Tag Archives: compromise

IF PUSH COMES TO SHOVE …

Posted on by
Reply
#push #shove #peace #compromise #disputes #ResolvingDisputes #strength
If push comes to shove … has come to mean that things could go from bad to worse.
Or, it could mean that if someone pushes you, you might shove back.
Does anyone WANT to get pushed, or shoved?
A push, actually, could be positive. A parent, teacher, friend or coach could push someone to be a better version of himself or herself.
That person may shove back by offering resistance, even if they know deep down of the pusher’s good intentions.
On the opposite side, someone may push you to do something you don’t want to do. You may shove back by saying no repeatedly, as the pusher keeps at you.
Technically, push and shove could be synonyms. But, as we understand the words, a push may be gentler than a shove.
That brings us back to the expression. When one is gently pushed, he or she may shove back more aggressively.
We use the expression usually in context with conflicts with others. When the dispute comes to a head, what will we do next?
Some people plan their moves carefully. They anticipate that a dispute will come to a climax, and they have the next move in their back pockets.
Others genuinely don’t know what to do when conflict reaches a point that requires “the next move.”
They could go with their gut and do what comes to them at the time. They could walk away in defeat. Or, a level-headed person could just say enough is enough. Let’s stop fighting and find common ground for peace.
In today’s polarized world, we need more level-headed peacemakers. The great poet and orator Maya Angelou once said. “we are more alike than we are unalike.”
Certainly, we will disagree, perhaps about a lot of things. But, when push comes to shove, what will we do next?
Will we agree to disagree, move on and find agreement on other matters? Will we avoid discussion of topics that provoke disagreement? What if the topic that promotes disagreements MUST be discussed? Avoidance can be a form of cowardice when it comes to those mandatory topics.
In those cases, the noble peacemakers look for common ground. They find compromise. They believe that compromise is a form of strength, especially when sticking to your guns can get you shot down.
While others see weakness in compromise, the noble among us not only see strength in it, but also see it as the best, and only, way to resolve conflict. Defeating others through force is not only weak, but also cowardly and lazy.
Peace via compromise is weapon for good. Though in such cases no one gets everything he or she wants, everyone gets something. That leads to, as the late President Ronald Reagan put it, “peace through strength.”
So, the next time you face a situation in which push comes to shove, what will you do?
Peter

FIGHTERS CAN BE GREAT, BUT …

Posted on by

#fighters #compromise #disagreements #DifferentViewpoints
“I will fight for YOU.”
Or, “I’m going to (pick one: Washington, D.C. or any state capital) to start a fight.”
These may be political slogans often thrown around. Of course, those who throw them around think potential voters admire fighters. And, fighters are often better in a political setting than, say, introverts.
But what they really mean is that they are going to fight for SOME of you.
Why? Some of the things they fight for are things some of their constituents don’t want.
Might a candidate be better to say they are going to work to get something done?
Of course, that doesn’t play as well as fighting words.
Government works best when those who represent us cut deals from which every side of the argument gets SOMETHING.
No one side may get everything, but every side gets something.
Such compromise has become a dirty word in many campaigns today. More candidates prefer to play to the extremes on either side, rather than the middle.
But the middle may be where the real action is. It’s certainly OK for someone to fight hard for principles. But, in the end, his or her principles may not fit all his or her constituents’ principles. Therefore, things get done when compromises are reached.
In any sort of relationship, one must understand others’ points of view. If his or her views conflict with the other person’s viewpoint, each viewpoint can be argued and debated. But, more often than not, there are some points of agreement.
Finding those points may be the secret sauce of compromise.
Compromise becomes the secret sauce of action. We expect action from those who represent us.
Think of the many friendships, or other relationships, you have. Do you ONLY relate to those with whom you agree on all things? Not likely. Most married couples don’t agree on everything. Therefore, compromise enters the relationship. You can like, or even love, someone who may not agree with you on all things.
If a person’s views don’t match yours, do you end the relationship? If you do, how does that make you feel as a person? How much respect do you have for the other person’s feelings or ideas?
In short, is the relationship more important to you than any opinions?
A great way to preserve relationships among those with differing opinions is to refrain from talking about things that will cause disagreements.
In politics, or many other relationships, that may not always be practical. Therefore, finding the things you all agree on becomes paramount.
Among friends, family etc., finding what you all enjoy discussing and sticking to those things can work wonders in preserving relationships.
In summary, compromise is not a dirty word. Diversity in thought can enhance everyone’s life. To quote an old adage, you CAN disagree without being disagreeable.
Peter

MORALITY AND LAWS: HOW DIFFERENT ARE THEY?

Posted on by

#morality #legal #morals #laws
What is morally right, and what is legally right?
By definition, laws are secular. They are created by governments and, in the United States, by the will of the people, at least in theory.
Morality is something we believe in wholeheartedly. It’s a personal endeavor. We use it as part of self-definition, whether we get it from teachings, scripture etc.
Bishop Joseph Walker III, pastor at Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Nashville, took on these questions in a May 24, 2015, column in the Tennessean newspaper in Nashville.
Walker says both law and morality are matters of interpretation. As a Christian pastor, he sees morality as founded in the Bible. There are other faiths which use other religious texts as their moral compasses, he says.
His task as a pastor is to lead people so that they discover what is moral and immoral, based on scripture and spiritual revelation, he writes.
For some with deep convictions, morality is concrete, inflexible and void of compromise. For others, morality is fluid, with the ability to change as new interpretations emerge, the pastor writes.
Because we cannot pass laws based on one set of religious or moral standards, one’s morality and what is legal may conflict.
Because, at least in the United States, there are people of varying religions, beliefs and moralities, laws have to determine right from wrong based on that context. As we see watching governments in action, it’s no easy task. Yet, it is necessary.
By definition, laws have to contain some compromise, yet define right from wrong as clearly as they can. That makes it possible, even likely, that people can be wronged by laws, while those same laws make things right to others.
When laws seek to define morality, it becomes a slippery slope, Walker writes. He then asks, “should our rights be protected by the law, whether they are deemed moral or not? Should the law protect any religious rites? The jury is still out.”
Laws do their best to seek justice for all, regardless of one’s beliefs or definition of morality. The Constitution of the United States allows one to worship as he pleases, as long as he hurts no others. So one’s rites and rights can be protected simultaneously. One’s morality could be offended by certain laws, but that should not stop one from believing personally in a certain morality.
Often, we are confronted with laws that allow certain behaviors we consider immoral. In reality, often these behaviors have little, or no, effect on us personally. So, we can privately condemn the law, and still live a life we consider moral.
As laws attempt to seek justice for all, we have to be careful not to judge. As we carry ourselves in our own morality, we do our best to portray that morality vividly, while not condemning others who do not believe as we do.
We must obey the laws, even as we may consider them immoral. We do so with clear conscience by acting within our own moral code, regardless of others’ actions.
As one ponders these questions, he should strive to be the best he can be, within his own belief system. He must also strive to help others, regardless of those others’ belief systems. For a great way to do that, visit www.bign.com/pbilodeau. You could be sharing a great bounty while still following your own moral code.
Peter