Argumentation in the Marriage Debate

As I have observed the debate over the upcoming “marriage amendment” vote in Minnesota continue and intensify, most especially (though not exclusively) through social media, I have become more convinced that, as each side (for and against) make arguments, we very often talk past each other. I am referring not only to the wealth of inflammatory comments from both sides, but more specifically, that arguments on one side address different issues than arguments on the other. Rhetoric on one side tends to target points that are minor, if not negligible, points on the other: not necessarily straw men (although there is plenty of that, as well), but simply points that at best fail to resonate, at worst, provoke strong and often incendiary reactions.

You will notice I say “we,” as I am far from without opinion on the subject. As a faithful Catholic—one who knowingly and, with God’s help, willingly embraces Church teaching on matters of marriage, family, those with same-sex attraction, etc. as of divine origin—I stand in support of the amendment. You will also note that I say “you,” as I presume you, too, are standing on one side or the other. Fence-sitters on this issue seem to be sparse, as evidenced by the growing number of lawn signs around our neighborhoods.

Nonetheless, in this particular post, I am not primarily about trying to put forth a pro-amendment argument. Rather, I am trying to convey the need for both sides to be more conscious of their rhetoric and more strategic in their argumentation.

I will attempt to refrain from making comments here that are overly presumptuous about the general stance of the “vote no” camp. I will speak from within the “vote yes” camp (specifically, the Catholic “vote yes” camp), as I am much more familiar with those arguments, and address both sides.

First, to the Catholic “vote yes” folks:

As Christ-followers, our greatest commandment is to love as he loved. We must never tire of striving to love. It should go without saying that this means remembering in all humility that we ourselves are sinners, and that hatred and defamation, in oral or written form, of another human being created in the image of God is absolutely prohibited. We should also practice compassion (literally, “suffering with”) toward those with same-sex attraction. We need to consider the numerous difficulties they have faced—interiorly, in relationships with family, and societally—and be models of Christ’s compassion to them. We also must bear in mind the immeasurable amount of abuse they have suffered, and how often fellow Catholics and other Christians have utterly failed to honor their God-given dignity. Our theo-logic means little if others perceive us as incapable of compassion. Because of this, we must be all the more quick to listen and slow to speak. we are To that end, we ought to consider how our comments, specifically those directly pertaining to people, would fall on their ears, before we make them. I think we also ought to be very careful about using sound bites and one-liners (think about tweets and facebook status updates). They often fail to respect the interrelated complexity of Catholic thought on the issues (see below). Worse, they also often fail to respect the God-given dignity and rational ability of those who oppose you, as well as shutting down avenues of legitimate discussion.

We also ought never to give up learning Catholic teaching on the issues influencing our position on this amendment. In addition to Sacred Scripture, the Church has given us numerous resources, perhaps especially Blessed Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. It’s worth (re-)familiarizing ourselves with these teachings, not as “ammunition,” but to note their inherent pastoral tone and seek to present and defend them compassionately.

Next, to the “vote no” folks:

Ideally, for Catholics, the pro-amendment stance is constructed on a number of interrelated prior Catholic perspectives, including primarily views of God and of love, and then (in no particular order) of anthropology, marriage, natural law, religion’s role in the public square, psychology, reason, hatred, the bases of morality, the “common good,” the role of government, ecclesial (Church) authority, divine revelation, family, sex, liberty, and yes, sexual sin. The formulation and structure of these issues are, to put it mildly, complex. But although they resist simplification, they are decidedly not rationally or philosophically bankrupt, nor can they be dismissed as such. Neither can they be easily dismissed as immoral, though admittedly, Catholics today can present them in immoral, disrespectful manners (see above).

Because of these things, accusations of bigotry and fascism close the door to further discussion altogether—not only because of their hateful tenor, but also because they reveal a wholehearted disinterest in legitimately learning about the opposing position. If you want to make real headway with us, a great way to start would be to familiarize yourself/ves with the teachings of Pope John Paul II called the Theology of the Body (no small task, admittedly!) and formulate challenges to the teachings he makes therein. Present your challenges respectfully, and you’ll have my attention.

As I mentioned above, I will leave it up to those in the “vote no” camp to suggest, if they wish, how we Catholics might better encourage respectful, legitimate discussion and debate.

In general, I would encourage us all to listen—both to what’s being said and what’s not—from both sides. I would hope we can both refrain from being dismissive, and actually seek to learn from one another, even whilst espousing passionately held positions. Surely this is the way to foster greater understanding and peace, even in the midst of strong disagreement.

