TFTD: Two Minute Hate

In George Orwell's 1984, we see a propaganda tool called Two Minute Hate. The tactic is to portray a vilified person on TV spewing their hostility to the regime accompanied by sounds and images designed to irritate the audience. The result was it was impossible not to be affected in hating the identified enemy and corresponding favor of the regime.

Now while we don't directly have a counterpart today (yet?), I was struck by a thought when reading this part of the novel -- isn't it curious how we see a disproportionate number of stories in the news about the Westboro Baptists and pedophile priests whenever the Catholic Church makes a stand for what God teaches, such as the teachings on homosexuality and contraception?

It's as if people in the media want to discredit the Church to induce hate in a "this is what they stand for" message.

TFTD: Two Minute Hate

In George Orwell's 1984, we see a propaganda tool called Two Minute Hate. The tactic is to portray a vilified person on TV spewing their hostility to the regime accompanied by sounds and images designed to irritate the audience. The result was it was impossible not to be affected in hating the identified enemy and corresponding favor of the regime.

Now while we don't directly have a counterpart today (yet?), I was struck by a thought when reading this part of the novel -- isn't it curious how we see a disproportionate number of stories in the news about the Westboro Baptists and pedophile priests whenever the Catholic Church makes a stand for what God teaches, such as the teachings on homosexuality and contraception?

It's as if people in the media want to discredit the Church to induce hate in a "this is what they stand for" message.

We Used To Call This Indoctrination…

When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.

 

—Adolph Hitler.  November 6, 1933

Introduction

My sister-in-law told me about an event called "Day of Silence" put on my a group called GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network).  While this information came too late for me to write about this as a warning before it happened, I can at least comment on this so people of good will can be aware of what can only be described as propaganda aimed at indoctrinating the youth.

The claimed purpose of this event is to protest against bullying in the public schools.  However, when one looks at the materials, what we see is a concerted effort to undermine the moral teaching authority of parents and their religious faiths through misrepresentation and bad logic.  It is intended to push a radical agenda which portrays "alternate sexual preferences" as merely a matter of taste and not morality.  Because this activity happens in schools, it aims its agenda at people who are considered vulnerable with no chance defending the family religious beliefs until after the fact.

The designed exercises seem aimed to presenting their views as true while pressuring youth who know what is right to cave in or keep silent.

My sister-in-law tells me she kept her son home from school on the day of the event (4/19/13).  After reading the material, I can only conclude she is a very wise woman.  While I only found out about this event after the fact, I still think it is good to write about this so that people may be aware of this in the future and consider how they might protect their children from overt indoctrination.

Because there is so much to consider, I will focus mainly on one area of attack which happens to be my area of expertise.

Undermining Religious Beliefs of a Family

One example of their tactics in indoctrination is to ask whether Jesus condemned homosexuality in the Bible.  They answer that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.  They point out that these condemnations show up in Paul and in the Old Testament.  The intended conclusion they want to draw is that if Jesus was opposed to homosexuality, He would have condemned it by name.

The problem is, by this logic, Jesus never condemned bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia or the like.  He never condemned incest either.  Come to think of it, He never mentioned consent either, so rape is theoretically OK by this argument. 

So are we to assume that Jesus was an "anything goes" type of person?  If we accept this kind of argument, we have to assume Jesus was in favor of all sorts of sexual behavior – behavior that promoters of homosexuality get extremely angry over when we point this out.

Actually the "Jesus never said anything about [X]… therefore [X] is ok" argument is a logical fallacy called "argument from silence."  The reason this fallacy makes the argument invalid is because silence neither proves support or hostility.  However, we can find out what Jesus thought about marriage from other things He said.  For example, Matthew 19 tells us:

He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Matthew 19: 4-6)

So what we see is that while Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality by name, he explicitly declares that God's intention (from the beginning [see Matt 19:8]) is for man and woman to be married in a lifelong relationship.

What this shows is we have people who are willing to misrepresent what Jesus taught in order to undermine the family beliefs and convictions.

Conclusion

So here's why you should be alarmed, whether you have children in school or not.  People who are willing to misrepresent what a person says in order to make a point are behaving dishonestly.  Even if one disagrees with Christian teaching on sexual morality, a person of good will should want to condemn a deliberate misrepresentation made in order to deceive someone (called sophistry).

If a group claims to want tolerance and dialogue, they should be open to seeking out the best possible representation of both sides to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.  But if they misrepresent, if they use false arguments, if they intimidate in order to get young people to support their position then we do not have tolerance and dialogue.

Instead we have indoctrination and propaganda.

People of good will should be aware of the fact that this sort of event engages in unscrupulous tactics to push an agenda that parents have every right to oppose.  Parents who oppose such events should be supported, and schools who try to allow such events should be opposed.

We Used To Call This Indoctrination…

When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.

 

—Adolph Hitler.  November 6, 1933

Introduction

My sister-in-law told me about an event called "Day of Silence" put on my a group called GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network).  While this information came too late for me to write about this as a warning before it happened, I can at least comment on this so people of good will can be aware of what can only be described as propaganda aimed at indoctrinating the youth.

The claimed purpose of this event is to protest against bullying in the public schools.  However, when one looks at the materials, what we see is a concerted effort to undermine the moral teaching authority of parents and their religious faiths through misrepresentation and bad logic.  It is intended to push a radical agenda which portrays "alternate sexual preferences" as merely a matter of taste and not morality.  Because this activity happens in schools, it aims its agenda at people who are considered vulnerable with no chance defending the family religious beliefs until after the fact.

