Resilient Loving

Justice, goodness, beauty, and truth are admirable ideals. They are worthy of being pursued for their own sake. Unity is not. Political unity for the sake of unity is not an admirable ideal. I want to ask: Unity for what purpose? Towards what ends? I disagree with politicians and fellow citizens who pay lip service to, or actually uphold, the belief that after debate, contention, or strife, we must unite, no matter what. If you have already been insulted, told to get out, to go back to your country or stay out of this one, because you are not wanted, you are lazy, suspect or even dangerous, you may still offer an open, earnest debate. You may graciously and stoically offer your willingness to listen in order to seek mutual understanding and points of agreement for the common good and social justice. But it must be a mutual offer, and it must be a debate for the sake of those admirable ideals. And you must also be prepared to resist. There might be shades in the attitudes: loving resistance, resilient loving. They are loving attitudes, but they are also resistant and resilient.