ignorance is not a bliss

i normally don't engage people in a public space on two topics: politics and religion.

however, there are a limited few i have come to know that can think outside the box; those who want to engage in dialogue, not lecture on their ideals and values. i was in a conversation with one such friend when she made an effort to include another mutual friend in our conversation: big mistake.

context: george bush had been in the city to gave a talk. tickets were $100. i already had a prior commitment that night so i didn't attend. she knew someone who had gone and was told that bush had given a really good speech. as soon as she invited our mutual friend to join and was apprised of what we were talking about ('i was just telling [me] about the george bush talk..') my friend was cut off by our mutual friend who said 'i would never pay to see him. he's stupid for what he did in iraq'.

i knew her remarks were not unique. there are many international citizens that feel the way that she reflected. however, what struck me the most was that she was unwilling to engage in the topic at hand: dialogue about the conflicting national and international ideals, and how they influence our tone within the global community. instead, she was giving a full-scale commentary on a topic that you could see she had generic impressions of. i thought to myself: how will we progress as a People if we cannot find a middle ground regarding the diverse, existing principles and practices of differing faiths and cultures?

it's as if people don't have a well- grounded idea of what to think or who to believe, yet they know exactally what they don't want to know (in this case, alternative ideals and perspectives).

ignorance is not bliss and nor should it be context. if we are unwilling to accept excuses from others then we should not accept them from ourselves, either.

talking doesn't hurt. not- knowing does. the choice is simple. or so, it appears