Governments around the world have been able to inflict harm on their own people, and on people in foreign lands, because a large percentage of the population have trusted them.
That trust is fading.
The Medical-Pharmaceutical industry has been able to inflict harm on millions of people around the world because the majority of people have trusted them.
That trust is fading.
The government-controlled schools have been able to inflict harm on children via indoctrination of subversive ideas because the majority of parents have trusted them.
That trust is fading.
The corporate media has been able to inflict harm on the populace via false propaganda and the lie through omission (not telling the real news) because the majority of people have trusted them.
That trust is fading.
In order for a person to engage in critical thinking, they must be willing and able to set trust aside, and look at facts. The primary reason they have not been willing to engage in critical thinking and discuss facts is their blind trust in institutions that are run by individuals who are often engaged in a secret and subversive agenda.
Ridding the world of trust in false idols, and those who are not trustworthy, is the primary goal of the Great Awakening.
"In order for a person to engage in critical thinking, they must be willing and able to set trust aside, and look at facts."
In my world, trust is withheld until someone proves themselves trustworthy, and at this point in my life they only get one chance because, in my experience, when they blow it the first time, they blow it a second time.
My point: Ideally trust isn't something that should be set aside, but rather withheld until the other has demonstrated the ability to respect you and engender your trust. However, that's often easier said than done, especially because we're taught from a young age to take another's word for something, such as in our educational system. So, if trust has been unwisely given to one who isn't worthy of it, then yes, it has to be set aside and the situation reconsidered with objectivity and critical thinking.
EDIT: Forgot to say great post and thank you.
We agree: Trust should be earned, not assumed (and especially, not demanded).
Maybe "set aside" is not the best way to state it, but we agree that blind trust is bad.
I do believe 'set aside' is accurate when trust has been unwisely given, as is the case for so many regarding the government and the media. 'Set aside' applies because once trust is given, one has to first let go of that trust/belief in another so that one is able to critically and objectively view the situation for the truth of how and why one so readily trusted someone who had no right to it.
I was just attempting to clarify that if one withholds trust until another has earned it (the preferred method IMO), one has nothing to set aside.