The designed exercises seem aimed to presenting their views as true while pressuring youth who know what is right to cave in or keep silent.

My sister-in-law tells me she kept her son home from school on the day of the event (4/19/13).  After reading the material, I can only conclude she is a very wise woman.  While I only found out about this event after the fact, I still think it is good to write about this so that people may be aware of this in the future and consider how they might protect their children from overt indoctrination.

Because there is so much to consider, I will focus mainly on one area of attack which happens to be my area of expertise.

Undermining Religious Beliefs of a Family

One example of their tactics in indoctrination is to ask whether Jesus condemned homosexuality in the Bible.  They answer that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.  They point out that these condemnations show up in Paul and in the Old Testament.  The intended conclusion they want to draw is that if Jesus was opposed to homosexuality, He would have condemned it by name.

The problem is, by this logic, Jesus never condemned bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia or the like.  He never condemned incest either.  Come to think of it, He never mentioned consent either, so rape is theoretically OK by this argument. 

So are we to assume that Jesus was an "anything goes" type of person?  If we accept this kind of argument, we have to assume Jesus was in favor of all sorts of sexual behavior – behavior that promoters of homosexuality get extremely angry over when we point this out.

Actually the "Jesus never said anything about [X]… therefore [X] is ok" argument is a logical fallacy called "argument from silence."  The reason this fallacy makes the argument invalid is because silence neither proves support or hostility.  However, we can find out what Jesus thought about marriage from other things He said.  For example, Matthew 19 tells us:

He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Matthew 19: 4-6)

So what we see is that while Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality by name, he explicitly declares that God's intention (from the beginning [see Matt 19:8]) is for man and woman to be married in a lifelong relationship.

What this shows is we have people who are willing to misrepresent what Jesus taught in order to undermine the family beliefs and convictions.

Conclusion

So here's why you should be alarmed, whether you have children in school or not.  People who are willing to misrepresent what a person says in order to make a point are behaving dishonestly.  Even if one disagrees with Christian teaching on sexual morality, a person of good will should want to condemn a deliberate misrepresentation made in order to deceive someone (called sophistry).

If a group claims to want tolerance and dialogue, they should be open to seeking out the best possible representation of both sides to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.  But if they misrepresent, if they use false arguments, if they intimidate in order to get young people to support their position then we do not have tolerance and dialogue.

Instead we have indoctrination and propaganda.

People of good will should be aware of the fact that this sort of event engages in unscrupulous tactics to push an agenda that parents have every right to oppose.  Parents who oppose such events should be supported, and schools who try to allow such events should be opposed.

Propaganda in America: "Cutting Down the Laws"

The Short Term Danger

As we get closer to the elections, it is alarming to see just how many people are being taken in by propaganda set forth by the Obama administration.  There are actually a large amount of people who believe that the dispute over the HHS mandate is actually an attempt by religious groups to prevent people from using contraception.  People have used dishonest labels, such as the "War on Women."  They accuse us of trying to force our beliefs on them.

The facts are different.  Prior to the HHS mandate, self insured employers were not required to offer coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients.  Employers (religious organizations or individual business owners) trying to be faithful to their beliefs had this option to do what they felt obligated to do.

What the HHS mandate does is to mandate all insurance (including the self-insured) to provide contraception and abortifacient coverage or else be fined $100 per employee per day.  If you're a small business owner hiring 10 people, that's $1000 a day in fines.  In larger Catholic institutions, it adds up to millions of dollars a year.

It is funny, isn't it?  Christians who run businesses or hospitals or colleges must now offer coverage for activities they call evil or be forced out of business.  They're the ones accused of forcing their beliefs on others.  Meanwhile those people who demand that employers cover their contraceptives and abortifacients are called the victims.

The Long Term Danger

The evil done in this particular incident is dangerous enough in that it flagrantly violates the constitution while people who are oppressors portray themselves as victims, but there is a long term danger as well.

The Long term danger is that, if the government propaganda is allowed to go unchallenged, we we are seeing a large portion of the nation who can be deceived into thinking a violation of the Bill of Rights is in fact a new freedom.  Precedents are being set which can be used by any future government, conservative or liberal, to overrule the conscience of any group which is inconvenient.

Now many of the deceived may think that this is alarmism.  They may think that since we are not seeing the tactics of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or modern China, that there is no danger here of the loss of civil rights in America.

However, America doesn't need concentration camps or gulags to restrict our freedoms. Right now our government can inflict fines for non-compliance if this is allowed to stand… fines that can force any person or group out of business who refuses to comply with the desired policy.

I won't say we are becoming Totalitarian mind you.  That would require deceiving the population a bit more to thinking that it is better to entrust all power to a regime with an ideology which a large enough percentage tends to sympathize with. 

No, right now, we are in danger of moving from a Republic based on the safeguards of protecting freedoms to an authoritarian government which takes away some of our freedoms in the name of "bettering" people in some way or "protecting" freedoms from an alleged threat.  Right now this so-called threat is organized religion, where attempts to defend religious beliefs is portrayed as "forcing beliefs on others."  To "defend" the country from that "threat" the government claims that religious individuals must comply with  state demands.

But once they get you to accept that belief that government impositions over the Constitution are necessary, it becomes easier to eliminate other constitutional hindrances to their power.

