On Partisanship

Partisan is defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person."  However, in terms of the modern usage, "partisanship" is used to accuse the other side of not being objective.

The implication is that the person who is a strong supporter of the wrong cause can't be objective or he or she would be agreeing with us.  The irony is the the person who uses the accusation of partisanship is often guilty of this in themselves.

So how does one avoid partisanship?  Ultimately the way we do this is to recognize that our loyalty to a party, to a cause or to a person can only be carried out to the extent that it or he promotes the truth. 

Ask yourself this.  Would you rather vote for a candidate who holds views directly condemned by your religious beliefs than to vote for a candidate of the other party?

If the answer is yes, then this is an example of partisanship.

Would you condemn something which was done by the other party, but tolerate the same thing when done by your own party, because it is "theirs" or "yours"?

This too is partisanship in the wrong sense of the world.

Now we have to clarify things here.  I am not talking about indifferentism.  I am not saying we need to consider all views equally valid.  There is a strong streak of relativism out there denying that there is any objective truth.  We do need to challenge what is wrong.  But the question is does one wish to deny others the right to protest while their own cause makes use of protests?  Does one think the police should lock up "them" but thinks they should be lenient with "us"… for the same action?

Truth should be everyone's goal.  We ought not to assume that an action is good or bad based on the party or cause which promotes it.  We should remember that what matters is if the action is based on truth or not.

Truth is objective: To say of what is that it is, and of that which is not, say it is not (to paraphrase Aristotle).  Yet all too often we hide simple truths in weasel words and evasions.  We don't say "killing the unborn."  They don't even like to say "abortion."  So they say "a woman's right to control her fertility."

This is not saying of what is.  It is trying to avoid saying what is.  Partisanship often comes into play here.  if the party or cause of our choice is at odds with what is true, we try to reframe it in a way favorable to us… but at the expense of truth.

Conversely, accusing a person of partisanship is wrong when it says that which is not, is or if it says that which is, is not.

There are many cases of Catholic bishops speaking out on moral issues today.  Yet they are often attacked as doing so in support of a political cause.  Are their accusers saying what is or are they saying that which is not, is?

The Catholic Church has always opposed abortion, has always been concerned with the innocent person in the world victimized.  In doing so, she must at times stand up against a world leader or a nation and say "This is wrong."

Yet when she does so, she is often accused of siding with the opponents of this leader or nation.

This is the fallacy of bifurcation.  To say something is either one thing or another ignores the possibility of a third position.  To argue that either Bishops support Obama or they are Partisan ignores the view that they oppose Obama due to their obligations to teach the moral obligations of the faith.

The world may want the Church to speak in rigid categories of either A or B.  However if neither A nor B is compatible with the Church view, the Church must say of what is that it is,  or of that which is not that it is not, without concern over whether the Party in power agrees or disagrees.

Another issue is that of confusing real issues with ways and means.  There is no political party in America which holds the view of "let the poor die hungry and without medical care."  However, our political parties do indeed argue of the ways and means of helping the poor.  One is not obligated to support one party platform to "help the poor."  It may be both parties can be wrong on an issue, in which case the believer needs to challenge the parties to change their way of thinking.

During the election season, some bishops were accused of partisanship for daring to associate one party with abortion.  After all, the other party "wasn't really pro life."  However, when one looks at the issue, one party had some members who supported abortion and some who wanted the issue to go away and a large portion saying it should be limited or illegal.  The other party publicly proclaimed abortion as a right to be defended.

To say what is, one would have to say one party has a divided view of life issues, but at this time generally opposes abortion.  The other openly sanctions abortion.

To say that the opposing of a party which openly sanctions abortion is "partisan," is to say of what is not that it is.

With Obama in the White House, there are many arguing over whether he is good or bad.  The answer is not to be defined by party lines and votes, but by the Law of God.  Where Obama does which is compatible with the Law of God, it is legitimate rule.  However, where his actions are incompatible with the rule of God, it is no law (as Thomas Aquinas said) and must be opposed.

We've now come to our ultimate consideration.  When Obama or Bush or Clinton does something, our first consideration should be over whether or not it is a good action.

