Undermining Democracy

Keith Olberman, among many others, say they don't understand the people who voted for Prop 8 and against same-sex marriage in California.  To be frank, they just don't care to understand or engage those who principally disagree.  It's easier to dismiss their opponents and label them as hateful, though many of us who did vote for Prop 8 have rifled reason, logic, and moral arguments.  It's possible to understand those you disagree with.  In fact, that's an intellectual virtue.  I can understand the arguments for same-sex marriage, while I think they fail for any number of reasons.  But Olberman and many others either have not looked for the arguments have willfully ignored them because it's much easier to bypass the debate and engage in ad hominems. 

Meanwhile, protesters are targeting business related in some way to those who supported Prop 8 and harassing individuals who expressed their point of view in the democratic process.  This is no longer debate; this is harassment and intimidation.  It's an effort to punish these people and to frighten them from engaging in the political process in the future.  "Protest" is really a euphemism here for bullying.  It's going beyond marches and displays. 

What offends me most about these activities is that this undermines our democratic process.  We all lose elections for things we care about, and the remedy is to rally support for the next election or, in some cases, to go to the courts when it's within their purview.  Instead, these "protesters" punish and intimidate those they disagree with instead of engaging in public debate and the civic process.

Comments

[Francis Beckwith]

Here is an institution that has been in place since the dawn of humanity, and Keith Olbermann can't think of one reason why anyone would think it is normative. I am not saying that because it is old it is true. What I am suggesting is that Olbermann should consider the possibility that there are in fact reasons why it is old.

Olbermann, like many of his ilk, often equate their view of things with reason itself. So, they lack imagination on these questions because they don't think imagination is necessary.

Ironically, the level of intolerance to dissent that we are witnessing is portends of things to come if the no side ever wins. For they have already boxed themselves into an intellectual corner: by equating opposition to their view is prejudice and bigotry, their position, by its very nature, leaves no room for toleration.

At the end of the day, even a pink ribbon can't hide a brown shirt.

[Jason]

The far-left has become a gang of crybabies who cannot conceive that they could ever lose fair elections. To them, any election they lose is stolen and they will fight, threaten, belittle, attack, harass and stomp their feet in response. This, however, does not undermine the democratic process this country is founded on. What undermines the democratic process is when they take their temper tantrums into the courtroom and get a sympathetic judge to enact the laws they want and tear down the laws they don't.

[Wanda Zippler]

I am constantly amazed at how some people can have an I'm right your wrong and no amount of information can change my mind kind of attitude.
Not ten minutes ago I was in an internet discussion with someone who was convinced that Naomi and Ruth (From the Bible book of Ruth) were lesbians. Not even after I described their relationship as in-laws that were both at one time married to men and later, Naomi helped set up Ruth with another husband was I able to change this guy's mind.
Nothing could convince this guy that they were straight.
Some people just are not capable of being reasoned with. And the sad part, before I came on the scene he had managed to confuse other Christians with his claims.

[Mo]

Wanda -

You have touched on something that I have a problem with all the time. Whatever the topic is, even when you show people facts/evidence for your view, they dismiss it.

Stand to Reason exists to help us use our reason in dealing with people. But what can be done when people don't want to use reason?

I keep trying to find a solution but keep coming up empty. It's easy to say that there's nothing you can do with people who will not be reasoned with and you just need to move on.

But these are not isolated incidents. This is the general attitude of people in the culture today.

[Jim]

Wanda and Mo, you're right! What do we do about the willfully ignorant? Would it help to discern different subgroups among them? Or to have a handful of different approaches in your strategic quiver for w.i.'s in general?? By different subgroups I mean, the psychologically unconvincible, the proud, the morally corrupt, the logically untrained--the list goes on. By different approaches to w.i.'s in general, I mean: limiting yourself to putting 'a stone in their shoe' (Greg's term), hobbling their ignorance just a bit, if not convincing them entirely; taking Steve's tack of finding Common Ground; and a handful of similar approaches.

