![]() |
5
3
2
View Ratings |
Rate It
By Ray McGovern (about the author) Page 3 of 3 page(s)
Now, Joe, to be quite honest, I cannot guarantee a good result from this kind of approach, since I have no empirical evidence. That is, although I’ve been in Washington 45 years, I’ve not seen unvarnished honesty ever risked in quite this way. But I am guessing it could be quite disarming, and could send your debate partner scurrying for less effective talking points. You will be debating a "fundamentalist," but that is actually a misnomer. The fundamentals of Judeo-Christian morality have to do with truth telling, justice, and concern for the unprivileged. Confessing, forgiving, and repenting are also fundamentals. Don’t be ashamed of them, Joe. Embrace them. My guess is that if you do, you will leave your debate partner shocked—if not speechless. In the process, you will have succeeded in drawing a stark contrast between the "lies to nowhere" that she continues to tell on the one hand, and your (hopefully) terse, disarming honesty, on the other. You will be free to go ahead and demonstrate that in John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, no presidential candidate in the history of this country has made a more irresponsible selection for his running mate. And best of all, you will be able to sit back and smile next Sunday as you listen to the second Scripture reading (from Philippians 4):
Whatever is true, honorable, and just…think about these and keep on doing them…Then the God who gives peace will be with you.
Let Nathaniel be your model: no duplicity.
Sincerely,
Ray McGovern
This article first appeared on Consortiumnews.com.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
View Authors' Articles |
| 9 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |