TFTD: Damnant quod non intellegunt (They condemn what they do not understand)

 

Dammant quod non intelligunt – They condemn what they do not understand.  These words of wisdom by Cicero are important to consider when witnessing the modern American political discourse.  All too often we see rhetoric which condemns a position while that condemnation demonstrates no comprehension of what they oppose.

A couple of days ago, someone posted the following comment on Facebook.

"[A]ll of us need to put a stop to the 'Republican WAR ON WOMEN'. I can NOT, I am mean [sic] I can not understand why ANY woman would be a republican."

Which made me think of a comment made by GK Chesterton:

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

—G.K. Chesterton in The Catholic Church and Conversion

I think this points out the dangers of the ideology being forced on us today.  The people who cannot comprehend why we believe what we do respond by ad hominem attacks condemning those they disagree with. 

GK Chesterton wrote once, in the article, The Drift from Domesticity:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

I think it is a valid point.  I can understand why a Blue Collar Catholic or a Feminist might support the platform of the Democratic Party.  I believe their reasoning is faulty and leads them to a wrong conclusion, but I do understand the point their reasoning comes from.  I can also understand why certain Conservatives might be tempted by the Ayn Rand concept of Objectivism (a wrong turn in the concept of objective truth), even though I believe it is also wrong.  It is by understanding what they do think, I can also understand where they go wrong.

But when someone who opposes the Republican platform says, "I can not understand why ANY woman would be a republican," shouldn't such a person step back and ponder the issue before condemning it?  How do they know their knowledge contains all truth and no part of untruth?

Essentially this mindset argues that (to put it in a valid form):

1. Everything I understand is true (All A is B)
2. I do not understand [X] (No C is B)
3. Therefore [X] is not true. (Therefore No C is A)

Even if the major premise is true (doubtful), that does not mean Everything that is true I understand (all [B] is [A]).  There can be gaps in the knowledge, and if there are gaps, there can be things which are true and you do not understand.  So it is foolish to think that because you do not see a reason a thing can be so, it follows that it cannot be so.

One can say, "I understand what they claim, but reject it as false."  One can say, "I do not understand, and so I need to explore more."  One can say, "I understand what is claimed and I accept it as true."  These three responses can be wise.  But to say, "I do not understand, so I think it is wrong" is not the act of wisdom, but the act of a fool.

This is one of the problems of modern thinking.  Nobody seems to recognize Socrates' maxim, The unexamined life is not worth living (Plato, Apology 38a), which is a pity  Responding to the question at his trial as to why he cannot just be quiet and stop teaching to save his life, he says:

Now this is the hardest thing to make some of you believe. For if I say that such conduct would be disobedience to the god and that therefore I cannot keep quiet, you will think I am jesting and will not believe me; [38a] and if again I say that to talk every day about virtue and the other things about which you hear me talking and examining myself and others is the greatest good to man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you will believe me still less.

Plato. (1966). Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 1 translated by Harold North Fowler; Introduction by W.R.M. Lamb. Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd.

In other words, Socrates believed he was obligated to continue to examine himself and others as the greatest good to man, and the life which failed to do so was not worth living – not an endorsement of suicide but a commentary on the quality of life of the person who does not do so.  All of us are called to search for the truth and to absorb it into our lives. 

To refuse to accept truth and to refuse to reject error on the grounds of not understanding, is foolishness.

TFTD: Damnant quod non intellegunt (They condemn what they do not understand)

 

Dammant quod non intelligunt – They condemn what they do not understand.  These words of wisdom by Cicero are important to consider when witnessing the modern American political discourse.  All too often we see rhetoric which condemns a position while that condemnation demonstrates no comprehension of what they oppose.

A couple of days ago, someone posted the following comment on Facebook.

"[A]ll of us need to put a stop to the 'Republican WAR ON WOMEN'. I can NOT, I am mean [sic] I can not understand why ANY woman would be a republican."

Which made me think of a comment made by GK Chesterton:

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

—G.K. Chesterton in The Catholic Church and Conversion

I think this points out the dangers of the ideology being forced on us today.  The people who cannot comprehend why we believe what we do respond by ad hominem attacks condemning those they disagree with. 