If it is a good action (compatible with God's law), then there is no issue, and we ought not to oppose it, whether it comes from our own party or the other.

If it is not a good action, then we need to consider whether it is an indifferent action or a bad action.

If it is an indifferent action (one where specific behavior is not obligated under moral theology to act or not act), we are free to oppose or leave it be as we see fit.

However, if it is a bad action, we are not free to support it or leave it be, but must oppose it.

Moreover, we must oppose it regardless of whether this action comes from our own party or the other party.

If we only act based on our own political affiliation and set aside our own beliefs, we are not followers of the truth, but merely partisans.

On Partisanship

Partisan is defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person."  However, in terms of the modern usage, "partisanship" is used to accuse the other side of not being objective.

The implication is that the person who is a strong supporter of the wrong cause can't be objective or he or she would be agreeing with us.  The irony is the the person who uses the accusation of partisanship is often guilty of this in themselves.

So how does one avoid partisanship?  Ultimately the way we do this is to recognize that our loyalty to a party, to a cause or to a person can only be carried out to the extent that it or he promotes the truth. 

Ask yourself this.  Would you rather vote for a candidate who holds views directly condemned by your religious beliefs than to vote for a candidate of the other party?

If the answer is yes, then this is an example of partisanship.

Would you condemn something which was done by the other party, but tolerate the same thing when done by your own party, because it is "theirs" or "yours"?

This too is partisanship in the wrong sense of the world.

Now we have to clarify things here.  I am not talking about indifferentism.  I am not saying we need to consider all views equally valid.  There is a strong streak of relativism out there denying that there is any objective truth.  We do need to challenge what is wrong.  But the question is does one wish to deny others the right to protest while their own cause makes use of protests?  Does one think the police should lock up "them" but thinks they should be lenient with "us"… for the same action?

Truth should be everyone's goal.  We ought not to assume that an action is good or bad based on the party or cause which promotes it.  We should remember that what matters is if the action is based on truth or not.

Truth is objective: To say of what is that it is, and of that which is not, say it is not (to paraphrase Aristotle).  Yet all too often we hide simple truths in weasel words and evasions.  We don't say "killing the unborn."  They don't even like to say "abortion."  So they say "a woman's right to control her fertility."

This is not saying of what is.  It is trying to avoid saying what is.  Partisanship often comes into play here.  if the party or cause of our choice is at odds with what is true, we try to reframe it in a way favorable to us… but at the expense of truth.

Conversely, accusing a person of partisanship is wrong when it says that which is not, is or if it says that which is, is not.

There are many cases of Catholic bishops speaking out on moral issues today.  Yet they are often attacked as doing so in support of a political cause.  Are their accusers saying what is or are they saying that which is not, is?

The Catholic Church has always opposed abortion, has always been concerned with the innocent person in the world victimized.  In doing so, she must at times stand up against a world leader or a nation and say "This is wrong."

Yet when she does so, she is often accused of siding with the opponents of this leader or nation.

This is the fallacy of bifurcation.  To say something is either one thing or another ignores the possibility of a third position.  To argue that either Bishops support Obama or they are Partisan ignores the view that they oppose Obama due to their obligations to teach the moral obligations of the faith.

The world may want the Church to speak in rigid categories of either A or B.  However if neither A nor B is compatible with the Church view, the Church must say of what is that it is,  or of that which is not that it is not, without concern over whether the Party in power agrees or disagrees.

Another issue is that of confusing real issues with ways and means.  There is no political party in America which holds the view of "let the poor die hungry and without medical care."  However, our political parties do indeed argue of the ways and means of helping the poor.  One is not obligated to support one party platform to "help the poor."  It may be both parties can be wrong on an issue, in which case the believer needs to challenge the parties to change their way of thinking.

During the election season, some bishops were accused of partisanship for daring to associate one party with abortion.  After all, the other party "wasn't really pro life."  However, when one looks at the issue, one party had some members who supported abortion and some who wanted the issue to go away and a large portion saying it should be limited or illegal.  The other party publicly proclaimed abortion as a right to be defended.

