Jon and I had recent conflict on our radio show regarding religious perspective and male/female perceptions. It happened about 3 weeks ago and it still seems to bother him. I don't know how I can continually rectify the situation beyond explaining my world view until I am blue in the face and yet, someone such as him, cannot fully comprehend my struggle to enlighten him and in reverse, he to me. The reason I brought up world view is because I see the world from a Christian and neutral intellectual. What I mean by that, is I understand the Christian prophecy that must take place before the Second Coming of Christ. There will be a major confrontation of world powers btwn Russia, US and China in the Middle East. We are beginning to see the edges of this prophecy and the dividing line with the escalation of Kim Jong Un. As a political scientist, I can crisply define the world from a pragmatic point of view. There are 34% of the world population who are Christians and 23% who are Islam. From a purely religious perspective, the sons of Abraham are fighting with a sibling rivalry for the most holy and dedicated sects of God. From a purely Christian perspective, ultimate divinity only comes through sacrifice and laying down of self for our brother. Therefore, Christians cannot get involved in war or bully others even on a national platform. Each person born into a particular faith will honor that faith until they find a fallible proof that the religion cannot support their life view. Just as many younger people abandon the Catholic church in it's strictness and revelation of dishonorable priests (as an example), a handful to perhaps a persuasive margin will leave due to their worldly passions that don't coincide with the religion-they choose worldiness over prudent living. When I am trying to discuss just pragmatic facts like how I perceive people are influenced or why certain Musllims prey on others such as Isis on the Peshmerga in Northern Iraq and Tureky , I try to state conflicts like this in geopolitical terms mixed in with current events. Jon tries to take the immediate Christian view and perceives Islam in itself as a threat. This is just one watered down example. Sometimes, two friends cannot come head to head with an issue and meet in the middle. At some points, I thought it was damaging the radio show because he took a very narrow view regarding an Islamic female leader I had on the air. I forgive him for it, but he was defensive because our guest was trying to explain her disagreement with the Muslim ban and the impact it has had on visitors/Us residents staying here & future limitations in six major countries. She is Yemenese descent and it impacted her directly regarding relatives and friends. It offended me that he would infiltrate and confront a guest this way without hearing what she was tyring to project.
Needless to say, it was a difficult time and a moment of truth for our radio show. I am trying to analyze and dissect policy, presidential behavior, modern conflict and it seems to me, certain cohosts are only trying to promote their world view without taking a moment to breathe and see someone's other condition in the world.
In the same way, certain people reject Syrian refugees and treat them as non victims, we can only do our best to help those in need without judging and being fearful of others different than us. Some of our cohosts have dissed people we have not been exposed to or have stopped to try to understand. For example, Albert distrusts all rich people and the mainstream media and thinks those in those composite groups have a faulty agenda. We must welcome the stranger and bridge the gap of communcation deficiencies to brighten our world, even if the communication block is between intimate friends. Last week, we had a harmonious show but Jon was not a participant because he took a few weeks off to regroup. He may be back but I don't know.
