Observation: Do we sometimes miss the obvious, especially in the hopes of tolerance and peace...?
Conclusion: Divisions marking differences can be healthy and in fact can give direction in life.
Once we recognize a difference, we need not immediately begin an attempt to find similarities, seek unity or strive for compromise. Yet are we so threatened by divisions that we avoid discussions on differences? What happened to divisions revealing a difference for the sake of clarity? Is it not intolerant to dismiss our differences?
Ah! perhaps this is where heart of the matter is! The radio show host, Dennis Prager, speaks consistently about his preference for clarity over agreement. This perhaps is counter-cultural to the mass-media-driven society-at-large preference for "agreement" and thus our consistent sensitivity towards compromise. Sometimes compromise lacks direction for wanting clarity and agreement is far from a possibility. Ironically when compromise instead of clarity is sought, divisions are magnified and clarity swept under the rug.
Think of your own personal experiences. Have you been in a work meeting where "collaboration" turns into everyone "compromising" to the boss' preemptive decision? Have you been in a conversation with a friend that ended with "I guess we'll just agree to disagree."
Often times division divides for the sake of clarity, and in this clarity we can have direction in life. If you were asked to mentor a youth and help them discern their vocation in life, which would be truly helpful, tell the youth:
A. "You can do anything if you just put your mind and heart into it."
B. "Seek what God has planned for you by identifying your interests and talents and narrow the field that way."
In politics the differences within our traditional two party political system is critical to a healthy government. In jurisprudence the division between prosecution and defense is absolutely necessary for the sake of justice. In human nature the distinction between male and female is fundamental to our very existence and makes possible real equality.
In fact equality is only possible if we recognize distinction, differences and divisions. Equality does not always mean "sameness." Yet how often does it seem that the pursuit of peace using the rhetoric of tolerance seeks not "unity in equality" but "compromise in sameness?"
Just War is a prime example of the unfortunate means of defending divisions to seek victory found in equality. Tragically there can be great clarity in a just war, if distinction is consistently maintained for the sake of clarity. When that line is breached the fog of war blurs our vision and victory cannot be defined.
