Wednesday, 9 May 2012

More empty rhetoric

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).

1 comment:

Chris (Longmont, CO) said...

I have been following the pro-choice vs. pro-life debates for some time. I believe that the biggest problem revolves around our core belief values ... and some people's unwillingness to share them.

When we talk about pro-choice, it is easy to lump them all into the same group of people, but there are many different philosophies which are at work under that one umbrella. Just like with any other philosophical debate, it is easiest to work out what types of arguments will and won't work by discovering what their core beliefs really are. So, I suggest that any dialogue begin by asking ... "What gives human life value?"

Some of the answers I have received can be summed up in the following points. Meaning that only those who meet one or more of the criteria below would be considered 'of value.'
(1) Self-Aware
(2) Born
(3) Wanted
(4) Quality of Life

Once we can ferret out what their core beliefs are, then it is a matter of trying to either blow holes in their core belief. Such as the following:
(1) "Is there a time when you are not self-aware? Like, maybe when you are asleep? Does that mean that you don't have value?"
(4) "What do you mean by Quality of Life? Does that suggest that if you were to loose your job, you would be without value?"

NOTE: I am aware that I answered # 1 and 4. You can find ways to approach # 2 and 3.

Everyone that I know, myself included, has philosophies which are poorly developed through not following the logic of the core belief to it's logical conclusion. I believe that if we are charitable in how we approach it, but point out some logical inconsistencies in people's philosophies, they might be willing to, at least, rethink their position on one or more areas of concern.