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.
No comments:
Post a Comment