disagreements okay or not

 

 I have mostly kept this blog away from politics or religion for more or less selfish reasons. I don't want the hassle I find when I comment on such topics in places like Facebook where I get slammed. Still, it is selfish and I do have many thoughts I discuss with my husband and friends where we sometimes agree or disagree but can talk about it sanely with a final agree to disagree. Most today seem to want to only hear what they already believe and they stay in such cliques. I get it but it's got its drawbacks. 

Today I read a column by Cal Thomas with an ending paragraph to which I much agree. His complaint was we don't have intellectuals leading either party or even getting elected. He named those in the past who were but couldn't think of one today-- to name anyway. Here's his comment. 

"There’s a proverb that seems to make my point: “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another” (Proverbs 27:17). While some theologians say this verse is about human relationships, it might also be applied to intellectual pursuits. Just as playing tennis or golf with someone better than yourself can improve your game, so does keeping company with smarter people — and particularly those with different points of view — make you sharper and better able to vote intelligently and elect people more worthy of holding public office than many who are currently in elective positions or campaigning for them."

Will schools do this, help children and young adults to agree to disagree with intelligent points or is that out of the question for today? 

I personally think this lazy way of thinking also permeates the books most want to read and their entertainment. It has to support their point of view, whatever it is, or many toss them out.

The bobcat was one that visited our Arizona property and watched with concern as it had just killed a bird but was afraid to eat it with being watched. It had a kitten and went back to finish its meal after the paparazzi had left *s*.