Cliches: The H-Word

In the discussion of ideas, there exist certain rhetorical "trump-cards," that is, certain concepts that are unquestionable in their meaning and importance, and that usually halt the discussion, make the person against whom they are deployed unable to proceed. It seems that in the modern day, these are rarely used fairly. In this short post, I would like to discuss the much-dreaded and all-poweful word "hate."

Hate is bad, and if you are hatemonger you might as well never open your mouth again. I'm not trying to be sarcastic in saying that; I really do think hate is something that no person should allow themselves to fall into. That said I am convinced that the word is overused to the rhetor's detriment in the modern age, and since we are so terrified of being called haters the idea is used to unfairly shut down reasonable arguments. In looking at criticisms of the politically and morally conservative, it is difficult to avoid the "hate" mantra. "Republicans hate poor people," "Conservatives hate immigrants," and so on. And what about Christians? How often do you hear "Christians hate gay people," or "Christians hate women"? For me, I find that these types of statements are far too common, and this can most prominently be seen in the gay marriage controversy.

I am not going to extensively defend the Church's position on marriage or on sexuality in this post; I am not yet qualified for that endeavor. Rather, I simply want to point out a rhetorical problem with the opposition. Many of those who attack Christianity's belief on marriage make it out to be a hate-mongering and seering dogma which specifically seeks to exclude homosexuals. But this is not the case. No Christian should hate a homosexual, just as he should not hate any other person. Do some Christians hate others? Certainly, but they are themselves in sin by doing so. Painfully, the cliché of "hate the sin not the sinner" is extremely applicable, though perhaps "hate" should be replaced with "disapprove of." A Christian who follows the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church's  2000-year old understanding of the Sacred Scripture should consider homosexual acts to be sinful and worthy of rebuke, but this does not entitle anyone to hate. Many Christians tolerate those who partake of other sexual sins such as fornication to the point of implying that they accept the behavior through their silence on it. This passive tolerance of sin is wrong as well, but the principle that they do not hate the individual but disapprove of their actions is the correct way to think of it.

All that to say that being opposed to conduct does not equal hate, and neither does all opposition to gay marriage. If a person's reasons for being opposed are something like "homosexuals don't deserve marriage," then indeed, that is suggestive of hate. But this is not the Church's position. Rather, the Church seeks that the Sacred definition of this ancient human institution be preserved so that it may serve its Divine (and also quite practical) Life-Bearing purpose. This is not hateful, because the opposition is not centered around the individual homosexual or even his sin, but rather on a greater purpose for marriage; for Holy Matrimony.

A shorter, non-religious example: "Republicans oppose government welfare programs; therefore, Republicans hate poor people." The argument of course creates a false dichotomy: one must either support the government paying to support the poor, and therefore love them; or, one must oppose any and all care for the poor and allow them to starve, and therefore hate them. This completely ignores the concept of private charity, and the possibility that some people might in fact care deeply for the poor, but oppose the government caring for them because they believe that dependency on the government is a harmful state of being, and that charity should never be forced by law.

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read - what the internet calls a summary): Being opposed to an idea doesn't mean you hate the people associate with it, especially when the opposition is grounded in a higher purpose.

Thanks to my lovely girlfriend for proof-reading and editing.

My Modest Defense to /r/atheism

Sometimes browsing the internet can make you angry. In reading that statement, more than a few of you have certainly thought of the user-submitted content site Reddit. On Reddit, one of the many topics that tends to make it far up the karma list and onto the front page daily is that of atheism. But this aint your friendly neighborhood atheism. The stereotype of the posts in /r/atheism tends to be that of self-congratulation, intolerance, and militancy. And honestly, from what I have seen, almost everything that makes it to the first ten or so pages is just that. In addition to the stereotype, I have also noticed a trend of general ignorance about religion. The criticism I see is rarely insightful, oftentimes based on stereotypes and misconceptions. Of course, I acknowledge that many atheists on Reddit are reasonable and do not share in this intolerance and ignorance. But, the fact that the most prominent posts, and therefore the posts most approved of by the community, are those that meet the stereotype causes one to think.  

/r/atheism does not seem to spread its criticism evenly. Out of all the atheistic posts that reach the first few pages, one will notice that nearly every one of them targets Christianity. Perhaps this is because most Redditors live in the United States and in Europe, where the Christian faith is most prominent. Or perhaps it is because Western culture and civilization has been rooted in Christianity for the past 1500 years or so. Whatever the case, those who make the Sign of the Cross don't seem to be much approved of by the mainstream atheist redditor crowd. The fact that anti-Christian posts tend to make it to the front page testifies to this.

