something to do with our human need for certainty when things get uncertain.) But I come from a therapeutic generation that was impatient with the whole thing; something to do with reducing a human being to a clinical term. (Even today, doctors and nurses are prone to talk about the "appendectomy in room 208.") For all the need for certain forms of professional discipline, maybe we all need to learn how to live with uncertainty and focus on who is hurting, rather than exactly what is causing the pain.

One step at a time

ADDICTION: (noun) An uncontrollable compulsion to repeat a behavior regardless of its negative consequences.
Sound familiar? The alcoholic who has to have one more drink. The compulsive gambler who has to make one more bet. The overeater who gets up in the middle of the night to check what might be in the refrigerator. Sometimes it is clearly a physical thing, a need for the drug of choice. Sometimes it is a way of escaping from other things happening all around.
If we were honest,we would acknowledge that we all have things in our lives that we do unthinkingly, even repetitively. Things that may be innocuous, even benign: getting up each morning at the same time, going to work or school by the same route, watching the same television programs. We could even include our faith group in that category: a standard ritual, a given lifestyle, a way of dressing and acting. Yes, even these things could be swept into the category with a broad enough broom.
And some would broaden the idea quite far: sex addiction, internet addiction, video game addiction. The trouble with such new forms of addiction is that they usually come from groups who frown on certain forms of behavior. If one person has a stronger sex drive than another, is such a person a sex addict? If a boy or girl spends hours playing video games rather with the rest of the family, is that young person addicted to video games?
Yes, we all can get into bad habits, and we can do certain things because we don't want to do other things. Having to be home for a favorite television show rather than going somewhere we find boring (less an valid excuse in these days of DVRs) says more about what we prefer and not so much about a compulsion. The husband who spends too much time on the computer may be avoiding his wife as much as it says about an obsession.
Granted, there can be things that take control of our lives. I remember a young man barricading himself in his room so he would not be disturbed while studying his Bible. Or the man who spent more and more time inappropriately with his daughter as he became more and more alienated from his wife. Could such things be considered "addictions?" Well, in the most generalized way, maybe. But they really have more to do with the ways we deal with the anxieties life throws at us and not so much with "spiritual addiction" or "sex addiction," whatever that might mean.
There is another aspect to all this: if we are "addicts" of whatever sort and validity, we are not really to blame. In alcoholism (which is an addiction), there is an physical component; in AA, it is called an "illness." Are we trying to absolve ourselves of the foolish compulsive things we do in our everyday lives?
Yet even in the varying 12-step programs, where addicts admit powerlessness, there is still an acceptance of responsibility to get straight again.

One Step at a Time

Obstacles.
We all have 'em, emotional, physical, psychological, even spiritual. Those bumps in the road, gaps in the manuscript, lacunae in our personal or relational or professional lifehistory that prevent us , hold us back in various ways from what we would do.
We deal with these in differing ways. We develop ways around the barrier. Or we ignore the problem and live as though it weren't there. We might even make it someone else's responsibility, blaming them for what we are not able to do.
Creative types make the obstacle a matter of no significance or value, the old "sour grapes" approach. And others make such obstacles into a personal cause, advocating, for instance, for handicapped accessibility in public places or working for a group involved in social changes for a particular issue.
But some obstacles are so mundane as to seem trivial. For instance, my physical handicap makes stairs an obstacle that others would think nothing of, but which I have to face with difficulty and some pain. When someone parks in a "handicapped" parking spot without a "handicapped" tag- well, they are running into the store for just a minute, so what's the harm? But it means someone like me must park that much farther away and walk- with great difficulty- that distance.
Of course, there are people who have disability status through Social Security, and they may or may not be the driver with the "handicapped." tags. Getting SSI is not easy, despite the disgruntled few who seem  to believe that it is reserved only for low-income, lazy,  mentally-ill alcoholics. Even there, the disability may not be as immediately obvious, and many on SSI would prefer they weren't.
There was a time in my life when I could bound up a flight of stairs, two at a time. Now I go slowly one at a time, if I go at all. But not all obstacles we face are physical. When we have a barrier that keeps us from caring for others, or when we have handicaps that keep from seeing the human needs around us, that can be as disabling in its own way as anything physical.

