Reasoned debate

With any hot-button issue, proponents and detractors get passionate about the topic. Enthusiasm and interest in an issue are not bad, but they can lead away from a reasoned debate into the over-populated realm of polemics and caustic reasoning. Two current issues tend to drift into the acerbic more than others - gay marriage and immigration.

Recently I read some intelligent thoughts by some Christians and conservatives on these issues who avoid the rants and demonstrate that the debate need not go into vindictive assualts on the other side.

I was pleased to read that consevative intellectual icon Charles Krauthammer feels much the same way I do about the Federal Marriage Amendment. He demonstrates why the FMA does not fit in with the supposed reasoning behind it: federalism and popular sovereignty. The marriage amendment actually hinders both of those concepts.

On the immigration debate, Chuck Colson reminds readers that while Christians cannot advocate breaking immigration laws, neither should we demonize immigrants as a whole or treat even illegal immigrants poorly.

Overexaggerating (lying) about the problems caused by illegal immigrants will not help to solve the issue. Neither will xenophobic remarks. Unfortunately many of those opposed to illegal immigration have resorted to this type of base tactic and it is shameful.

I was also pleased to read World Magazine's Marvin Olasky advocate an immigration plan similar to my own. He wrote "I favor a three-part program: 1) build a security fence, 2) set up a guest-worker status, and 3) once the border is controlled, talk about what to do with those already here."

These men are entering into vitriolic debates without engaging in the vitriol. So regardless of whether you agree with them or not, they can be examples of how to discuss volatile issues in a respectable manner.

Of course, all of this hinges on whether you seek to move the debate forward or not. If you are content to merely namecall and insult, then doubtless you will find reasons to engage in the same type of rhetoric as always.

Comments

[Louis]

Krauthammer wrote:

"Until the last few years, every civilization known to man has defined marriage as between people of opposite sex. To charge with "divisiveness'' those who would do nothing more than resist a radical overturning of that norm is a sign of either gross partisanship or serious dimwittedness."

Talk about "namecalling and insult"! Of course, I just suppose it depends on whose ox is getting gored. To Krauthammer, those of us who disagree with him are just dimwits. But that's okay with you Aaron, since it seems you agree with him.

For the record, I find Krauthammer to be arrogant and insensitive: he just assumes his view is the correct one and cooly denigrates anyone who disagrees with him (I've observed him in action before). He's a bore and a boor. It's people like him who make me mad enough to spit nails.

[Aaron]

I did have reservations about the "dimwittedness" remark, but on the whole Krauthammer makes a similar argument as me. He calls for restraint on the use of constitutional amendments over social issues.

Of course he assumes his view is correct, don't you?

I, obviously, enjoy his writing. One of the funniest things recently was a liberal columnist who commented that Krauthammer was dancing around after some political victory that she disagreed with. If I remember correctly she described him as doing an "endzone dance." She was unaware that he is a wheelchair and has no use of his legs (and some of his upper body).

Suddenly, it became politically incorrect for her to make fun of him (because of his disability) and she apologized profusely, changed her column, etc. I don't think he ever mentioned her mistake. It was others who called her attention to it.

[Sam]

Aaron,

If your side would stop insulting gays by calling their relationships less than equal to straight relationships, then perhaps the insults from my side of the fence would stop. But if we can't start a conversation at equality, why should we be the ones to act appropriately?

Also, Chuck Colson is a criminal. And considering your disdain for criminals, I'd rather not take him seriously at all. Speaking of which, why does Colson still get a seat at the table when other recently converted Christians are still killed on Death Row? How do you square those two positions?

[Aaron]

Um...because Colson served his time for a crime that was not punishable by death. If he had murdered someone and was sentenced to life, he would be on death row.

I don't have a disdain for criminals. I believe they should be punished and serve their time. Criminals should be punished according to their crime. That is not disdain that is justice.

Once a person has finished their sentence and they enter society without engaging in more criminal activity, I have no problem with them.

A conversion to Christianity or any other religion does not equate to an elimination of the punishment given by the state. Christianity, while being applicable to this life and current issues, deals more with satisfying God's justice against sin in the spiritual, rather than government's justice against crimes in a temporal. Sometimes they overlap, but not always, nor should they always overlap.

[seeker]

A conversion to Christianity or any other religion does not equate to an elimination of the punishment given by the state. Christianity, while being applicable to this life and current issues, deals more with satisfying God's justice against sin in the spiritual, rather than government's justice against crimes in a temporal. Sometimes they overlap, but not always, nor should they always overlap.

I agree. God's forgiveness is about the judgement to come and the life to come. Temporal justice must still be carried out.

[Cineaste]

(Christianity) deals more with satisfying God's justice against sin in the spiritual, rather than government's justice against crimes in a temporal.