Conclusion

I think a good way to conclude this article is to quote from the 1966 movie, A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Many people out there may have hostility to Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular.  I have even seen some go so far as to say that it should be destroyed to "protect" people.  One hopes these types are merely a minority of uninformed radicals.  But even if the reader should be opposed to us, you should be careful as to what conveniences you support to oppose us.

Otherwise, once you cut down all the laws, will you be able to "stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

Propaganda in America: "Cutting Down the Laws"

The Short Term Danger

As we get closer to the elections, it is alarming to see just how many people are being taken in by propaganda set forth by the Obama administration.  There are actually a large amount of people who believe that the dispute over the HHS mandate is actually an attempt by religious groups to prevent people from using contraception.  People have used dishonest labels, such as the "War on Women."  They accuse us of trying to force our beliefs on them.

The facts are different.  Prior to the HHS mandate, self insured employers were not required to offer coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients.  Employers (religious organizations or individual business owners) trying to be faithful to their beliefs had this option to do what they felt obligated to do.

What the HHS mandate does is to mandate all insurance (including the self-insured) to provide contraception and abortifacient coverage or else be fined $100 per employee per day.  If you're a small business owner hiring 10 people, that's $1000 a day in fines.  In larger Catholic institutions, it adds up to millions of dollars a year.

It is funny, isn't it?  Christians who run businesses or hospitals or colleges must now offer coverage for activities they call evil or be forced out of business.  They're the ones accused of forcing their beliefs on others.  Meanwhile those people who demand that employers cover their contraceptives and abortifacients are called the victims.

The Long Term Danger

The evil done in this particular incident is dangerous enough in that it flagrantly violates the constitution while people who are oppressors portray themselves as victims, but there is a long term danger as well.

The Long term danger is that, if the government propaganda is allowed to go unchallenged, we we are seeing a large portion of the nation who can be deceived into thinking a violation of the Bill of Rights is in fact a new freedom.  Precedents are being set which can be used by any future government, conservative or liberal, to overrule the conscience of any group which is inconvenient.

Now many of the deceived may think that this is alarmism.  They may think that since we are not seeing the tactics of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or modern China, that there is no danger here of the loss of civil rights in America.

However, America doesn't need concentration camps or gulags to restrict our freedoms. Right now our government can inflict fines for non-compliance if this is allowed to stand… fines that can force any person or group out of business who refuses to comply with the desired policy.

I won't say we are becoming Totalitarian mind you.  That would require deceiving the population a bit more to thinking that it is better to entrust all power to a regime with an ideology which a large enough percentage tends to sympathize with. 

No, right now, we are in danger of moving from a Republic based on the safeguards of protecting freedoms to an authoritarian government which takes away some of our freedoms in the name of "bettering" people in some way or "protecting" freedoms from an alleged threat.  Right now this so-called threat is organized religion, where attempts to defend religious beliefs is portrayed as "forcing beliefs on others."  To "defend" the country from that "threat" the government claims that religious individuals must comply with  state demands.

But once they get you to accept that belief that government impositions over the Constitution are necessary, it becomes easier to eliminate other constitutional hindrances to their power.

Conclusion

I think a good way to conclude this article is to quote from the 1966 movie, A Man for All Seasons:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Many people out there may have hostility to Christianity in general or Catholicism in particular.  I have even seen some go so far as to say that it should be destroyed to "protect" people.  One hopes these types are merely a minority of uninformed radicals.  But even if the reader should be opposed to us, you should be careful as to what conveniences you support to oppose us.

Otherwise, once you cut down all the laws, will you be able to "stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

Big Bird and German Catholics: Morning Musings on Propaganda

Read more »

Big Bird and German Catholics: Morning Musings on Propaganda

Read more »

Propaganda and lies: The Lie that Will Never Die

Read more »

Propaganda and lies: The Lie that Will Never Die

Read more »

Propaganda and Lies: Exactly Who Is Trying to Impose on Who?

In the online version of the Guardian is a story about the fight to defend traditional marriage.  What caught my eye (and raised my ire) was the quote made by a "Gay marriage" activist:

"It is increasingly clear that the church has an anti-gay agenda that it wants to impose on the rest of society," said Tom French, policy co-ordinator of the Equality Network. "We urge the Scottish government to stand firm on plans to introduce equal marriage and not give in to demands that would discriminate against LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] people."

Funny sort of imposition here.  The Scottish government is trying to make these "gay marriage ceremonies" available by 2015.  The Catholic Church is opposing this change.  Yet, it is the Catholic Church which is accused of imposing an agenda.

It would be more accurate to say that it is the Scottish government which is trying to impose an agenda – the agenda being to deny there are any differences between the heterosexual marriage and a homosexual relationship.

Look at the sequence:

1. Christian moral teaching on sexuality exists
2. In the early 21^st century, certain activists attempt to pass laws which attack the long existing Christian moral teaching
3. The Christians are accused of imposing their pre-existing views because they try to defend their views

Unfortunately this sequence is ignored when there is a dispute over moral issues.  The faction which is attempting to impose a change declares their own position is the "neutral" position, and the one who opposes it is the "extremist."  This is an ad hominem attack, using a label to vilify the opponent rather than refute the challenge.

It also is a dishonest attack that attempts to cast the faction attempting to impose the change as the referee instead of one of the combatants.  It is claimed, without proof, that the belief in favor of "gay marriage" or abortion or the contraception mandate is "right" and the opposition is extremist or homophobic or anti-woman.

But the claim that these changes are right is what needs to be proven to begin with!  To prove the point, the premise needs to be have a source of reason, ground or evidence for its truth other than the conclusion of the argument.