GK Chesterton wrote once, in the article, The Drift from Domesticity:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

I think it is a valid point.  I can understand why a Blue Collar Catholic or a Feminist might support the platform of the Democratic Party.  I believe their reasoning is faulty and leads them to a wrong conclusion, but I do understand the point their reasoning comes from.  I can also understand why certain Conservatives might be tempted by the Ayn Rand concept of Objectivism (a wrong turn in the concept of objective truth), even though I believe it is also wrong.  It is by understanding what they do think, I can also understand where they go wrong.

But when someone who opposes the Republican platform says, "I can not understand why ANY woman would be a republican," shouldn't such a person step back and ponder the issue before condemning it?  How do they know their knowledge contains all truth and no part of untruth?

Essentially this mindset argues that (to put it in a valid form):

1. Everything I understand is true (All A is B)
2. I do not understand [X] (No C is B)
3. Therefore [X] is not true. (Therefore No C is A)

Even if the major premise is true (doubtful), that does not mean Everything that is true I understand (all [B] is [A]).  There can be gaps in the knowledge, and if there are gaps, there can be things which are true and you do not understand.  So it is foolish to think that because you do not see a reason a thing can be so, it follows that it cannot be so.

One can say, "I understand what they claim, but reject it as false."  One can say, "I do not understand, and so I need to explore more."  One can say, "I understand what is claimed and I accept it as true."  These three responses can be wise.  But to say, "I do not understand, so I think it is wrong" is not the act of wisdom, but the act of a fool.

This is one of the problems of modern thinking.  Nobody seems to recognize Socrates' maxim, The unexamined life is not worth living (Plato, Apology 38a), which is a pity  Responding to the question at his trial as to why he cannot just be quiet and stop teaching to save his life, he says:

Now this is the hardest thing to make some of you believe. For if I say that such conduct would be disobedience to the god and that therefore I cannot keep quiet, you will think I am jesting and will not believe me; [38a] and if again I say that to talk every day about virtue and the other things about which you hear me talking and examining myself and others is the greatest good to man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you will believe me still less.

Plato. (1966). Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 1 translated by Harold North Fowler; Introduction by W.R.M. Lamb. Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd.

In other words, Socrates believed he was obligated to continue to examine himself and others as the greatest good to man, and the life which failed to do so was not worth living – not an endorsement of suicide but a commentary on the quality of life of the person who does not do so.  All of us are called to search for the truth and to absorb it into our lives. 

To refuse to accept truth and to refuse to reject error on the grounds of not understanding, is foolishness.

American Kulturkampf

The 19^th century Kulturkampf (literally Culture War or Culture Struggle) of Germany is an important event to consider for 21^st century America because of what it was – the transformation of hostility towards Catholicism into an attempt by the government to control and limit the Church.  I believe it is important to be aware of what happened then because, unlike other historical events, this one can be duplicated.

Preliminary Note

This is not an "Obama = Hitler" article.  I don't approve of that meme.  Obama is Obama.  Hitler is Hitler.  Hitler's rise to power and subsequent actions depended on attitudes and political conditions not found in America.  Hitler was an extreme German nationalist who believed in a strong Germanic volk at the expense of other peoples and nations.  Obama appears to believe that his policies will benefit all people, but "right wingers" are trying to block his policies.

In contrast, the current Kulturkampf is an event which began before Obama, and may continue after he has left office.  Obama is certainly taking part in the Kulturkampf, but it does not depend on him.

What Was the Kulturkampf?

The Kulturkampf arose in 19^th century Germany from an attitude from different factions of society which believed Catholicism was harmful to a strong Germany.  Specifically it was a combination of the nationalist state, nominal Catholics and certain hostile Protestants.  This hostility began at a time when the Catholic Church in Germany was awakening the morals of German Catholics.  The factions in question made accusations of the Church interfering in politics and of intolerance – of trying to impose their values on others.  They were accused of being enemies of progress.

Basically, it was assumed that Catholicism was in opposition to what was "right."  Therefore, for the good of the people, Catholicism had to be opposed.

The attacks began with trying to change public opinion to assume that the Catholic teachings were unnatural.  Isolated scandals were portrayed as the norm for the Church.  The clergy was treated as predatory, controlling and heartless to the concerns of the people.  It was argued that the Church had no right to teach as she did and needed to change.

