A modern foible is to take two irreconcilable viewpoints, either of which could conceivably be correct, and pretend to synthesise them into a middle ground which almost certainly is not. This is peddled as some kind of virtue: it’s common in the Anglican Church and appears to be an Obama preoccupation:
President Obama used the controversy surrounding his Notre Dame address Sunday as a lesson on the need to bridge cultural divides in America, as he urged graduates to seek common ground on issues, like abortion, that stir passion on both sides.
What common ground could there possibly be between those who believe life begins at conception and therefore should be protected, and those who believe a foetus is a cluster of disposable cells. This apparently:
On the specific issue of abortion, Obama urged the public to at least agree that it is a “heart-wrenching” decision for any woman, and that the country should work to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies and making adoption more available.
“When we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe — that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground,” Obama said.
Rowan Williams expresses similar sentiments in trying to bring together those who agree and disagree with same-sex blessings in the Anglican Church:
The challenge is, “how can those who share that cost, that sense of profound anxiety about how to make the Gospel credible, how are they to come together for at least some measure of respect to emerge, so that they can recognize the cost that the other bears and also recognize the deep seriousness about Jesus and the Gospel that they share?”
In both cases, the common ground has nothing to do with the actual issue, but is merely the intensity with which each side holds its belief. In reality this is little more than a sleight of hand on the part of liberals to pacify the opposition while the real agenda continues unimpeded.
Both Obama and Williams have placed a higher value on attaining a bogus middle ground than on truth: it explains how the West has lost its way and how the Anglican church – hot in pursuit – has too.
Anglican Samizdat 
How true – Williams can never say anything directly, it always has to be “on the one hand, on the other hand”. Anyone seeking directions to the railway station would be well advised to avoid asking him for help.
His entire life must be one constant Hegelian dilemma. “Shall I get up this morning? Or shall I remain here for another hour while I reflect on the various risks and possibilities which that might open up?” “Do I want milk in my coffee? Hmmmmm – that’s a difficult one. I’ll come back to you next Tuesday.”
Comment by Alan — May 18, 2009 @ 6:10 am
In the dutch language, when they tell you ” immer rechts ab” it means always straight ahead !
In german, which I thought I understood, immer rechts ab would mean always turn right. So when riding my a bike in Holland ,many years ago, I asked a Dutchman for directions. He said ‘immer rechts ab!’. Since I knew some german I always turned right, because ‘immer’ means ‘always’, and ‘rechts’ means ‘right’, in the german language.and because in many respects the two languages are a lot alike, but when I arrived at the same place I had left 4 turnings ago, I decided that something was wrong here and asked someone who could talk german and english and was told what”immer rechts ab” meant, and how to get to where I wanted to go!!
It is much easier to find the right direction if you ask someone who speaks the right language and knows the way?!
Comment by Eva — May 19, 2009 @ 10:16 pm