To Speak or Not To Speak- That is The Question
A Personal Perspective on Modern Ideologies
As I sit and reflect on my current beliefs about modern ideologies, I find through my years of diverse exposure an increased commitment to worldview views. Admittedly, growing up, I was indoctrinated into an American lens deeply steeped in Western culture and context. Now with a broader scope, I am readily prepared and sensitive to worldviews that embrace nuance, complexity, and shared human dignity. I believe that many contemporary ideologies, whether rooted in tradition, identity, justice, and progress, carry within them major profound insights and potential blind spots. What I hold most deeply is a conviction that no single framework should have unchecked authority over our collective or personal narratives. My present commitment to inclusion, equity, and critical thought stems from both lived experience and academic engagement.
I believe in the inherent worth of every individual, and I affirm the importance of addressing systemic inequities that have long marginalized particular communities. At the same time, I believe in the power of dialogue across difference, even when that dialogue becomes uncomfortable and complex. My convictions are grounded in a theological belief in the Imago Dei—that every person is created in the image of God—and in a democratic ethos valuing both individual freedom and communal responsibility. These beliefs have become shaped through the intersection of my faith tradition, social activism, and scholarly insight. Engaging with critical and diverse thinkers has given me the ability to learn and critique, while drawing from various cultural and ideological traditions. Presently, it is my fervent hope to remain spiritually rooted and at the same time intellectually open. As we live in a pluralistic society, I have gained a new perspective on creating space for diverse ideologies while respecting the rights and opinions of others.
A Challenge of Sorts: Empathy
Gaad Saad tackles feelings in his book The Parasitic Mind- How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense. Saad introduces readers to the idea that feelings should not override facts. “One problem we face today is that consequentialists make a virtue of having emotions cloud our judgments, not only to avoid hurt feelings, but because emotion is seen as a sign of authenticity.[1] While I can side with Saad in part, his writing is filled with sarcastic overtones, and what I found challenging was his omission of empathy in the equation. Empathy does not negate reason; conversely, it deepens it. Empathy takes into consideration other contextual factors, while facts speak to what is. The removal of empathy also paves the way for intellectual arrogance, something Saad teeters in his writing. Does Saad write with hindsight bias? In Sway, Pragya Agarwal states that hindsight bias affects our ability to learn from our experiences. When we believe that we already knew what was going to happen, we are likely to overestimate our abilities. We all tend to selectively recall information consistent with what we now know to be true as we try and impose meaning on our knowledge.[3]
Freedom of Speech: A Deeply Held Belief
Mahmoud Khalil was a semi-popular name in some circles, but last month, Khalil was center stage in an international firestorm. Khalil, a Columbia University student and Palestinian refugee, recently had his green card revoked after his involvement in political demonstrations held on campus. Khalil’s arrest sent shockwaves across universities and colleges as the question of free speech and its constitutionality is now in question. America’s stance on free speech is rooted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which declares: Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Saad approaches the topic, stating that another key freedom of speech is a precondition for intellectual and societal health. Saad believes the ability to speak openly and sometimes even offensively is crucial for the progress of knowledge and democracy. He believes this constitutional right has been compromised. The general idea is that we must weigh our freedom of speech against the rights of others to not be offended. [2]
I hold a deeply rooted belief in freedom of speech because it is the foundation of both personal dignity and a democratic society. The ability to speak freely—to openly critique and raise questions, and call for alternative solutions is essential for societal progress. It also not only for intellectual growth but also for justice. Biblically and historically, every major change movement has called on individuals to with an unwavering courage to speak truth to power. Moses, Esther, David, Paul, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I am also reminded of our Washington, D.C. intensive speakers, Jim Wallis, Mac McLarty, Shirley Hoogstra, and Brett Fuller. Freedom of speech protects the marginalized and those within the margins of the mainstream. I believe silencing opposing perspectives will also allow the norm and the status quo to go unchecked. I will never forget attending a conference and hearing these words: open dialogue is not a luxury but a necessity.
A Call to Courage
Saad’s reading positions my mind and leadership lens towards the continuous practice of intellectual courage. He encourages readers to speak truth boldly, even when it’s unpopular or uncomfortable. There is a lot of evidence-based reasoning in the atmosphere today, and learning how to refuse to self-censor in fear of potential backlash is a tool worth keeping. …every voice counts, even if your circle of influence is limited to your family, friends, and neighbors.[4] That being said, I will also continue to challenge flawed ideologies and narratives respectfully, while engaging in open and positive dialogue and staying vigilant against ideological conformity.
[1] Gad Saad, The Parasitic Mind; How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense (New York: Regnery, 2020), 50.
[2] Saad, 30.
[3] Pragya Agarwal, Sway: Unraveling Unconscious Bias, (Bloomsbury Sigma Series. London ; New York: Bloomsbury Sigma, 2020),195.
[4] Saad, 174.
About the Author
Daren Jaime
14 responses to “To Speak or Not To Speak- That is The Question”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Daren, I found myself personally relating to your blog. What are ways you encourage those you lead to speak up and out courageously but also with empathy to promote open dialogue?