Being aware of the Slavery and Racism counter-arguments and why they are not relevant

Now, it is true that in some cultures, vicious custom and corrupt habit (see Summa Theologica I-IIa Q94. A 6) which have been long accepted do need to be opposed because they are contrary to the natural law.  Slavery and other forms of racism are valid examples of this.  However, it would be wrong to automatically assume that anything which is challenged is automatically in the wrong while the faction challenging it is automatically right.

Unfortunately this is the basic assumption when it comes to attacking Christian morality.  It is argued that opposition to "gay marriage" is based on homophobia in the same way as favoring slavery is based on racism.  The problem is, again, this has to be proved.  It is not proven.

(Christian teaching appeared at a time when slavery was already existing and accepted. I'm not going to derail the topic by people slinging Bible verses in an attempt to argue Christianity was to the right of the KKK.  Colossians 3:22-4:1 was dealing with how converts who were slaves or slave owners were obligated to be loving to each other. It never gave approval to to the existence of slavery. Galatians 3:26-29 is needed to put the Paul's statement into context).

It is a sad fact that many Christians did keep slaves (as did many non Christians), but that was a vicious custom kept by some Christians and not a tenet of Christianity itself.  However, it does not follow that Christians following a vicious custom in the case of slavery means that Christians follow a vicious custom in the case of calling homosexual acts sinful.

Again, we have people who make that claim assuming as proven exactly what they need to prove.

Conclusion

This is a common tactic in the modern culture struggle.  Those who are attacking are accusing the Christians of being on the attack, when in fact the Christians are who are defending their beliefs.  Unfortunately all too many people are falling for the propaganda.  Men and women of good faith need to recognize this propaganda and to reject it.  They need to realize that these activists are using their rhetoric to impose their beliefs without establishing that they are true.

We need to realize that far from Christians being dispensers of that which is hateful and intolerant, it is their opponents who are using deceptive arguments and propaganda to distort what the actual issue is.  They need to justify to the world why their case is TRUE, and not merely label us as "homophobic" and declare their position as proven.

Propaganda and Lies: Exactly Who Is Trying to Impose on Who?

In the online version of the Guardian is a story about the fight to defend traditional marriage.  What caught my eye (and raised my ire) was the quote made by a "Gay marriage" activist:

"It is increasingly clear that the church has an anti-gay agenda that it wants to impose on the rest of society," said Tom French, policy co-ordinator of the Equality Network. "We urge the Scottish government to stand firm on plans to introduce equal marriage and not give in to demands that would discriminate against LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] people."

Funny sort of imposition here.  The Scottish government is trying to make these "gay marriage ceremonies" available by 2015.  The Catholic Church is opposing this change.  Yet, it is the Catholic Church which is accused of imposing an agenda.

It would be more accurate to say that it is the Scottish government which is trying to impose an agenda – the agenda being to deny there are any differences between the heterosexual marriage and a homosexual relationship.

Look at the sequence:

1. Christian moral teaching on sexuality exists
2. In the early 21^st century, certain activists attempt to pass laws which attack the long existing Christian moral teaching
3. The Christians are accused of imposing their pre-existing views because they try to defend their views

Unfortunately this sequence is ignored when there is a dispute over moral issues.  The faction which is attempting to impose a change declares their own position is the "neutral" position, and the one who opposes it is the "extremist."  This is an ad hominem attack, using a label to vilify the opponent rather than refute the challenge.

It also is a dishonest attack that attempts to cast the faction attempting to impose the change as the referee instead of one of the combatants.  It is claimed, without proof, that the belief in favor of "gay marriage" or abortion or the contraception mandate is "right" and the opposition is extremist or homophobic or anti-woman.

But the claim that these changes are right is what needs to be proven to begin with!  To prove the point, the premise needs to be have a source of reason, ground or evidence for its truth other than the conclusion of the argument.

Being aware of the Slavery and Racism counter-arguments and why they are not relevant

Now, it is true that in some cultures, vicious custom and corrupt habit (see Summa Theologica I-IIa Q94. A 6) which have been long accepted do need to be opposed because they are contrary to the natural law.  Slavery and other forms of racism are valid examples of this.  However, it would be wrong to automatically assume that anything which is challenged is automatically in the wrong while the faction challenging it is automatically right.

Unfortunately this is the basic assumption when it comes to attacking Christian morality.  It is argued that opposition to "gay marriage" is based on homophobia in the same way as favoring slavery is based on racism.  The problem is, again, this has to be proved.  It is not proven.

(Christian teaching appeared at a time when slavery was already existing and accepted. I'm not going to derail the topic by people slinging Bible verses in an attempt to argue Christianity was to the right of the KKK.  Colossians 3:22-4:1 was dealing with how converts who were slaves or slave owners were obligated to be loving to each other. It never gave approval to to the existence of slavery. Galatians 3:26-29 is needed to put the Paul's statement into context).

It is a sad fact that many Christians did keep slaves (as did many non Christians), but that was a vicious custom kept by some Christians and not a tenet of Christianity itself.  However, it does not follow that Christians following a vicious custom in the case of slavery means that Christians follow a vicious custom in the case of calling homosexual acts sinful.

Again, we have people who make that claim assuming as proven exactly what they need to prove.

Conclusion

This is a common tactic in the modern culture struggle.  Those who are attacking are accusing the Christians of being on the attack, when in fact the Christians are who are defending their beliefs.  Unfortunately all too many people are falling for the propaganda.  Men and women of good faith need to recognize this propaganda and to reject it.  They need to realize that these activists are using their rhetoric to impose their beliefs without establishing that they are true.