Political Disillusionment ...and Baseball

I enjoy baseball. Living in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, I follow the Minnesota Twins. I’m not exactly the most devout, but I’d call myself a fan. I cheer them on, winning or losing. I try to make it to a few home games every season. I watch games or highlights online, note some statistics, and I could fairly well rattle off the starting lineup and pitching rotation, if it came to it.
I saw in our local newspaper today a small AP news story which, upon searching the internet, has made it all the way into BBC news. Succinctly, McCain is accusing Obama of backing National League World Series contender, the Philadelphia Phillies, when campaigning in Pennsylvania, and supporting the American League contender, the Tampa Bay Rays, whilst in Florida. Just one more reason I’ve become so disillusioned with politics.
Have we, the American citizenry, become so fickle, so shallow in our voting whims that we actually care what teams our candidates support? Is Obama’s appeal—if legitimate—to both sides of a baseball game actually good stumping practice? I certainly hope not. I certainly hope that I am with the majority of Americans when I say that a candidate’s sports allegiances don’t sway my political opinion one iota.
For what it’s worth, if anyone out there who might happen to read these words is actually is making his or her voting decision based on what baseball team the candidates do or don’t support, do me, yourself, and your country a favor and stay home on November 4th. Or better yet, take a few minutes to explore the issues and the candidates’ stances, and go the voting booth informed. I guarantee you that there are a lot of men and women who support the arch-rivals of your favorite teams who are very able politicians and can do America some good.

Even White Sox fans.



One addendum: It’s also my hope that a time might come when candidates no longer appeal to the insignificant, flimsy factors that contribute to popularity but say nothing of personal character and ability. As a swing voter, my vote can be had by presenting political policy, legislative, fiscal, and social methodology, and demonstrating integrity. My vote can be lost by trying to be all things to all people in order to win a popularity contest.

The Church and Politics, part 1

Let me admit from the very beginning that I am a rank amateur when it comes to politics, political science, and even political theology. Hence, I am genuinely interested in people's comments and opinions as to the content of this post.

As the US presidential election draws ever nearer, the media, popular discussion, websites and blogs (including this one, obviously!) become ever more saturated with coverage of the candidates, of opinions, of campaigning, etc., etc. (Incidentally, check out the polling map I've added on the sidebar!) As some of my comments over at my friend Erik's blog will reveal, I continue to ruminate on the role of politics from a theological viewpoint...not that there is just one way of thinking on this.

Succinctly, no one is campaigning on a "we're fine, let's keep everything the same" platform. Surely such an attitude would prevent one from getting out of the starting blocks in a would-be political career. We've got problems: as individuals, as communities, as ethnic groups, as states, as a nation, as societies, as a race. Some of these delineations are highlighted to a greater or lesser extent in the campaigns, presumably proportionally to how proposed solutions contribute to electability (or not). In very stereotypical and stark terms, the Democrats and the Republicans offer two different broad solutions: the Democrats claim that the government can best make things better; the Republicans claim that individuals/groups/businesses can.

Enter theology: God says he can...uniquely, and far better than any merely human endeavor.

As infinitely wiser and more knowledgeable and more powerful than humanity, God alone is the source of true Hope for our world...not merely in the age to come, but in the here-and-now. The Bible makes the audacious claim that the root of our problems lies ultimately in our rebellion against God: as individuals, as communities, etc., and that God is presently at work wooing back all of us rebels into relationship with him. As that relationship grows and deepens, God performs the incomprehensible: he transforms his people into the likeness of his only Son, Jesus. This transformation is in thought and deed, so that we might have the mind of Christ and enact and embody the Good News (Gospel) of God's holistic plan of salvation in our society today.

Holding as I do to a Gospel embodied in the Church, my default assumption would then be that the vehicle for "God making things better" in the here-and-now is the Church. Now, regardless of how you view "the Church", there are problems...huge problems. I'm aware. (Remember, I'm an Anglican!) But my immediate question is not so much in relation to those problems. Rather, I'm interested in how this Church--specifically its manifestation in the USA (or in "Western" society)--is meant to interact with the political process.

I have Christian friends who are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats; others who are staunch Republicans; others who consistently vote for third-party candidates. Still others seem to have eschewed the political process altogether. And here sit I, trying to reason through the Church's rightful role (if there be only one): do we seek to enact the Gospel primarily within and through the political system, or without it? Are we so daunted by the enormity of the problems we face, and so dismayed at the disunity in the Church, that we see only government as holding promise for addressing the issues? Do we see the Gospel as primarily for the individual, and less for the other strata of human society?

Much more to be said, but perhaps it's best to let others in on the conversation before proceeding. A couple of disclaimers I would make at the outset of any ensuing discussion: I am not an anarchist, nor am I in favor of whatever people might posit which would draw us closer to a theocracy.