[Wanda Zippler]

Allot of the time when I am witnessing on the net I know pretty much from the start that the person I am talking to won't listen, but the beauty of witnessing to others on the net is they don't have to listen, when you are talking on the internet you can be pretty confident that others will "eavesdrop" in on your conversation at some point, see the shallowness of the opposing sides argument, the strength of your arguments and character, and that can be a great help and encouragement to other Christians who haven't been trained as well as I have. It may also put a stone in an unbelievers shoe. So while it would be nice if everyone was willing to listen to reason, as long as thier is a chance someone will listen I will keep on trying.

[Okumax]

I seem to recall Greg having mentioned on several occasions that it is not necessary to "hit a home run" with every witnessing encounter. Rather, be satisfied with just getting to the plate. We generally have no idea where the other person is with respect to God. And, the accumulation over time of many "stones" in their shoes may be required to make standing on their own unbearable and ultimately lead them to their knees before God.

[Rich Bordner]

Frank,

I love the last line. You always have a way with words.

Wanda, your second comment is gold. It reminds me of an old JP-ism (that's in Proverbs somewhere): rebuke the fool to save the simpleton.

Yeah, the fool ain't gonna stop being a fool, but play to the audience.

I hope the public is watching and that they see this stuff for the temper tantrums they are...I'm not holding my breath, though...the public is easily swayed and bullied by screaming rights language and emoting.

I've written a few posts on the post-prop 8 melee and will be posting a bunch of links tomorrow at pugnaciousirishman.wordpress.com

[Isabel]

There seems to be more trauma about same sex marriage, than there is about killing survivors of a botched abortion. Killing babies under pro choice does not seem to anger some, but whether same sex marriage should be legal is more important. If same sex marriage partners want their rights under our constitution, why shouldn't new born babies have a right to life?

I think all of us Christians waste too much time arguing with the Keith Olbermans of the world. The best way to beat foolish arguments is through incarnational apologetics -- living and showing the message. The idea of gay marriage never would have gotten a foothold to begin with if divorce hadn't become so prevalent in traditional marriage. When half of all traditional marriages end in divorce (and I'm talking about Christians, too), who can blame gays for thinking they can make a good showing?
There will always be people who push for making something legal that the Bible rightly condemns. Those people get what they want when Christians play ostritch.

[Wanda Zippler]

We should definately witness with our lives, but if they don't undertstand why we do what we do our differences are just cultural preferences. You like ice cream I like cake . But when we do apologetics with out mouths we can explain that God made the world in a certain way, and it works better when we work within his plan. And explain to them that Jesus loves them and if they could find it in thier heart to love him back a peace that is so deep that words can not explain it will enter thier heart and help them endure all the hardships of this world has to offer our difference become more then just a cake or ice cream type choice. It is a choice between eternal life and eternal death.

But if we are not atleast trying to practice what we preach we should probably shut up because we are doing more harm than good.

[BigFrank]

Supporters of traditional marriage must marshall a meaningful, public counter-response that emboldens like-minded people not to back down, and to speak up if necessary. I, for instance, work in an arts-related field, and I am seeing first-hand the out of control vitriol that is fueling this movement and is already forcing people out of their jobs.

Anon: with all due respect, "apologetics" needs no emergent-y modifiers. Engaging a lost world with explanations and defenses of our faith have led many toward the truth of Christ, and seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable way of "living and showing the message."

(Frankly I have yet to hear of anyone won to Christ by actions without words, Assisi's famous quote notwithstanding.)