We need to realize that far from Christians being dispensers of that which is hateful and intolerant, it is their opponents who are using deceptive arguments and propaganda to distort what the actual issue is.  They need to justify to the world why their case is TRUE, and not merely label us as "homophobic" and declare their position as proven.

Sentimentalism vs. Compassion

One danger America seems prone to fall for is the danger of sentimentalism, which is the tendency to replace the reason and will with what "feels" right ("feelings of tenderness, sadness, or nostalgia.  Having or arousing such feelings in an exaggerated and self-indulgent way.")  Americans prefer stories of the underdog triumphing over the powerful – especially if it is a bureaucracy, institution or government agency. 

The problem is, the underdog is not always right just because he or she is the underdog.  Nor is the person portrayed as the underdog always the underdog to begin with.  Sometimes it is the group portrayed as the evil institution that is in the right.

So today we see "women" (actually a sub faction of women who have a shared ideological view) struggling for freedom against the institution of the "heartless Church" because the Church refuses to change her teachings on sexual morality.  We also see homosexuals portrayed as the underdogs against the "fanatical religious right."

What we don't see is the fact that these so-called "underdogs" have the support of the Executive Branch of the US Government, the mainstream media, Hollywood, College faculty, rich millionaires et5c.  What we don't see is that those being coerced are not the women and the homosexuals, but those who disagree with the HHS mandate or those who do not recognize "gay marriage."

Sentimentalism

Sentimentalism is essentially a logical fallacy – the appeal to emotion (usually sympathy and fear).  What we get in this propaganda is someone who is weak who must act in a certain way and will suffer terribly unless the "evil institution" changes their policy.  This is where we see the Church attacked on its opposition to contraception ("those poor women married to men infected by AIDS!") or abortion ("those poor women who were raped!") or "gay marriage" ("those poor people forbidden to marry when they love each other!").  It's propaganda used to elicit an emotion favorable to the policy the propagandist wants passed.

What's not considered is whether the emotion sought is properly applied to the case at hand.  For example, if the fetus is a human person, then there is no justifiable case to kill that person.  If marriage is only possible between a man and a woman, no appeal to "how cruel to be denied the right to marry" can justify "gay marriage."

When people use propaganda of the back alley abortion and the coat hanger, this does not answer the primary questions:

1. Is the fetus a person or not?  and…
2. On what do you base your view?

Considering True Compassion

True compassion differs from sentimentalism in a meaningful way.  Humanity, being flawed and sinful will find people who have been afflicted in some way, either through a bad choice of their own, or being the victim of another.  Such individuals do need some sort of assistance regardless of whether they are in the right and victimized by another or are in the situation through their own fault.  However, compassion requires a solution which is in keeping with the truth and not merely treating symptoms.  True compassion does not treat one person as a means to help another.

Ultimately compassion must be in accord with what really is, seeking to change the situation, not alleviate the symptoms.  We don't show compassion by providing drug addicts with clean needles.  We show compassion by helping them break free of addiction and stay free.  We don't provide compassion by permitting abortion and destroying human life.  We provide compassion by providing support (especially if the woman is a victim).  We don't provide compassion by permitting condoms to be used.  We provide compassion by teaching the men that they don't play Russian Roulette with their wives. 

(Really, if these advocacy groups cared about these women, they'd direct their outrage at the AIDS infected men forcing sex on their wives, not at the Catholic Church whom these men were already ignoring by placing their wives in jeopardy).

In all of these cases, the popular solutions fall into sentimentalism.  The poor drug user who reuses needles should be given clean needles (which does nothing to get them free from drugs).  The poor woman who is pregnant and single is not helped by having her abortions and contraception paid for.  She is helped by helping her to use self control and be responsible, recognizing that pregnancy comes from sexual relations.  The poor African woman who is forced to have sexual relations with her infected spouse, but by providing opportunities to escape from such a desperate situation.

Conclusion

Today's sentimentalism doesn't help people.  It merely provides a (usually futile) attempt to reduce the impact of the symptoms of self-destructive behavior while permitting that self-destructive behavior to continue.  True compassion does not settle for the treating the symptoms but tries to find a lasting solution.

If we don't try to find permanent solutions, which includes modification of behavior, we'll find we've made a whole lot of commotion with no results.

Sentimentalism vs. Compassion

One danger America seems prone to fall for is the danger of sentimentalism, which is the tendency to replace the reason and will with what "feels" right ("feelings of tenderness, sadness, or nostalgia.  Having or arousing such feelings in an exaggerated and self-indulgent way.")  Americans prefer stories of the underdog triumphing over the powerful – especially if it is a bureaucracy, institution or government agency. 

The problem is, the underdog is not always right just because he or she is the underdog.  Nor is the person portrayed as the underdog always the underdog to begin with.  Sometimes it is the group portrayed as the evil institution that is in the right.

So today we see "women" (actually a sub faction of women who have a shared ideological view) struggling for freedom against the institution of the "heartless Church" because the Church refuses to change her teachings on sexual morality.  We also see homosexuals portrayed as the underdogs against the "fanatical religious right."

What we don't see is the fact that these so-called "underdogs" have the support of the Executive Branch of the US Government, the mainstream media, Hollywood, College faculty, rich millionaires et5c.  What we don't see is that those being coerced are not the women and the homosexuals, but those who disagree with the HHS mandate or those who do not recognize "gay marriage."