Once the state became involved we began to see attempts through law to target the Church.  It was argued certain Catholic institutions were not protected under the concept of the freedom of religion.  Gradually, attempts were made to remove Church control from their properties, instituting fines against Catholics that did not comply with demands of the State and fines against churches which spoke out against the wrongdoing of the state from the pulpit.

Eventually it got to the point where the state demanded the right to choose who would fill Church positions, often preventing these positions from being filled.  Bishops and priests were jailed for refusing to comply.

Essentially, the Kulturkampf was an attempt to silence the Church and limit her when her activities did not serve the state.

Similarities to Today are Striking

Now of course there are some differences between today and then.  Today, faithful Protestants are standing with the Church against the government, recognizing the government and not the Church is the threat.  The state has not (yet?) attempted to control who can become a priest or bishop or jailed clergy for opposing them.  The state is not motivated by nationalism, but by a belief that Christian morality is a restriction of "rights."

But for the most part, the similarities between 19^th century Germany and 21^st century America are undeniable.  Political factions, nominal Catholics and Protestants, and the state itself is attempting to dictate to the Church whether her institutions can follow Church teaching in the realm of sexual morality.  The Church is deemed backwards and contrary to American values of freedom by refusing to compromise on issues like the HHS mandate, abortion and "gay marriage."

It is claimed that the Catholic hospitals and universities are not protected by the freedom of religion because they serve more than Catholics.

Scandals are portrayed as being universal within the Church, when they are not.

Ultimately, the portrayal is that Catholics who are faithful to the Church are dangerous right wingers who need to be isolated.

What Are We to Do?

Catholics today do need to be aware of the fact that groups hostile to us are trying to use the law to infringe on our religious freedoms.  What we will need to do is to explain and defend the faith and demonstrate to people of good will that this is not merely a "Catholic Issue."  It is an issue of freedom which harms everyone if the government is not opposed.

We will have to show both the issue of religious freedom and demonstrate why the Catholic moral teachings are right.  The former is necessary to alert people to the dangers of a government violating the Constitution unchallenged.  The latter is necessary to explain to people why contraception and abortion are not issues of "rights" but of reducing people to things.

We also need to be responsible voters.  Ultimately the supporters of the German Kulturkampf suffered reverses in elections and some of the most hostile to the Church were voted out.  We can't say, "Well this politician is bad on religious freedom, but I like his stand on taxes, so I'll vote for him anyway."  We have to realize that the greatest threats must be dealt with first.

As the US Bishops said in 1998:

Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care.  Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all these areas. Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life. But being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" -- the living house of God -- then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation.

(Living the Gospel of Life #23.  Italics original.  Underline added for emphasis)

Yes, there are many issues the Church teaches about.  However, as the Bishops wisely pointed out. when the fundamental values are attacked, those attackers who support the secondary values are suspect.

Catholics and Non-Catholics of good faith need to recognize that we cannot be complacent.  When faced with a government overtly hostile to our moral teachings and seeking to demand of us that we disobey our Church, we must oppose that government as part of our correcting the person in error.

American Kulturkampf

The 19^th century Kulturkampf (literally Culture War or Culture Struggle) of Germany is an important event to consider for 21^st century America because of what it was – the transformation of hostility towards Catholicism into an attempt by the government to control and limit the Church.  I believe it is important to be aware of what happened then because, unlike other historical events, this one can be duplicated.

Preliminary Note

This is not an "Obama = Hitler" article.  I don't approve of that meme.  Obama is Obama.  Hitler is Hitler.  Hitler's rise to power and subsequent actions depended on attitudes and political conditions not found in America.  Hitler was an extreme German nationalist who believed in a strong Germanic volk at the expense of other peoples and nations.  Obama appears to believe that his policies will benefit all people, but "right wingers" are trying to block his policies.

In contrast, the current Kulturkampf is an event which began before Obama, and may continue after he has left office.  Obama is certainly taking part in the Kulturkampf, but it does not depend on him.

What Was the Kulturkampf?

