photo credit: graymalkn

I’m an idealist. I don’t believe the ends justify the means, and I am a big fan of concepts like “doing the right thing,” “personal responsibility,” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

I’m also a pragmatist. I think this is partly personality, partly profession, and a good deal of being married to Daniel.

Normally these two personality traits co-exist reasonably peacefully. They temper each other and keep me from going too overboard in either direction.

But then political questions come up, and suddenly I’m the host of a little mini-war of the mind and heart.

There are a few issues that my idealist-half cares deeply about, and then a wide range of issues that my pragmatic-half insists on worrying about.

The problem is that the idealist issues are really not likely to actually matter in practice. For instance, abortion: I am absolutely pro-life, and consider the issue of abortion to be a huge spiritual battle, but when it comes down to it, electing a pro-life candidate is highly unlikely to change any of the legislation.

And that’s where the dilemma comes in: is it worth ignoring all of the pragmatic issues in favor of one unlikely-to-change-anything commitment, because it’s “the right thing to do”? Or should I embrace the pragmatism and focus on “doing what we can, where we can”?

I took some “find your ideal candidate” tests this morning and apparently, I’m really a Bob Barr supporter. Of course, no one’s ever heard of Bob Barr, and that might prove a bit of a complication for him. My pragmatic site absolutely forbids me to vote for the man, given that it would accomplish nothing, but idealism says, “The two-party system is a crock, and you should vote for the candidate who is best, regardless of his chances.”

I think the pragmatic side will win that one.

But my question is, should it? Where would we be if pragmatism was always put first? One of our household heroes, William Wilberforce, was ridiculously idealistic, and that’s a good part of the reason the slave trade was abolished. It took almost 50 years, though!

I think the abortion issue today has some significant correlations to the slave trade in Wilberforce’s time. It’s one of those things that most people would agree isn’t really an ideal solution, but people are generally happy to live with for reasons of convenience. I think in historical retrospect, though, more enlightened future generations will be astounded, just as most of us are today when considering slavery. I also think in both cases there is substantial behind-the-scenes spiritual influence.

But the point of this isn’t to convince you that abortion is wrong. My pragmatic side assures me that trying to argue that belief isn’t going to work anyway.

The point is: given that I hold these beliefs about abortion, is it my duty to vote accordingly, even with the realistic expectation that no candidate will be able to change things? Or is it my duty to look at all the issues, even though I don’t feel that most of them are nearly as important, and balance them all to figure out my support?

Daniel thinks I should become a politician.

Frankly, I haven’t addressed the cartoons because I simply can’t wrap my mind around the madness. I read one article where a Muslim was quoted saying something like, “Can you imagine the outrage if this was done to Christians?” and my mind just boggled. Apparently he doesn’t know that Christians, Christianity, and Jesus are routinely mocked all over the world. I also can’t get over the irony of the response: people don’t like that they feel they are being called terrorists, so they react by acting like terrorists.

Understand, I do not try to offend people of other faiths, and would never do so for the sake of offending. I have read and respect other perspectives on this. But I find myself agreeing fully with Mr. Rose.

Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn’t intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

Whether or not you agree with Mr. Rose, it is useful to understand where he’s coming from. Now if only I could find a Muslim perspective that actually makes sense. (That’s not quite accurate; the moderate Muslims are perfectly sensible—I just can’t figure out the extremists.)