Sentimentalism

Sentimentalism is essentially a logical fallacy – the appeal to emotion (usually sympathy and fear).  What we get in this propaganda is someone who is weak who must act in a certain way and will suffer terribly unless the "evil institution" changes their policy.  This is where we see the Church attacked on its opposition to contraception ("those poor women married to men infected by AIDS!") or abortion ("those poor women who were raped!") or "gay marriage" ("those poor people forbidden to marry when they love each other!").  It's propaganda used to elicit an emotion favorable to the policy the propagandist wants passed.

What's not considered is whether the emotion sought is properly applied to the case at hand.  For example, if the fetus is a human person, then there is no justifiable case to kill that person.  If marriage is only possible between a man and a woman, no appeal to "how cruel to be denied the right to marry" can justify "gay marriage."

When people use propaganda of the back alley abortion and the coat hanger, this does not answer the primary questions:

1. Is the fetus a person or not?  and…
2. On what do you base your view?

Considering True Compassion

True compassion differs from sentimentalism in a meaningful way.  Humanity, being flawed and sinful will find people who have been afflicted in some way, either through a bad choice of their own, or being the victim of another.  Such individuals do need some sort of assistance regardless of whether they are in the right and victimized by another or are in the situation through their own fault.  However, compassion requires a solution which is in keeping with the truth and not merely treating symptoms.  True compassion does not treat one person as a means to help another.

Ultimately compassion must be in accord with what really is, seeking to change the situation, not alleviate the symptoms.  We don't show compassion by providing drug addicts with clean needles.  We show compassion by helping them break free of addiction and stay free.  We don't provide compassion by permitting abortion and destroying human life.  We provide compassion by providing support (especially if the woman is a victim).  We don't provide compassion by permitting condoms to be used.  We provide compassion by teaching the men that they don't play Russian Roulette with their wives. 

(Really, if these advocacy groups cared about these women, they'd direct their outrage at the AIDS infected men forcing sex on their wives, not at the Catholic Church whom these men were already ignoring by placing their wives in jeopardy).

In all of these cases, the popular solutions fall into sentimentalism.  The poor drug user who reuses needles should be given clean needles (which does nothing to get them free from drugs).  The poor woman who is pregnant and single is not helped by having her abortions and contraception paid for.  She is helped by helping her to use self control and be responsible, recognizing that pregnancy comes from sexual relations.  The poor African woman who is forced to have sexual relations with her infected spouse, but by providing opportunities to escape from such a desperate situation.

Conclusion

Today's sentimentalism doesn't help people.  It merely provides a (usually futile) attempt to reduce the impact of the symptoms of self-destructive behavior while permitting that self-destructive behavior to continue.  True compassion does not settle for the treating the symptoms but tries to find a lasting solution.

If we don't try to find permanent solutions, which includes modification of behavior, we'll find we've made a whole lot of commotion with no results.

Propaganda and Lies: You Homophobe!

Introduction

The term homophobia is a popular one to use when confronting people who believe that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong (wrong by their very nature).  Whether the confrontation is with the continuous teaching of the Catholic Church, or with an individual, the response is the same: “You’re a Homophobe!”

Since the term is used so broadly, I thought it would be helpful to study what the term means.  Since the term is based on “phobia” (an extreme or irrational fear of something that causes someone to want to avoid it at all costs) it is clear that it must have a medical definition, like claustrophobia or agoraphobia, which we can look up, to see whether it is applied accurately.

No Medical Definition

The problem is, it doesn’t have a medical definition.  “Homophobia” is not any sort of a medical term to be found in a medical dictionary.  It is nothing more than a pejorative label which covers any person or group which rejects homosexual acts as wrong.

In other words, the Westboro Baptist Church, with their reprehensible “God Hates F*gs” signs (I think this kid had the right response) is classified in the same way as Catholic teaching, which holds:

This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (Catechism of the Catholic Church #2358)

So the term “homophobia” is so broad that it lumps together people who have actual irrational hatred with those who condemn such hatred.

That sounds fishy, doesn’t it?

The Assumed Principles of the “Homophobia” Label

It should sound fishy.  It indicates that the label of “homophobia” is based on certain assumptions that cannot be questioned.

First of all, it assumes that there are no moral problems with homosexual acts.  Either they are morally neutral or just as morally acceptable as heterosexual acts.

Second, it assumes that any person or group who does have a moral problem with certain sexual acts is doing so out of bigotry – even if the person or group deny such a motive or condemn such motives.

In other words, the term argues: If you don’t agree with us, you’re a bigot!

That’s nothing more than propaganda and an ad hominem attack.  It demonstrates a mindset which is fixated on a certain point of view with the inability to consider any other points of view or motives for that point of view.

The Sinister Tactic

What we have is a label which is used to vilify all persons who disagrees with any other view.  Such behavior has happened many times in American history by one faction to attempt to shame or otherwise silence people who think differently.  The right winger who called a liberal a “Communist;” the Southern racist who labels a supporter of civil rights as “a N*gger Lover” and so on, are examples of this tactic.  Today, these terms seem archaic and offensive.  But back in those days, they were seen as acceptable – or at least by those who used the terms.

It argues, “Either you agree with us or you are a vile person!”  It tries to make people accept their view as right, and the opposing view as being held out of malice.  Actually, it is the person who is using this tactic is doing nothing more than name calling.

The Term is a Lie and a Stereotype

The term homophobia is not a phobia as recognized by any credible medical source.  It merely assumes all opposition is irrational, refusing to hear any arguments.  It points to a group of extremists and tries to paint all who believe homosexuality is wrong as if they shared the extremist view.

