Another piece of empty rhetoric (following on from the examples I discussed here),which I have seen on various occasions floating around Twitter, avidly re-tweeted as though it's an astounding killer fact, is this one, always originating from an MP:
I have received far more letters from Christians about same-sex marriage (or abortion or...) than I have about child poverty and third world debt (or other righteous cause...)
The implication is that 'these Christians' aren't really concerned with the wellfare of others, wheere it really counts, only with pursuing their oppressive agenda of denying rights to others.
It is of course entirely fallacious. Let any party try to campaign and legislate for child poverty or for third world debt, and their mailboxes would be flooded, by Christians as well as by others.
It is only natural that we contact our politicians when they are actively campaigning for something we believe to be wrong.
The other part of the implication is wrong too. They may not agree with us, but it is dishonest to characterise our concern for the unborn child of for the goods of traditional marriage (and indeed the harmfulness of same sex marriage to the participants in it as well as wider society) as seeking to 'deny rights. They may believe that is the effect of our beliefs, but it is dishonest and discreditable to claim that those are our intentions.
(The same applies to those hot-heads on our side who say that pro-choice people want to kill babies. That is an unjust characterisation of their motivations, however accurate a description of the effect of their beliefs in action).
Kelly Ann Conway, The March For Life, SCOTUS, Roe v Wade - This is interesting.
1 hour ago