Written by John Turner   

David Pakman conducts a talk show on radio. Recently he interviewed Gordon Klingenschmitt, a former chaplain in the U.S. Navy and a graduate of the Air Force Academy. Mr. Klingenschmitt is convinced that homosexuality is a sin and, therefore, he is very much opposed to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He says that allowing gay people to serve openly in the military will cause the United States to lose the blessing of God on its troops, and thus will cause the U.S. to lose wars. Actually, he goes farther than that. By having openly gay people in the military he believes we are conducting a war against God, and God, being God, is not going to lose any wars.

By practicing homosexuality, says Klingenschmitt, men are attempting to turn themselves into women. It is the devil who causes men to have feminine feelings. Consequently, it’s appropriate to have military chaplains conduct exorcisms in order to eject this devilish propensity from soldiers, sailors, and so on. Klingenschmitt, himself, has carried out exorcisms and has driven the devil out of gay people, who then turned to a godly life.

What can we say of people who share Mr. Klingenschmitt’s views? I suppose a common response would be to say that they’re nuts. But calling people crazy, though it may in some sense be accurate, doesn’t teach us anything about how to act towards them in society. The truth, though many don’t wish to face it, is that there are millions of U.S. citizens who would believe that Klingenschmitt is right and that his firm and real connection to God is undeniable.

When someone says he knows what God is telling us to do, having a genuine conversation with him becomes difficult. Most people are not as obstreperous about their religious views as Klingenschmitt is, but if asked, most people would say that they also know what God is directing.

The fate of conversation and discourse in America may not be rosy.

I used to have a strong faith in conversation as a means of resolving difficulties. I still do believe in it in certain settings. Yet among the general public and, in particular, among some groups, it may not be possible for it to function as we have said it ought to.

I don’t like to have to say that. I wish it weren’t true. I want to believe that rational conversation can influence anyone. The evidence, though, seems to be slipping away from me. And if it is, it leaves me with the question of what to do about persons with whom I can’t really converse.

I’ve noticed that in some families there’s a rule enjoining reticence about religious and political views. It supposedly allows Thanksgiving dinners and similar ceremonies to be more pleasant. But it also creates almost unendurable insipidity at those occasions. If you can’t actually talk to people, what’s the sense of sharing their company?

Perhaps there’s some good in saying to people, “I understand what you’re saying. I’d be happy to listen to you explain yourself even more. But I don’t get the meaning of what you’re trying to express and when it comes to the consequences of your thought, I’m strongly opposed to them.” This could be said with a cheerful smile.

I could announce to Mr. Klingenschmitt, for example, “I have no idea what you mean by God nor can I understand how you think you’re in touch with this God. I get that you believe the Bible tells you what God wants you to do, but your reading of the Bible and your grasp of how the Bible came into being strike me as highly problematic, if not seriously deranged.“

Would that help us to get on? I guess it would give him a chance to say something. I could listen to him and I suppose people are gratified by being listened to. There might be some emotional benefit in it. The chance, however, that Klingenschmitt and I are going to have a meeting of minds is beyond remote.

The conclusion I find myself led towards, reluctantly, is that outside groups I can regard as rational, I shouldn’t expect to resolve anything. Consequently, I need to train myself not to become frustrated by inability to reach, or even to approach, agreements.

The purpose of talk with people like Klingenschmitt may be simply to keep on talking. That’s better than doing the other things we might wish to do to one another. When we’re talking at least we’re not shooting, or lynching, or stealing or performing other nasty acts common among humanity.

We’re just talking, and maybe that’s all we can expect to do.