[Randall]

To those who say live the life, don't sweat it, evil has a way of being confrontational, no matter which way you go, because the very nature of evil is to confront and attack the good. Like it or not, we all have a battle on our hands. What I wish more people would recognize, is the spiritual dimension of this, we are battling evil spirits or principalities in high places. Do we know the Word of God, so we can defeat these spiritual forces when they are using people? Remember what Jesus said to Peter, when Peter admonished him to not go to Jerusalem? "Get yourself behind me, satan, you are an offense to me!" [Matt 16:23] How many of us can recognize the spirit behind the message and address the spirit with the Word of God? I see a real battle here, and I am hoping that more Christians will stand and having done all, stand. We need to pray, be alert and not ashamed to wade in with the powerful living Word of God and start swinging.

[ryan]

I think it is Greg who says this, and it really is true, that ridicule and insult do not substitute for a valid argument.

Every person I have engaged in the Prop 8 debate has gone right to attack and throwing out insults of the opposition as their only arguments.

I am with you Melinda, I hate the disingeniousness of those who act like they have searched high and low for the other side of the debate but just can't find any answers, it really is insulting.

This is the same tactic that Bill Maher engaged in his movie. He acted like he had sincere questions about religion and its doctrines but went to truck stops to get his answers.

All of this to say it does make it hard to have public civility when this is what your up against.

[Louis Kuhelj]

I thought that this section of the article was particularly telling:
"If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you?"

Could we not ask "Why does this matter to our government? What is it to our government?" If this is as Olbermann states "This is about the human heart"(as relating to relationships), why should the government interfere with the personal matters of the human heart? How is that within its jurisdiction?
Olbermann is right about one thing, he doesn't understand.

[Kevin W]

Louis,
You hit it right on. I’ve said your exact words for a long time…"Why does this matter to our government? What is it to our government?"

Simply put, our government should not care. It should have zero interest.

[Amy Hall]

Does anyone else keep thinking of this?

[Brad B]

Hi Kevin and Louis, while I agree that the civil magistrate has no duty to bestow favorable and approved status on traditional marraige, it is wise governing to do so. It promotes a behavior that has demonstrated to be beneficial to culture. This is the God ordained duty of civil authority--to punish/discourage bad behavior and to reward/promote good behavior.

Every law is in fact one or the other case so why would you argue that government should not bestow favorable status to such a good human behavior?

Hi Amy, do you think that is kinda like this mob?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VziklUbtHAE

Brad B

[Amy Hall]

Did you notice how at the end of the clip the anchorman says, "There is a lot of anger on both sides." Really? That's not what I was seeing in that scene.

[Brad B]

Yes Amy, I did and my mouth did fall open as a result. The mind of the average citizen is so disengaged to what is really going on. The scripture where in 2 Peter 2:8 it describes Lot's soul being tormented by the lawless deeds around him feels so familiar when I see this kind of activity. That truly is lawless.

Somehow I've found myself engaged with anti 8's on this site here where it appears a lot of gay Mormons visit and this is being discussed as they feel justified in that type of activity.

http://messengerandadvocate.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/tolerance-iv/#comment-19093

Brad B

[John K]

With all due respect to Francis, while the institution of marriage goes way back the foundation of it shifted in the '60s with the ready access to and wide acceptance, even in the Christian community, of contraception. The clear intent of marriage is to bring forth new life. With the connection between the marrital act and procreation broken, marriage just becomes using another for one's pleasure. With that being the case, what's the difference whether the couple using one another is of opposite or same sex? Pope Paul VI had it right. (Humana vitae turned 40 this year. Look it up.)

[Brad B]

Hi John K, while I'm in the camp of belief that the concerns of the womb are God's and His only, I think your opinion of the referenced article is shortsided to suggest that it ends at or hinges totally on childbearing. The union between a man and a woman is much more than just a physical sexual set of encounters. Even the Humanae Vitae sections 8 and 9 give a pretty solid treatment of that aspect.

As a father, I know how being a father changes man, so I dont want to be construed as minimizing the effect of having children, but to reduce it as you did is I think an unsatifactory definition.

Brad B

[Kevin W]

Brad B,

I agree. That is precisely why the government should not care about same sex marriage. I was not referring to traditional marriage – the government ought to care about the health of society. Granting same sex marriage does not advance the health of society one iota.