As I mentioned before, I notice a general trend of misunderstanding in the most popular anti-Christian posts. And, as a partial student of theology, I would like to use this blog to offer my response to these threads; to both correct the misconception and to muse on the worldview that it stems from.

And to start, we have the following post:

The picture presents us with two ways of living: the idealistic and the realistic. The idealistic and naive theists only pray for those who are hurting and in need of help, while the realistic and sensible atheist will actually give you the help you need. The creator of this image likely does not really think that theists pray instead of calling a doctor to help sick people, but rather, he or she probably feels that by getting a physician to aid those in need, the theists are negating prayer and being hypocritical by implying that their god cannot save the injured person. The underlying belief here seems to be that the spiritual and physical realms, and conversely religion and science, are so seperate, that they can never be together.

But of course this is not the case. Christians believe that God works through people, and this includes those who save lives. We pray for God's Blessing and Salvation, but we also know that we have a human duty to help our fellow man, and that God honors those who perform their duty, whatever it is. The Christian lawyer does not serve God by only prayer during a trial, for this in doing this he would be neglecting the talents God gave him. Rather, he serves God by fulfilling his duty to represent his client's interest the very best he can, and he prays for wisdom while doing so, not rather than doing so. No tradition of the Church nor passage of Sacred Scripture gives us license to neglect our earthly physical duties in the expectation that God will provide anyway. This is not to limit God; He can and does provide not only to those who accept their calling but also to those who have fallen away. Still, God has given each of us a role, and we are expected to obediently fulfill it.

Furthermore, a Christian knows that God has imprinted His Law on our hearts, and that we show our faith through our works. Therefore, serving people should be what we primarily strive for, only second to serving God. And given this, I can respond to the above picture with the Christian version, which is not so catchy, but I think it gets the point across to Christians and the rest:

"Christians will pray for you...but they will not delay in calling you a doctor as well, for their duty is to Human life."


Let's Define Terms

Since this blog is now about culture, I figure it would be a good idea to define it. What is culture? First, the obligatory dictionary definition: "the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively" (Oxford English Dictionary)

In other words, everything human knowledge has produced.

Valid definition, but for the purposes of my blog, I would like to go further in describing culture. I had a teacher in high school who gave a definition which seemed curious to me at the time, but to my present self now seems quite apparent.

I choose to describe culture as "how the religion of a society manifests itself in the lives and works of its people."

I already hear an objection. "Not everyone has a religion," you might say, and you'd be right by the traditional idea of religion. Not every person believes in a deity nor does every person believe in the spiritual realm. But everyone does have a worldview, a framework for understanding existance. Two examples of this are Christianity, which is traditionally called a religion, and humanism, which is typically thought of more as a philosophy. But both have the same effects on a person's life, and demand some kind of behavior based on the ideas of the belief. Because of this, and for the purposes of The New Pinstripes, I choose to equate worldview to religion.

Another objection: societies are so varied that no individual "religion" can be pinpointed, and therefore my description of culture is unrealistic. I disagree. It is true that many people believe many different things. But we find that at any given time, one belief will be prevalent. This prevailing belief tends to create what we generally call "American culture" (or fill in the blank with your own nationality.) And of course, there is not one single culture. We live among a multitude of sub-cultures, and many of these appear very different from the prevailing culture. In my desription, I refer to all of these. Culture can be as narrow or broad as necessary.

It is through this description of culture that I will comment on what I see. We can see the character of a society through what it produces, and society's character determines its future.

The Shift

Things have changed. If you've seen this page before, you will notice that it looks different. But more importantly, and outside the context of this blog, things have changed. In my limited perspective I look at the culture of the past and compare it to the culture of today, and I see that change is in the air.

Well, duh, right? Things always change. That's how culture evolves, becomes better, gains new things and casts off old ideas. This is all true. But change is not universally good or bad. Some change is for the better, some to our detriment.

I see our culture changing, and it seems to be in my nature to have an opinion on it. My thoughts are probably under-informed and hindered by inexperience most of the time. But they are mine, and I would like the opportunity to share them.

Therefore I am changing the purpose of this blog; shifting it to become more broad. I now intend to muse on our culture; what I see it producing, and my theories on how we produced it. I hope you like it. If not, well, the comment section is fully available for your use, as is the "back" button. Maybe this time around I will keep this blog updated. Or maybe this post will be at the top of the page for months. I hope for the former.

Until then,

Matt