Invalid for any secularist. To the secularist, only justice in our temporal existence, our reality, is at issue. If there is a God, let Him mete out justice in the afterlife. Don't try to divine what His justice is and screw with the justice system in reality. In conclusion, if convicts convert to Christianity (like my alliteration?), it shouldn't amount to a "hill of beans" -Rick from Casablanca

[seeker]

Don't try to divine what His justice is and screw with the justice system in reality.

Actually, we do not mix the two. Regardless of their relationship to God, they must pay their penalty here.

[Cineaste]

Then why do I remember you saying in a post somewhere something like criminals should possibly be pardoned if they truely accept Jesus?

[Aaron]

Cineaste, I'm not sure why you called my statement invalid. Sam, was asking me about how I meshed my faith with my view of justice. How could I possibly answer that question without making some appeal to something beyond temporal?

I wasn't asking you to accept my position, but explaining to Sam the rationale behind my stated beliefs.

I am in agreement with you that we should not "divine what His justice is and screw with the justice system" we have here. What made you think I disagreed?

[Cineaste]

Your answer to Sam is invalid to a secularist, which I think Sam is. Sam's question was reminicent of a conversation I had with Seeker on this issue. Perhaps I was mistaken in introducing the line of thought from our previous discussin into this debate. If I misinterpreted, then perhaps I have intruded where I should have just waited for Sam to respond. It just seems like Seeker and I have covered this ground but I can't remember which post it was.

[Louis]

My point to Aaron remains the same: he presumes to lecture us on name-calling and holds a man up as a paragon of reason who is just as guilty. The usual double-standard.

[seeker]

Then why do I remember you saying in a post somewhere something like criminals should possibly be pardoned if they truely accept Jesus?

I have never, ever said that. What I probably said was that, if they display true contrition and a pattern of works consistent with their contrition, including a willingness to perform whatever restitution is possible, a judge should be able to pardon them, or more accurately, grant them clemency.

It is up to the judge to determine if they are faking it. But we should have more than a system of justice, but of justice with the possibility of mercy if the person shows all of these signs of "repentence."

While this is based on the biblical model, there is no relation between whether or not a person calls themselves saved, or whatever other religious change they've had, and whether or not they should be pardoned.

I previously mentioned the conversion of Ted Bundy. In his interview before his execution, he showed true contrition, and said he believed that God had forgiven him. However, he affirmed that the heinous nature of his crimes required justice, and he was not asking to be pardoned from the death penalty. THAT is a more Christian view, if you ask me.

[Aaron]

Cineaste, I didn't bring Christianity into the discussion. Sam did. Here is his question:

... why does Colson still get a seat at the table when other recently converted Christians are still killed on Death Row? How do you square those two positions?

How am I supposed to respond to that in a way that you consider valid without resorting to my faith at somepoint? If you notice I only mention the Christian concept of justice at the end of my response and then I never ask Sam (or you) to accept that, I was merely explaining how I "square those two positions" being a Christian.

Louis, again I apologize for not pointing out that comment by Krauthammer, but in all honesty I was merely pointing to his remarks to conservatives against the FMA, not the early parts about protecting marriage. I was showing a conservative who disagreed with the FMA on principled reasons.

He also didn't call you dimwitted just because you disagree with him. He said that calling those who are resisting gay marriage "divisive" just because of their stance indicates either partisanship or dimwittedness. Those opposed to gay marriage are not doing it for the sake of divisiveness. They are doing what they think is best for this country, you may disagree with them, many do, but Krauthammer's point in that statement is it is not legitimate to call them divisive because of their stance.

I hope I have made it clear that I do not consider you or anyone else commenting here as a "dimwitt" in fact I think quite the opposite. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words by Krauthammer, accordingly I may have made my own poor choice of words in another post. It indicates that I am human and I make mistakes, and it makes me grateful for God's forgiveness.

[Louis]

In fact, I agree that states should be able to disagree with each other on this issue. However, it has always been the fact that the states have recognized each others' marriages. It is only in the case of gays that they choose to discriminate. Is this fair?

Also, both K. and you would advocate the FMA if DOMA is overturned. You may sincerely believe this is necessary to "protect" marriage, but I just cannot follow your logic. All the arguments brought forward seem spurious to me. However, one can disagree except in the case of the FMA. THAT is an abomination. In fact, if it were to pass, I would no longer consider myself an American citizen.

As to the "divisiveness" charge: why is it that the Republicans only bring it up in even-numbered years? Could it have something to do with elections? Just a thought.

[Aaron]

I'm not sure if states recongize every marriage from other states because I know some have different requirements on age, closeness of relation, etc. I don't think states should be forced to honor those marriages either.

I may advocate FMA is DOMA is overturned. It would be a last resort and one that I would hate making. I would rather it not come to that at all. I hope that controversial marriages of any kind could stay a state matter.

Don't get me started on Republican election year activities. You will find a willing ally in that debate.