That’s remarkably similar to assuming all Muslims are terrorists, just because some are.  Or similar to those who assume all Blacks or Hispanics must be criminals just because some are.

We call that a stereotype, assuming the whole must be this way based on the behavior of a few.

It is certainly a lie to label all people as having a hatred of homosexual persons simply on the grounds that they believe that certain sexual acts are always wrong and that people who have an inclination towards such acts need to practice chastity.

The Dilemma: Who’s Really Intolerant?

Let’s look at the two views – the Catholic view that says homosexual acts are wrong and the pro-homosexual view which says people morally opposed to homophobia are “homophobes.” 

The Catholic view says that even though the homosexual act and inclination is disordered, persons with this affliction must be treated with love and respect on account of the fact that they are still persons.  Any Catholic who does not treat the homosexual person with love and compassion, while opposing such acts against what the Church requires of the faithful.

Now let’s assume that homophobia is a real phobia.  That would make those who display hostility to those with homophobia as reprehensible as those who display hostility to other phobias.

The late comedian, Mitch Hedberg, once said:

“Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only one you can get yelled at for having. Goddamn it Otto, you are an alcoholic. Goddamn it Otto, you have Lupis... one of those two doesn't sound right.”

It’s a good point.  If alcoholism is a disease, then to abuse people for having the disease is wrong.  Likewise, if “homophobia” is truly a “an intense aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals” (according to the OED), then to abuse people for having the “condition” would also be wrong.

I think we can rephrase it this way to demonstrate the point.

If Homophobia is a mental illness, it’s the only one they can hate you for having.  “You claustrophobics disgust me.”  “You homophobes disgust me!”  Something doesn’t sound right.

The problem is, if homophobia was truly a mental illness (as opposed to a derogatory term) like other phobias then the person who was abusive to the “homophobic” would be just as reprehensible as the person who was abusive to the claustrophobic – it would be discrimination.

That leads us to the dilemma.  If “homophobia” is a real illness, then the person who is hostile to the “homophobic” is a bigot.  If “homophobia” is nothing more than a label used to attack people who think differently, then the person who labels his opponents “homophobic” is a bigot.

The only way to avoid the bigot label is not to behave in a bigoted manner.  That means ending the abuse and hatred towards those who believe homosexuality is wrong.  Yes, there are people who do wrong in their opposition (violence, verbal abuse) and they can be opposed civilly and in a law abiding manner because of the wrong behavior, and they should be opposed – especially by Christians who recognize homosexuality is wrong.

However, to abuse and harass people simply because they recognize homosexual acts are always wrong is not a defense of tolerance.  It is the practice of intolerance.

Conclusion

Really, it is time for people to recognize that this term is nothing more than a slur, and shows intolerance for those with a different point of view.  People of good will, even if they should disagree with the Catholic teachings on the subject should not use such terms, but rather engage in civil dialogue with those they disagree.

We should recognize that the term “homophobic” is as repugnant as the term “f*g” or “n*gger” or any other intolerant slur.  It should no longer be used, and we should recognize that the person who uses it is intolerant, behaving hypocritically – using intolerance while claiming to champion tolerance.

(edited 7/6/12 to make a point more clear)

Propaganda and Lies: You Homophobe!

Introduction

The term homophobia is a popular one to use when confronting people who believe that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong (wrong by their very nature).  Whether the confrontation is with the continuous teaching of the Catholic Church, or with an individual, the response is the same: “You’re a Homophobe!”

Since the term is used so broadly, I thought it would be helpful to study what the term means.  Since the term is based on “phobia” (an extreme or irrational fear of something that causes someone to want to avoid it at all costs) it is clear that it must have a medical definition, like claustrophobia or agoraphobia, which we can look up, to see whether it is applied accurately.

No Medical Definition

The problem is, it doesn’t have a medical definition.  “Homophobia” is not any sort of a medical term to be found in a medical dictionary.  It is nothing more than a pejorative label which covers any person or group which rejects homosexual acts as wrong.

In other words, the Westboro Baptist Church, with their reprehensible “God Hates F*gs” signs (I think this kid had the right response) is classified in the same way as Catholic teaching, which holds:

This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (Catechism of the Catholic Church #2358)

So the term “homophobia” is so broad that it lumps together people who have actual irrational hatred with those who condemn such hatred.

That sounds fishy, doesn’t it?

The Assumed Principles of the “Homophobia” Label

It should sound fishy.  It indicates that the label of “homophobia” is based on certain assumptions that cannot be questioned.

First of all, it assumes that there are no moral problems with homosexual acts.  Either they are morally neutral or just as morally acceptable as heterosexual acts.

Second, it assumes that any person or group who does have a moral problem with certain sexual acts is doing so out of bigotry – even if the person or group deny such a motive or condemn such motives.

In other words, the term argues: If you don’t agree with us, you’re a bigot!

That’s nothing more than propaganda and an ad hominem attack.  It demonstrates a mindset which is fixated on a certain point of view with the inability to consider any other points of view or motives for that point of view.

The Sinister Tactic

What we have is a label which is used to vilify all persons who disagrees with any other view.  Such behavior has happened many times in American history by one faction to attempt to shame or otherwise silence people who think differently.  The right winger who called a liberal a “Communist;” the Southern racist who labels a supporter of civil rights as “a N*gger Lover” and so on, are examples of this tactic.  Today, these terms seem archaic and offensive.  But back in those days, they were seen as acceptable – or at least by those who used the terms.