To say what is, one would have to say one party has a divided view of life issues, but at this time generally opposes abortion.  The other openly sanctions abortion.

To say that the opposing of a party which openly sanctions abortion is "partisan," is to say of what is not that it is.

With Obama in the White House, there are many arguing over whether he is good or bad.  The answer is not to be defined by party lines and votes, but by the Law of God.  Where Obama does which is compatible with the Law of God, it is legitimate rule.  However, where his actions are incompatible with the rule of God, it is no law (as Thomas Aquinas said) and must be opposed.

We've now come to our ultimate consideration.  When Obama or Bush or Clinton does something, our first consideration should be over whether or not it is a good action.

If it is a good action (compatible with God's law), then there is no issue, and we ought not to oppose it, whether it comes from our own party or the other.

If it is not a good action, then we need to consider whether it is an indifferent action or a bad action.

If it is an indifferent action (one where specific behavior is not obligated under moral theology to act or not act), we are free to oppose or leave it be as we see fit.

However, if it is a bad action, we are not free to support it or leave it be, but must oppose it.

Moreover, we must oppose it regardless of whether this action comes from our own party or the other party.

If we only act based on our own political affiliation and set aside our own beliefs, we are not followers of the truth, but merely partisans.

More Reflections on Logic: "It's Just an Opinion"?

As for the fallacy, this is simply an opinion, not a debate; Forensic Rules are not in place and throwing out logical fallacies becomes tiring very quickly. I am just as entitled to an opinion as the protesters.

—Comment from an objection to a statement I made on a logical fallacy

 

Comments like this show the problems with reasoning in modern society.  Because something is said to be an opinion we can ignore the rules of logic.  The problem is, we cannot.  If I should say, for example, I was of the opinion that Obama was promoting certain programs because he would want to promote socialism in America, and because he is a Socialist he promotes these programs this would indeed an opinion.

It would also be the fallacy of Begging the Question.  My reasoning would be muddled using two opinions as proof of each other when both need to be proven.  Any person reading what I advocated would be able to say "This guy is pretty irrational, and his opinions lack any reasonable basis."

Unfortunately, people no longer consider whether what is said has basis of truth for it.  We see slogans like "Bush Lied, Kids Died" or "Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people" or "It's the economy, stupid" and accept it as true without considering "IS it true?"

Opinions are always opinions about something.  This means that their accuracy is based on how well they conform to the facts.  If I am of the opinion that the Sky is green, it is an opinion of the color of the sky.  However, if the sky is not green, my opinion is based on an error of fact.

Likewise, if I were to argue that "Hitler restored National pride to Germany, made the economy stronger and restored security after the chaos of the 1920s, therefore he was a good leader." I would be making an opinion about the nature of Hitler's regime.  However, that opinion would have to be measured up against the facts of the regime.  A person objecting to my opinion could (justly) point to the Holocaust and the Aggressions of Germany leading to war to argue (very justly) Hitler was NOT a good leader for the country.

To argue something is "good" or "bad" is not merely an opinion (though today we tend to use it when we mean we approve or disapprove of something).  It is, from a theological perspective, a statement of fact.

Today we view "good" to mean "to be desired or approved of; pleasing."  However, properly used, good should be understood to mean "that which is morally right; righteousness."

St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote on good leadership, saying:

I answer that, as stated above (Q[90], A[1], ad 2; [1992]AA[3],4), a law is nothing else than a dictate of reason in the ruler by whom his subjects are governed. Now the virtue of any subordinate thing consists in its being well subordinated to that by which it is regulated: thus we see that the virtue of the irascible and concupiscible faculties consists in their being obedient to reason; and accordingly "the virtue of every subject consists in his being well subjected to his ruler," as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). But every law aims at being obeyed by those who are subject to it. Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is "that which makes its subject good," it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good, either simply or in some particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply. If, however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or in opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good simply, but in respect to that particular government. In this way good is found even in things that are bad of themselves: thus a man is called a good robber, because he works in a way that is adapted to his end.

(Summa Theologica I-II Q 92. A1)

If we keep something like this in mind, we can realize that when offering opinions on whether something is Good or not Good, it has to have some basis in fact if it is to be a reasonable opinion.