I have not heard of one single argument that claims otherwise. The arguments are entirely different.

[RonH]

Ok, I will take the bait: gay marriage advances the health of society. Why? Because gay people get an opportunity to make a public commitment to each other. They get an opportunity to meet that challenge - to hold each other to it. Others support them, celebrate their success, mourn their failures. That all sounds healthy me.

Then there are those who would deny them the opportunity, mourn their successes, and celebrate their failures.

[Brad B]

Hi RonH, the statistical info that's available doesn't support that idea that gay relationships are healthy for society nor the participants, and giving it a name will not change that.

Brad B

[Brad B]

Hi KevinW, thanks for clarifying your point. I agree with you about the arguments, it's interesting that on one site I've made the statement about there not being even 1 study that conclusively proves gayness is genetic like race and gender. There has not been 1 challenge to that statement yet the call for equal rights under the law and "fundamental" rights keeps being tossed up.

Another argument is the one that talks about tolerance when it's not tolerance being sought but approval. All the while this charge of intolerance is being leveled at pro 8 people, the anti 8 demonstrators are showing what bastions of tolerance they are.

Brad B

[Brad B]

I just read this article and was encouraged that the pro-8 campaign is willing to fight in court asap. Here's the url.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Proponents-Proposition-8-Urge-California/story.aspx?guid={8134BC83-23D4-4FFA-8DCB-AE6B364396A3}

Brad B

[Randall]

Now Antonio Villagarosa has joined the fight, pledging to take it all the way to the White House. What I find fascinating is his sentence "You know, I didn't live – and none of us did – during the time of Jesus,"..."But I like to believe that the Jesus I love, the Jesus I pray to, didn't just talk about being a shepherd. He knew that the role of the shepherd was to bring the flock in – all of the flock, every one of us."

First of all he states that since we were not living in Jesus time, then none of us knows the real Jesus nor can we make objective statements. Consistantly he then says that the Jesus he believes in wants to bring in the whole flock.

So does his version of a subjective Jesus win out by being the majority view?

I find his statements quite erroneous, logically convoluted, and appealing only to emotion.

How did American leadership descend to the level of pandering the basest lusts?

[RonH]

Brad B,
The relevant statistics would cast light on whether gay marriages make gay relationships more stable. It seems to soon for such statistics to exist - from the US anyway - but if you have them let's see them please.

Other statistics, such as those that compare relationships to gay ones are not relevant to the question.
Ron

[Brad B]

Hi RonH, it'd be easy to paste a url, but it's not necessary for me to debate the point with you because even the gay publications has gathered stitistical data that support the dangerous lifestyle that is called "gay". 20-30% shorter life span, various health problems associated with disease, as a group, homosexual men are 16 times more likely to be child molesters, violence toward each other, higher rates of alchohol abuse. These statistics are not going to change with the gaining of a title, it has been argued that if "no fault divorce" were still the law in California, ther'd be no stampede by gay couples for applications for civil marraige.

The average "monogamous" gay couple have up to 10 outside of the union sexual partners and still consider themselves faithful and this is only 10-12 years average of comitted relationship. Hardly "til death do us part". This behavior is in no way good for society nor the participants.

Brad B

[Blue Collar Todd]

I think the issue of gay rights will set the stage that will justify true hate, intolerance and bigotry towards Christians. With the election of Barack Obama, the battle for truth is going to get extremely intense. This is particularly evident with "Progressive Christians" who see Obama as the first Pastor in Chief.

[Augustine]

Brad B,

On your statistics, they might be a little dated. I'm no researcher, but I just wanted to say that the first to speak always seems right. Just a simple google.scholar search provided multiple university psychology studies that "disproved" your child molestation claim. I'm not saying whether or not you are wrong, but that you are not going to convince anyone on the other side.

The problem with statistics...