It argues, “Either you agree with us or you are a vile person!”  It tries to make people accept their view as right, and the opposing view as being held out of malice.  Actually, it is the person who is using this tactic is doing nothing more than name calling.

The Term is a Lie and a Stereotype

The term homophobia is not a phobia as recognized by any credible medical source.  It merely assumes all opposition is irrational, refusing to hear any arguments.  It points to a group of extremists and tries to paint all who believe homosexuality is wrong as if they shared the extremist view.

That’s remarkably similar to assuming all Muslims are terrorists, just because some are.  Or similar to those who assume all Blacks or Hispanics must be criminals just because some are.

We call that a stereotype, assuming the whole must be this way based on the behavior of a few.

It is certainly a lie to label all people as having a hatred of homosexual persons simply on the grounds that they believe that certain sexual acts are always wrong and that people who have an inclination towards such acts need to practice chastity.

The Dilemma: Who’s Really Intolerant?

Let’s look at the two views – the Catholic view that says homosexual acts are wrong and the pro-homosexual view which says people morally opposed to homophobia are “homophobes.” 

The Catholic view says that even though the homosexual act and inclination is disordered, persons with this affliction must be treated with love and respect on account of the fact that they are still persons.  Any Catholic who does not treat the homosexual person with love and compassion, while opposing such acts against what the Church requires of the faithful.

Now let’s assume that homophobia is a real phobia.  That would make those who display hostility to those with homophobia as reprehensible as those who display hostility to other phobias.

The late comedian, Mitch Hedberg, once said:

“Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only one you can get yelled at for having. Goddamn it Otto, you are an alcoholic. Goddamn it Otto, you have Lupis... one of those two doesn't sound right.”

It’s a good point.  If alcoholism is a disease, then to abuse people for having the disease is wrong.  Likewise, if “homophobia” is truly a “an intense aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals” (according to the OED), then to abuse people for having the “condition” would also be wrong.

I think we can rephrase it this way to demonstrate the point.

If Homophobia is a mental illness, it’s the only one they can hate you for having.  “You claustrophobics disgust me.”  “You homophobes disgust me!”  Something doesn’t sound right.

The problem is, if homophobia was truly a mental illness (as opposed to a derogatory term) like other phobias then the person who was abusive to the “homophobic” would be just as reprehensible as the person who was abusive to the claustrophobic – it would be discrimination.

That leads us to the dilemma.  If “homophobia” is a real illness, then the person who is hostile to the “homophobic” is a bigot.  If “homophobia” is nothing more than a label used to attack people who think differently, then the person who labels his opponents “homophobic” is a bigot.

The only way to avoid the bigot label is not to behave in a bigoted manner.  That means ending the abuse and hatred towards those who believe homosexuality is wrong.  Yes, there are people who do wrong in their opposition (violence, verbal abuse) and they can be opposed civilly and in a law abiding manner because of the wrong behavior, and they should be opposed – especially by Christians who recognize homosexuality is wrong.

However, to abuse and harass people simply because they recognize homosexual acts are always wrong is not a defense of tolerance.  It is the practice of intolerance.

Conclusion

Really, it is time for people to recognize that this term is nothing more than a slur, and shows intolerance for those with a different point of view.  People of good will, even if they should disagree with the Catholic teachings on the subject should not use such terms, but rather engage in civil dialogue with those they disagree.

We should recognize that the term “homophobic” is as repugnant as the term “f*g” or “n*gger” or any other intolerant slur.  It should no longer be used, and we should recognize that the person who uses it is intolerant, behaving hypocritically – using intolerance while claiming to champion tolerance.

(edited 7/6/12 to make a point more clear)

Propaganda and Lies: Jesus Didn't Say Anything About X

Just an early morning post.  This one isn't particularly in depth.

On a recent Facebook discussion on homosexuality, a person offered the argument that Christ did not say anything against homosexuality, therefore homosexuality was not wrong.

This is the fallacy of the Argument from Silence.  To argue there is no evidence against [X], therefore [X] must be true.

We can demonstrate the problem with such an argument by pointing out Bestiality, Necrophilia and Pedophilia are not condemned by Christ either, so they must be morally acceptable.

And before you send hate mail, claiming that I am saying that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia, see THIS article.

Christ was not some hippy type saying "It doesn't matter what you do, as long as you love each other."  Rather Christ has said:

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." (Matt 7:21)

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15)

"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:19)

"If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector." (Matt 18:17)

Moreover, Christ had this to say:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.  Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 5:17-19)

This is the problem with people taking the Scriptures in whatever sense pleases them without considering context.  Jesus did for example, command people to love one another as He loved them (John 13:34 and John 15:12), but He also commanded people to do what is right and reject evil.

Christianity recognizes that we are to love others – even sinners.  However, it does not follow from this that all sin must be accepted as good.  Christ telling us not to judge (Matt 7:1-5) does not mean there is no sin.  It means we are not to write people off as being irredeemable.  The parallel passage in Luke (6:37) shows that this is about forgiveness, not tolerance.

But forgiveness presumes wrongdoing.  If a person washes my car and gives me fifty dollars, he hasn't done something that requires forgiveness.  If he damages my car and steals fifty dollars from me, he has done something which requires forgiveness and in this, Christ has said that the measure I use will be used against me.

Taking Bible verses out of context to justify a political stance is a distortion just as ridiculous as citing the Declaration of Independence to support being a colony of Britain.