Yesterday I wrote about my interaction on Twitter and how I felt about that interaction. Reading it now, I wonder if perhaps I was unclear. It feels unclear to me, a little vague at the edges, like I almost said what I meant but then, missed by just that barest margin.
I respect Mr. McCammon a great deal. I don't want to censor his remarks or degrade him as an individual. It was my intent to impart my dislike for unreasoned opinion taking the place of thoughtful debate. Whenever religion gets into the mix, and insults are thrown about, the debate ends. The intelligent folks leave the room and everything devolves into theology and with theology, I am not prepared to argue. I'm maybe the least qualified.
Theology debate is far beyond most of us. For most of us, we believe or we don't. That's it and there is no changing minds, no swaying of opinions. So when I read, 'buy the book, go to hell', I am immediately shut down because I find no way to discuss anything at that point. To me, that is sad.
I want debate.
We can't evolve if we can't speak. I believe discourse is our only way to grow and heal the hurts and to move beyond pettiness. We don't need iron fists, or closed minds, or books dismissed without discussion or reason.
Maybe I have missed the point two days in a row. Am I on the right track?