Therefore we can see the problem with the claim of "Well, that's just your opinion."  The question remains however: On what basis does one hold an opinion?

1. If I hold an opinion which is logically sound and supported by the facts, it is an opinion which is justified.
2. if I hold an opinion which has no basis other than my own preference, it is an uninformed opinion.
3. If I hold an opinion which is illogical and runs against the facts, the opinion is wrongly formed.

However, we tend to throw around the phrase "Well that's just your opinion" as a negation, a denial of absolute truth.  If I make an argument as to why something is wrong, and the rebuttal is "That's just your opinion," the rebuttal fails to rebut.  It just says "I disagree but have no basis for it other than what I like."

The problem is, if everything is just "an opinion," then my opposition to slavery, to racism and to genocide is "just my opinion," and who am I to push it on others who think it is a good thing?

We can see the problem of ignoring logic and seeking to use "opinion" as a word to either protect one's own view from scrutiny or to deny another's statement without proving it to be false.

More Reflections on Logic: "It's Just an Opinion"?

As for the fallacy, this is simply an opinion, not a debate; Forensic Rules are not in place and throwing out logical fallacies becomes tiring very quickly. I am just as entitled to an opinion as the protesters.

—Comment from an objection to a statement I made on a logical fallacy

 

Comments like this show the problems with reasoning in modern society.  Because something is said to be an opinion we can ignore the rules of logic.  The problem is, we cannot.  If I should say, for example, I was of the opinion that Obama was promoting certain programs because he would want to promote socialism in America, and because he is a Socialist he promotes these programs this would indeed an opinion.

It would also be the fallacy of Begging the Question.  My reasoning would be muddled using two opinions as proof of each other when both need to be proven.  Any person reading what I advocated would be able to say "This guy is pretty irrational, and his opinions lack any reasonable basis."

Unfortunately, people no longer consider whether what is said has basis of truth for it.  We see slogans like "Bush Lied, Kids Died" or "Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people" or "It's the economy, stupid" and accept it as true without considering "IS it true?"

Opinions are always opinions about something.  This means that their accuracy is based on how well they conform to the facts.  If I am of the opinion that the Sky is green, it is an opinion of the color of the sky.  However, if the sky is not green, my opinion is based on an error of fact.

Likewise, if I were to argue that "Hitler restored National pride to Germany, made the economy stronger and restored security after the chaos of the 1920s, therefore he was a good leader." I would be making an opinion about the nature of Hitler's regime.  However, that opinion would have to be measured up against the facts of the regime.  A person objecting to my opinion could (justly) point to the Holocaust and the Aggressions of Germany leading to war to argue (very justly) Hitler was NOT a good leader for the country.

To argue something is "good" or "bad" is not merely an opinion (though today we tend to use it when we mean we approve or disapprove of something).  It is, from a theological perspective, a statement of fact.

Today we view "good" to mean "to be desired or approved of; pleasing."  However, properly used, good should be understood to mean "that which is morally right; righteousness."

St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote on good leadership, saying:

I answer that, as stated above (Q[90], A[1], ad 2; [1992]AA[3],4), a law is nothing else than a dictate of reason in the ruler by whom his subjects are governed. Now the virtue of any subordinate thing consists in its being well subordinated to that by which it is regulated: thus we see that the virtue of the irascible and concupiscible faculties consists in their being obedient to reason; and accordingly "the virtue of every subject consists in his being well subjected to his ruler," as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). But every law aims at being obeyed by those who are subject to it. Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is "that which makes its subject good," it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good, either simply or in some particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply. If, however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or in opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good simply, but in respect to that particular government. In this way good is found even in things that are bad of themselves: thus a man is called a good robber, because he works in a way that is adapted to his end.

(Summa Theologica I-II Q 92. A1)

If we keep something like this in mind, we can realize that when offering opinions on whether something is Good or not Good, it has to have some basis in fact if it is to be a reasonable opinion.

Therefore we can see the problem with the claim of "Well, that's just your opinion."  The question remains however: On what basis does one hold an opinion?

