When a friend posted a disturbing photograph of an Occupy Wall Street protester defecating on an American flag, I was tempted to respond, “But isn’t the Klu Klux Klan a Christian organization?” I resisted the urge because such a simplistic response would not promote equanimity and understanding.

Although I do not believe that a case study of the KKK gives us a valid understanding of Christianity, my assertion that it is a Christian organization is fundamentally correct. As the Knight’s Party explains on their website, “We emphasize ONE requirement for every person who decides to associate with The Knights, and that is that they conduct themselves with Christian character.”

Unfortunately, individuals implying that the disturbing photograph is of an Occupy Wall Street proteste

r cannot make similar claims of veracity. On 27 March 2007, their photograph was posted on Yuri Orlov’s Condition Orange Blog; more than four years before Occupy Wall Street began.

I believe that my friend believed that the photograph was recently taken in New York City. Yet he still made an error in re-posting an image without first verifying its authenticity.

Although I believe my friend was duped, Mickey Clark doesn’t care if the photograph is true or not. As he explains in the comments section, “It makes really no differance if was in 2007 or 2011 !!!!” But it does make a difference when the photograph was taken. Even if someone were to argue that the current Occupy Wall Street protesters are operating in a political tradition consistent with flag desecration, accurate data is crucial for informed discussion.

As a faculty member, I insist on good critical thinking skills where students are required to cite evidence while advancing their positions. Furthermore, I work with students to develop the skills necessary to critically listen to points of view about which they might disagree. I help them appreciate that understanding someone else’s point of view does not mean that they have to agree with it. More importantly, while holding my students to high standards, I realize that I must hold myself to the same standards.

Unfortunately, too much contemporary political rhetoric consists of distorted truths and outright lies. And too many people simply pass on the information without critically thinking about it or verify its credibility. Our classrooms should be a refuge from such shallowness.

For example, last January during a discussion on Martin Luther Day, a student became very upset when I asked for the evidence to support the facts he was citing. He insisted that he had the right to his opinion. I agreed he had this right. However, I reminded him that, in an academic setting, we could not consider any opinion that could not be supported with verifiable evidence.

A few months later, another class was discussing historical roots of current events. Congressman Paul Ryan had just released his budget plan; a plan that advances a vision of American’s future far different from the one I hold. Yet, I was able to explain how the Congressman’s plan was consistent with American values that could be traced back to the founding of the United States.

If we are content to accept positions that support our points of view without asking for the evidence which supports them, we are missing the irony of Thomas Gray’s warning that “where ignorance is bliss; ‘Tis folly to be wise.” Do we really want a society of citizens or a classroom of students who value living in ignorant bliss?

If we do not try to respectfully understand those who oppose us, we are unable to learn from them. For example, in the introduction to Congressman Ryan’s A Roadmap to Recovery, he is talking about me when he writes, “Their ‘progressivism’ ironically points backwards—to a future in which America’s best century is the past century.” While I am unlikely to convert to the Congressman’s vision of America, his criticism is worthwhile to consider. I learn little from simply talking to people who share my values and much from considering positions that challenge my world view.

Ironically, while criticizing the protester, Mr. Clark’s Facebook profile makes clear that he supports the idea that “Extremism in the cause of LIBERTY is no vice.” While I would agree that there is a role for extremists in public discourse, I hope never to fall into the trap of confusing the extremists with those who take a more thoughtful approach to difficult issues. Otherwise, I would have to accept the opinion that the Klu Klux Klan is really a valid case study of Christianity.

–Steven L. Berg, PhD