The Kulturkampf arose in 19^th century Germany from an attitude from different factions of society which believed Catholicism was harmful to a strong Germany.  Specifically it was a combination of the nationalist state, nominal Catholics and certain hostile Protestants.  This hostility began at a time when the Catholic Church in Germany was awakening the morals of German Catholics.  The factions in question made accusations of the Church interfering in politics and of intolerance – of trying to impose their values on others.  They were accused of being enemies of progress.

Basically, it was assumed that Catholicism was in opposition to what was "right."  Therefore, for the good of the people, Catholicism had to be opposed.

The attacks began with trying to change public opinion to assume that the Catholic teachings were unnatural.  Isolated scandals were portrayed as the norm for the Church.  The clergy was treated as predatory, controlling and heartless to the concerns of the people.  It was argued that the Church had no right to teach as she did and needed to change.

Once the state became involved we began to see attempts through law to target the Church.  It was argued certain Catholic institutions were not protected under the concept of the freedom of religion.  Gradually, attempts were made to remove Church control from their properties, instituting fines against Catholics that did not comply with demands of the State and fines against churches which spoke out against the wrongdoing of the state from the pulpit.

Eventually it got to the point where the state demanded the right to choose who would fill Church positions, often preventing these positions from being filled.  Bishops and priests were jailed for refusing to comply.

Essentially, the Kulturkampf was an attempt to silence the Church and limit her when her activities did not serve the state.

Similarities to Today are Striking

Now of course there are some differences between today and then.  Today, faithful Protestants are standing with the Church against the government, recognizing the government and not the Church is the threat.  The state has not (yet?) attempted to control who can become a priest or bishop or jailed clergy for opposing them.  The state is not motivated by nationalism, but by a belief that Christian morality is a restriction of "rights."

But for the most part, the similarities between 19^th century Germany and 21^st century America are undeniable.  Political factions, nominal Catholics and Protestants, and the state itself is attempting to dictate to the Church whether her institutions can follow Church teaching in the realm of sexual morality.  The Church is deemed backwards and contrary to American values of freedom by refusing to compromise on issues like the HHS mandate, abortion and "gay marriage."

It is claimed that the Catholic hospitals and universities are not protected by the freedom of religion because they serve more than Catholics.

Scandals are portrayed as being universal within the Church, when they are not.

Ultimately, the portrayal is that Catholics who are faithful to the Church are dangerous right wingers who need to be isolated.

What Are We to Do?

Catholics today do need to be aware of the fact that groups hostile to us are trying to use the law to infringe on our religious freedoms.  What we will need to do is to explain and defend the faith and demonstrate to people of good will that this is not merely a "Catholic Issue."  It is an issue of freedom which harms everyone if the government is not opposed.

We will have to show both the issue of religious freedom and demonstrate why the Catholic moral teachings are right.  The former is necessary to alert people to the dangers of a government violating the Constitution unchallenged.  The latter is necessary to explain to people why contraception and abortion are not issues of "rights" but of reducing people to things.

We also need to be responsible voters.  Ultimately the supporters of the German Kulturkampf suffered reverses in elections and some of the most hostile to the Church were voted out.  We can't say, "Well this politician is bad on religious freedom, but I like his stand on taxes, so I'll vote for him anyway."  We have to realize that the greatest threats must be dealt with first.

As the US Bishops said in 1998:

Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care.  Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all these areas. Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life. But being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" -- the living house of God -- then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation.

(Living the Gospel of Life #23.  Italics original.  Underline added for emphasis)

Yes, there are many issues the Church teaches about.  However, as the Bishops wisely pointed out. when the fundamental values are attacked, those attackers who support the secondary values are suspect.

Catholics and Non-Catholics of good faith need to recognize that we cannot be complacent.  When faced with a government overtly hostile to our moral teachings and seeking to demand of us that we disobey our Church, we must oppose that government as part of our correcting the person in error.

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.

On Hiatus

My computer tends to shut off every 20-30 minutes, which is hardly long enough to work on a blog article.  I hope to keep studying and writing until I get a machine which is more reliable and then begin blogging again.  I may post now and again if I get access to borrow someone else's machine.

 

May God Bless you all and I hope this hiatus is shorter rather than longer.

 

EDIT: I find with the side of the computer removed and a fan blowing, I can increase my computer's activity.  Hopefully this will last until I can get a new machine.