1. If I hold an opinion which is logically sound and supported by the facts, it is an opinion which is justified.
2. if I hold an opinion which has no basis other than my own preference, it is an uninformed opinion.
3. If I hold an opinion which is illogical and runs against the facts, the opinion is wrongly formed.

However, we tend to throw around the phrase "Well that's just your opinion" as a negation, a denial of absolute truth.  If I make an argument as to why something is wrong, and the rebuttal is "That's just your opinion," the rebuttal fails to rebut.  It just says "I disagree but have no basis for it other than what I like."

The problem is, if everything is just "an opinion," then my opposition to slavery, to racism and to genocide is "just my opinion," and who am I to push it on others who think it is a good thing?

We can see the problem of ignoring logic and seeking to use "opinion" as a word to either protect one's own view from scrutiny or to deny another's statement without proving it to be false.

Muddled Thinking and The Need For Reason

Writing a blog and scanning the news of the world for things to write on, one often comes across examples of muddled thinking.  A problematic assumption is grasped and the individual then reaches a conclusion which does not work but because the assumption is not investigated, the flaws in the conclusion are not considered.

Then we have the gall to claim the Law of Unintended Consequences when the plan goes awry: that any purposeful action will produce some unanticipated or unintended consequences.  Now of course some things cannot be anticipated based on a lack of knowledge which cannot be corrected through study (invincible ignorance).  However, other things can indeed be learned of through study, common sense and observation of the Natural Law.  In those cases, "unintended consequences" are due to negligence and could be avoided with the proper consideration.

The state of the West today is certainly one resulting from negligence.  We started by questioning whether man could know absolute truths.  Now, there is nothing to appeal to to tell people not to do things we find repugnant.  This is because the problematic assumption "we cannot know absolute truths" was accepted by a large portion of the population without considering whether or not it is true.

(The fault in the assumption shown in the example, by the way, is it is self-contradictory: An absolute statement that one cannot know absolutes).

In the political arena today, we see this muddled thinking.

1. The person I disagree with opposes this view because he is partisan
2. Therefore we can negate what they say

The problem is, we have muddled thinking in premise one.  The first statement holds an enthymeme (an unspoken assumption) which is: "My view is correct and any opposition must be done as partisanship, not as real truth."

When the enthymeme is recognized, the argument becomes:

1. My view is correct and any opposition must be done as partisanship instead of from any true concern.
2. Person X disagrees with me
3. Therefore person X is partisan.

The muddled thinking here is the assumption one has the correct view of what their opponent is thinking.  However, if the person does not have the motive ascribed, the argument becomes false.

Take for example the Catholic bishops in America who have taken a public stand on Obama and his approval of abortion rights.  The assumption is they are opposing Obama because of political issues (the enthymeme is that abortion is a political issue), and therefore their motivation is partisan and can be discounted.

The problem is the Catholic Church has taught abortion was evil as far back as the first century, long before the presidency of Obama, or of Roe v. Wade, or the existence of the Democratic Party, or the existence of the United States of America.  The Church believes that human life is human life from the time of conception.

From this the argument can be made:

1. The human life of a person begins at the moment of conception
2. Abortion ends the existence of a person after conception
3. Therefore abortion ends a human life

Because the Church does hold this, it means it must oppose any politician or political party which acts contrary to this understanding of life.  It does not matter what the affiliation of the party.  if the party or government promotes the ability of another to end a human life freely, the party or government must be opposed.  It would be muddled thinking then to assume that the opposition to a government is based on partisan reasons.

Because of this, when analyzing claims made, we need to start with the question of what is true.  If a claim is made, we need to look at it from the perspective of exploring whether or not it is true, and whether the conclusions made from that assumption logically follow.  If the assumption is false, or the conclusion does not logically follow from the assumption, the end result is error.

I believe that for the Christian, we need to consider that if we believe the teaching of Christ and the teaching about Christ is true, we need to see the logical conclusions of that belief.

CS Lewis once created the famous dilemma: Aut Deus aut homo malus.  (Either God or a bad man).

The assumption is a person claiming to be God cannot be a merely good man.  Either Christ was speaking the truth or he was not.  If he was not speaking the truth, the consequences are either He was deluded or He was lying (famously summed up as "Liar, Lunatic or Lord.")

