Yesterday at work I spoke up about some of my conservative opinions in the midst of people who are very liberal. I am usually outnumbered in my work place by those who think quite differently from me. I was just so full of energy and had just gotten back to the office after completing several tasks and a conversation was already in full swing with my coworkers. The subject was terrorism and airlines and the latest rumors regarding attacks on the US.
In my oh so superior knowledge I threw out a few comments to these rubes - I knew they'd roll their eyes and think I'm one of those crazy Bible clinging right wingers. They mentioned airlines and how they didn't like to fly and one of the younger members of the office was leading up to some sort of semi-judgemental statement about Muslims with the usual politically correct mumbo jumbo, "I don't want to offend anyone and I'm probably jumping to conclusions...." and I had to open my mouth and show them how dumb they are......"We just need to profile. We need to do whatever Israel does and we won't have a problem." Of course the word, "profile" had an effect. One of the speakers is a black man and he immediately applied the word to the black race instead of to the subject of the conversation. He said that I was just like Pat Robertson and I talk like the people who want to send all blacks back to Africa.
Now let's step back here for a moment. Of course that is not the way I think. We were talking about Muslims, which is a religion, not a race - and we were talking about profiling on airlines to make flight safer. While this idea may have it's big drawbacks, it makes more sense to me than the silliness that airlines go through now, pulling non-Muslim (and yes, I'm assuming here, since, at this time, in this country, most Muslims are still of Middle Eastern origin) grandmothers aside to wand them, etc. I immediately asked the speaker how profiling Middle Easterners boarding an airline had anything to do with sending blacks back to Africa. The other black member of the office piped up and said I was one step away from that type of thinking.
OK - do you get the gist here? I was upsetting people. Whether I was right or wrong, why oh why do I have to open my big mouth? Am I going to - in my arrogance - teach these people anything? Are they going to bow to my superior wisdom? No. They are going to think I belong in Northern Idaho now on some compound with Pat Robertson followers. While I believe their thinking is seriously flawed and their information is acquired totally from the mainstream media - it is not my place to "correct" them.
Most importantly, I am a Christian. They know I am a Christian. How does this affect my testimony? It makes me look like a nutcase to them. If they ever would have considered my faith as something to learn about - they sure don't now.
Next the subject of self-defense came up and of course, I said if law abiding citizens had guns and knew how to use them, crime stats would fall. I got the well worn phrase, "this isn't the Wild West," from my coworkers.
So - what is the upshot of this? I am first and foremost, a Christian, and my responsibility is to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, whom I am to represent. To me this means that politics and conservative versus liberal opinions takes a back seat. Too late now for that. My arrogance got in the way and I just had to interject my 5 cents....
What say you - am I over reacting or should I be more careful what statements I make?
I've come to the same conclusion. It ain't worth the trouble.
Don't lose any sleep over it darling....
Stop listening to your 'inner retard' and move on. I agree with you, and you are right. The bottom line - don't waste your time. . . ..
Well - it's a couple of days later and no one seems to have any residual resentment from that conversation - all is fine at work. So maybe it wasn't so bad to speak up after all.....thanks for your comments.
Last Tuesday, Directors of the CIA, FBI and National Intelligence declared that an attack by Al Qaeda in the next 3 to 6 months “is certain!” Leon Panetta, CIA Director announced, “The biggest threat is not so much that we face an attack like 9/11. It is that Al Qaeda is adapting its methods in ways that oftentimes make it difficult to detect.”
Panetta’s statement does not take into account the ability to identify any terrorist whose goal it is to give up their life for a cause. Only when you are observing measurable emerging aggression can you identify a terrorist before they effect their violence.
The Center for Aggression Management discovered 15 years ago that there were two kinds of aggression: adrenaline-driven Primal Aggression and intent-driven Cognitive Aggression. The Primal Aggressor, in the extreme, is “red-faced and ready to explode,” the Cognitive Aggressor (the terrorist) is not. When a person, regardless of the culture, gender, education or position, rises to the level where their goal is to give up their life for a cause, their body looses animation and we see the “thousand-yard stare.” But it is more than this, the whole body and behavior looses animation and this is how we can identify them. The problem is that security and law enforcement are still looking for the Primal Aggressor (red-faced and ready to explode). Of course they are finding it difficult to detect these terrorist; a terrorist is a Cognitive Aggression; they are looking for the wrong person!
As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?
You can read more at http://blog.AggressionManagement.com
Post a Comment