Gotta Have Friends

It is a word that has been so overused that it has no meaning anymore. When someone could have hundreds, if not thousands of "friends" on Facebook, the very nature of "friend" has been so diluted as to be meaningless. Originally, the definition was a person with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically one exclusive of sexual or family relations. Today, if it means anything at all, it has come to mean not an enemy or opponent. Many today confuse "acquaintance" with "friend," abrogating personal boundaries altogether. And, as suggested by the definition above, when a "friend" becomes a partner by marriage or intimate relationship, that title is invalid in that context.
So what is a friend? Usually it is men who have the most difficulty with the concept; they typically have few people they would call "friend,"  and even less they would consider a "close friend." Women have less problem, although they may move from one friend to another as the years go by. (Yes, many women have been blessed with a "best friend" from childhood, but in our transitory society today that is less so.)
Mark Twain defined a friend as "Somebody who knows all about you and likes you anyway." The whole idea of a friend, you see, should be something to do with trust. (Which is why this dichotomy of love/like, friend/lover misses the point.) A friend is someone we can risk being open with. A friend cares enough that when we are uncaring or careless, the connection survives.
This will not be the case with everyone we meet, no matter how hard we try to make that connection. Simply because a person is from the same town or state as ourselves, or shares a common interest, went to the same school, has the same name as someone we once knew, has a peripheral family connection, does not signify that there might be some sort of friendship in the offing. Simply because there was a friendship of some sort in the past does not guarantee a relationship today.
Instant friendships are the most dangerous of all. There wouldn't be enough time to get to really know each another, to make real any connections beyond the passing attraction. (This is why it doesn't work when a relationship begins sexually before all concerned know who the other person really is.)
The ideal, of course, is to combine the two options: To like the person you love, to have your friend be your lover. It is possible. The advantage is that those times when you don't like the other person, you still love. (And vice versa, of course.)
Does this mean every friendship needs to be at that extreme? Of course not; there are friends at numerous stages of life, meeting the numerous human needs we all have.  But they have this in common: both sides are present and open.

Say What You Mean

Recently I stumbled into another hornet's nest. Someone had posted a supposedly cute post on Facebook. "I'm a people pleaser, just not a stupid people pleaser." I made what I thought an innocuous comment, something to the effect that "stupid" is a relative term, as some people who are unfamiliar in one thing might be quite knowledgeable in another.
Sorry, didn't know I had opened that can of worms!
Someone posted a comment to  my comment, using the term "common sense," and saying such things should be "obvious."
Yes, I know, shoulda just let it go. But I am forever trying to clarify things, so I responded by pointing out that what is "obvious" in one time and place would not be so in another. It used to be "obvious" that the earth was flat, and the sun went around the earth. That human flight was an impossibility. I even mentioned that people used to regard tomatoes as poisonous (which gives you an idea how frantic I had become.)
My correspondent took my well-considered words and responded by getting nasty. The obvious was what was right in front of my face, and I was unable to see that! When I tried to seek a more reasoned and civil tone, he made a perfunctory apology but then became just as nasty all over again.
Fortunately, the person who had unintentionally begun this pissing match stepped in and tried to calm the troubled waters. I felt sorry for him; my adversary was a former employer, and I used to be this guy's pastor! But he brought in the voice of reason necessary, and I regained some perspective.
We had been dealing with issues that had not been named, expressed in code words. Rather than talking about human needs and ways of dealing with them, we quibbled about the meanings of "obvious" and "common sense." He didn't want to deal with the more complicated problems of life, but just to go for the most direct and uncomplicated solutions at hand. As they say, when your tool of preference is a hammer, every problem is just a nail. And I got pulled into it.
I can remember once getting into a theological debate with a person from a particularly rigid faith group (okay, it was Jehovah's Witnesses!) Most frustrating and useless fifteen minutes of my life!But I suspect it is human nature to try to rescue people from their own folly.
Of course, these others may not see it as folly. And too often people don't come right out and say what they mean, anyway. Rather than  talking about economic inequity and prejudice, some people talk about personal responsibility and equal opportunity. Rather than acknowledging our modern class structure, some talk about difficulty dealing with certain groups of people.
So we can decide to let those we disagree with alone. As I have said before, don't bother trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig. But maybe there is something to be said for showing people how lost they are.
But first we have to be certain what we are talking about.