If He was lying or deranged, then his words lack the authority to bind anyone.  However if he is God, then what He says has complete relevance over our lives.

Yet many people choose the most illogical option: That he was a wise man who taught a philosophy about being nice to each other.  To do this, they must choose certain words they agree with and ignore the ones which require changes to behavior.  This makes the teaching about Christ and the teaching by Christ superfluous.  If it agrees with what one already believes it is unnecessary.  If it contradicts, it is wrong (or "added later.")

This is muddled thinking again.  It moves the focus away from God and towards the self.  What God teaches is reduced in comparison to "This is what I would do if I were God…"

To return to the main point, the belief there is an absolute truth and the denial of there being an absolute truth are the two roads to take.  Either one requires proof for their claims.  Christianity has provided 2,000 years of explanations as to why there is an absolute truth.  One is free to reject this of course, but then they need to provide justification for their own assumption.

Unfortunately this is not done.  This assumption is made from the faulty reasoning that: "I disagree with there being an absolute truth.  Therefore there is none.  Prove me wrong."  The fact that one disagrees with arguments from the Christian perspective neither proves them wrong nor the opposite right.

Yet this assumption goes unchallenged in the West nowadays.

To see the end results of this faulty assumption, we need only to pick up a newspaper.

Nobody should just blindly accept a statement is fact unless it is established to be true or that the one making the statement is reliable as being knowledgeable on the subject.  If one wishes to challenge the view of another, let it not be made on an unquestioned assumption, but on a well reasoned exploration of what we know to be true.

Muddled Thinking and The Need For Reason

Writing a blog and scanning the news of the world for things to write on, one often comes across examples of muddled thinking.  A problematic assumption is grasped and the individual then reaches a conclusion which does not work but because the assumption is not investigated, the flaws in the conclusion are not considered.

Then we have the gall to claim the Law of Unintended Consequences when the plan goes awry: that any purposeful action will produce some unanticipated or unintended consequences.  Now of course some things cannot be anticipated based on a lack of knowledge which cannot be corrected through study (invincible ignorance).  However, other things can indeed be learned of through study, common sense and observation of the Natural Law.  In those cases, "unintended consequences" are due to negligence and could be avoided with the proper consideration.

The state of the West today is certainly one resulting from negligence.  We started by questioning whether man could know absolute truths.  Now, there is nothing to appeal to to tell people not to do things we find repugnant.  This is because the problematic assumption "we cannot know absolute truths" was accepted by a large portion of the population without considering whether or not it is true.

(The fault in the assumption shown in the example, by the way, is it is self-contradictory: An absolute statement that one cannot know absolutes).

In the political arena today, we see this muddled thinking.

1. The person I disagree with opposes this view because he is partisan
2. Therefore we can negate what they say

The problem is, we have muddled thinking in premise one.  The first statement holds an enthymeme (an unspoken assumption) which is: "My view is correct and any opposition must be done as partisanship, not as real truth."

When the enthymeme is recognized, the argument becomes:

1. My view is correct and any opposition must be done as partisanship instead of from any true concern.
2. Person X disagrees with me
3. Therefore person X is partisan.

The muddled thinking here is the assumption one has the correct view of what their opponent is thinking.  However, if the person does not have the motive ascribed, the argument becomes false.

Take for example the Catholic bishops in America who have taken a public stand on Obama and his approval of abortion rights.  The assumption is they are opposing Obama because of political issues (the enthymeme is that abortion is a political issue), and therefore their motivation is partisan and can be discounted.

The problem is the Catholic Church has taught abortion was evil as far back as the first century, long before the presidency of Obama, or of Roe v. Wade, or the existence of the Democratic Party, or the existence of the United States of America.  The Church believes that human life is human life from the time of conception.

From this the argument can be made:

1. The human life of a person begins at the moment of conception
2. Abortion ends the existence of a person after conception
3. Therefore abortion ends a human life

Because the Church does hold this, it means it must oppose any politician or political party which acts contrary to this understanding of life.  It does not matter what the affiliation of the party.  if the party or government promotes the ability of another to end a human life freely, the party or government must be opposed.  It would be muddled thinking then to assume that the opposition to a government is based on partisan reasons.