Hi Kari. Thanks for your question.When encouraging those I lead to speak up with courage and empathy, I model vulnerability first. I emphasize that truth-telling is not about our volume, but instead of value. I am intentional about creating space where disagreement is not seen as disrespect, while reminding our team of the true goal, understanding. Sometimes, we value winning over understanding. My challenge to them is to go the extra mile and hold conviction in one hand and compassion in the other.
Hi Daren, I really appreciated your personal perspective on modern ideologies. I can relate to your thoughts on Saad’s tone—while I agreed with many of his points, I too found his approach quite challenging. Since we’re on the topic of difficult “tones,” I’m curious about your strategies for engaging with people who speak harshly. I wholeheartedly agree with your call to speak boldly, but I’m also wondering how you determine when to lean in and engage or when it’s best to step away.
Hi Elysse. I have had my share of harsh tones to deal with and have grown into this posture.. When engaging, I try to listen and discover intent. Where there is potential for mutual growth, I lean in with curiosity, asking some probing questions. However, if this dialogue becomes either combative or dehumanizing, I give myself permission to step away immediately. Not every table has to be sat at. When these tables disturb or compromise my peace and purpose, I wont pull a Jesus and flip the table, but i will do my best to remove myself from it. Engagement can build bridges, but we must be careful not to burn them with divisive dialogue.
Hi Daren, I too was struck by the way Dr. Saad chose to differ with other rather than both his right to disagree and even, sometimes, agreeing with his thoughts. Where I do not agree with him is with his thought that people have a right to not be offended. At what point is someone supposed to know someone is offended or not by any given statement or stand. If you could personally question Dr. Saad, what would you like to ask him and why?
Hi Diane. I think utilizing a clarifying question asking about offense is a door opener. Sometimes we just speak first and ask for forgiveness later. Perhaps asking if the other party finds the matter/dialogue offensive is a start, being sure and getting a response but also finding out why. This can build bridges and forge relationships.
I would also ask Saad about his perspective on bridge building and the positive part it could potentially play. His writing can be alienating and nasueating to some through his sarcastic disposition displayed in his words..
Daren,
I also found the lack of empathy problematic in his book. I choose not to address that particular issue but empathy has become a bit of a buzzword that is seen as negative lately. I have especially seen this in context of immigration policies. Just a couple months ago, a book was written “Toxic Empathy” by Allie Beth Stuckey. She essentially tries to argue that an empathetic approach is non-biblical and tied to progressivism. Though her book and her podcast are mainstream I find myself concerned by it.
Hey Adam! Empathy- Not Biblical??? Now I want to read this book. Going to Amazon tomorrow!
Hi Daren,
I really appreciated your blog because it exemplifies how I would like to be: grounded in scripture, caring about justice, having concern for individuals, and able to stand firm on truth. It seems like systems of the world are not amenable to holding multiple thought streams in tension – which, to me, is a hallmark of good leadership. As you interact with people in your different roles, where do you experience the most challenge to remain grounded in your values and where are the pressure points?
Hey Julie! In my leadership journey, the greatest challenge to remaining grounded in my values often emerges in spaces where urgency and polarization collide particularly within advocacy and institutional settings. There is immense pressure to either capitulate to popular sentiment or retreat into silence. As a pastor in the inner city, I feel the tension most when navigating issues of justice, faith, and public discourse, where competing loyalties and emotions run high. The pressure points surface when truth telling risks relational strain, yet it is precisely in those moments that spiritual and moral clarity are most needed.
Daren, you beautifully hold the tension between intellectual courage and empathetic dialogue, which feels increasingly rare in our polarized climate. You mention your commitment to the Imago Dei and a democratic ethos as foundations for both freedom of speech and inclusive dialogue. How do you personally discern when to speak boldly versus when to create space for listening, especially in moments where those values might feel in tension?
Hey Chad! Great and deep question. I try to discern the tension between speaking boldly and creating space for listening through prayerful reflection and situational awareness. My first internal check is rooted in the Imago Dei, does my speaking affirm the dignity of others, or does it diminish it? If silence would allow harm or injustice to persist, I believe active, bold, and respectful truth-telling becomes a spiritual mandate requiring advocacy. Equally important is the understanding there are moments when listening becomes the greater act of courage and empathy especially when listening validates the pain or humanity of another. In our polarized climate, I seek to weigh whether my voice will sow healing or deepen division. Ultimately, I strive to align my speech and my silence with the Spirit’s leading, not with personal vindication or public approval.
Hi Daren, I had a similar reaction to Saad. Is there one point that you agreed with? If so, how would you have framed it differently to be more empathetic?
Hey Christy, I did find myself agreeing with Saad’s emphasis on the importance of preserving reason and evidence-based dialogue, especially in an era where emotions can sometimes cloud critical thinking. However, I would have framed it differently by affirming that reason and empathy are not opposites—but partners. I believe it’s possible to champion truth while honoring the emotional realities people bring into conversations. A more empathetic framing would acknowledge that for many, lived experience shapes interpretation of facts, and thus, effective dialogue must hold space for both intellectual rigor and compassionate understanding.