Because of this, when analyzing claims made, we need to start with the question of what is true.  If a claim is made, we need to look at it from the perspective of exploring whether or not it is true, and whether the conclusions made from that assumption logically follow.  If the assumption is false, or the conclusion does not logically follow from the assumption, the end result is error.

I believe that for the Christian, we need to consider that if we believe the teaching of Christ and the teaching about Christ is true, we need to see the logical conclusions of that belief.

CS Lewis once created the famous dilemma: Aut Deus aut homo malus.  (Either God or a bad man).

The assumption is a person claiming to be God cannot be a merely good man.  Either Christ was speaking the truth or he was not.  If he was not speaking the truth, the consequences are either He was deluded or He was lying (famously summed up as "Liar, Lunatic or Lord.")

If He was lying or deranged, then his words lack the authority to bind anyone.  However if he is God, then what He says has complete relevance over our lives.

Yet many people choose the most illogical option: That he was a wise man who taught a philosophy about being nice to each other.  To do this, they must choose certain words they agree with and ignore the ones which require changes to behavior.  This makes the teaching about Christ and the teaching by Christ superfluous.  If it agrees with what one already believes it is unnecessary.  If it contradicts, it is wrong (or "added later.")

This is muddled thinking again.  It moves the focus away from God and towards the self.  What God teaches is reduced in comparison to "This is what I would do if I were God…"

To return to the main point, the belief there is an absolute truth and the denial of there being an absolute truth are the two roads to take.  Either one requires proof for their claims.  Christianity has provided 2,000 years of explanations as to why there is an absolute truth.  One is free to reject this of course, but then they need to provide justification for their own assumption.

Unfortunately this is not done.  This assumption is made from the faulty reasoning that: "I disagree with there being an absolute truth.  Therefore there is none.  Prove me wrong."  The fact that one disagrees with arguments from the Christian perspective neither proves them wrong nor the opposite right.

Yet this assumption goes unchallenged in the West nowadays.

To see the end results of this faulty assumption, we need only to pick up a newspaper.

Nobody should just blindly accept a statement is fact unless it is established to be true or that the one making the statement is reliable as being knowledgeable on the subject.  If one wishes to challenge the view of another, let it not be made on an unquestioned assumption, but on a well reasoned exploration of what we know to be true.

Reflections on the Readings for the Twenty Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time

Source: USCCB - (NAB) - September 13, 2009

The readings this week seem to speak strongly about what it means when we go through hardships. In modern times, we tend to support a gospel of prosperity. When things are good, it means God is with us. When things are hard, we think God has “abandoned” us.

However the readings this week tell us otherwise. In the first reading we read of Isaiah speaking of the hardships he is undergoing. He does not speak of God as having left him in hard times. Rather he accepts the sufferings he is going through because he knows God is with him, and he will not be put to shame ultimately because he is doing God’s will and God will uphold him.

The second reading speaks of the consequences of knowing this. It is not enough to say “I believe in God.” What are we doing to show we believe in God. If we believe in God and believe He is who He says He is, then we need to put that faith in the center of our life, and to produce works that shows Christ is the center of our lives. Not just say “Sure I believe in God” but only behave this way for an hour on Sundays yet live the rest of the week as if our faith had no right to intrude.

The Gospel reading shows us of how easy it is to fall into the “If God is with me all will go well” form of thinking. The Apostles see truthfully that Jesus is the Christ. However, they have the mindset of “If God is with us, all will go well with us.” So when Jesus speaks of the suffering Messiah, Peter objects. It is not how he thinks it should be. So Jesus reprimands him, saying “You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

In the world today, the move is away from God and towards the self. We think that God is supposed to provide for our physical needs and forget that the ultimate state of our soul is what matters. The world may hate us for speaking out and acting according to our beliefs. However, when a man of the world does us wrong because we live according to our faith we should say as Isaiah did: “Let that man confront me. See, the Lord GOD is my help; who will prove me wrong?”