Tag Archive for christian at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Tag Archive for 'christian'

How Many Evangelical Christians Have Been Neo-Conned

Published by Colin March 18, 2010 in Essays, Religion, Politics, Philosophy and Theology. 4 Comments

The Austrian Scholars Conference 2010 has now concluded and the paper by Dr Kevin Clauson on “Why Evangelicals Don’t Like Austrian Political Economy—But Should” is essential listening for just about any Christian. Dr Clauson was kind enough to send me along a draft to make writing this article easier. Please feel free to read it (NOTE: THIS IS A DRAFT COPY, posted with permission from the author). Also, listen to the paper (30 mins.).

Clauson has spent time both at Liberty University (22 years, most of them as head of their Government department) and also in the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential campaign - so he knows what he’s talking about.

The framework for the argument is laid out by first establishing key definitions:

An evangelical bases his thinking on scripture first (not tradition, not a pope, not natural law). It is, at minimum, an adherence to innerrancy in scripture, the sinfulness of man, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, the resurrection.

But Clauson goes further to note that several non-theological concepts have been added and adopted almost universally among evangelicals:

A vaguely defined adherence to “political conservatism”
Social issues (immorality of abortion, gay marriage, etc..)
Certain immoral behaviours should be regulated by government (alcohol, drugs, pornography…)
A support for a “free market” (but a lack of knowledge as to exactly what that is, and a lack of concern about monetary policy)
Reverence for the Constitution (again, though a fairly abysmal knowledge of what the Constitution actually says)
A “Strong defence” (which can mean a global military presence, especially in the Middle East)
The US is morally obligated to support Israel

Clauson then makes the statement that builds the crux of his argument: that evangelicals, based on their own theological criteria, should actually find some common ground with Austrianism. If Evangelicals would start from their main, and primary frame of reference: that scripture should be of first importance, then they would actually be more sympathetic. Clauson argues that Evangelicals need to examine their bibles closer.

However, the main reasons why evangelicals have problems with Austrianism (and many libertarian views by extension):

Many Evangelicals confuse “sins” and “crimes” in scripture. A simplistic reading of scripture has lead to many evangelicals applying broad, sweeping conclusions about sins as crimes. The bible calls many things sins, but it does not necessarily call all sins crimes (of course areas such as murder, theft, etc… are clearly defined in scripture as crimes). There is no biblical justification for making those sins which the bible does not also call crime, into state-enforced laws against sin. Again, this is derived solely from scripture and fits within the fundamentals of the evangelical worldview. Clauson:

Substantial freedom may not always be “pretty” (on the societal level—churches and religious organizations would certainly be free to deal with such behaviors, and others, within their own private domains), but it is not necessarily unbiblical, according to the Bible itself, the authoritative guide for Evangelicalism.

Continue reading ‘How Many Evangelical Christians Have Been Neo-Conned’

Links Explosion Extravaganza and Spending Spree of Link Currency!

Published by Colin February 22, 2010 in Current Events. 2 Comments

I admit it. I have been derelict in my linking. My workload is fairly intense at the moment - even my video games are suffering. Nevertheless, links are now provided - straight from the mouths of the suicidal die-hards left on this slowly sinking ship of a site. Post a link in the forum and we’ll put it up in our ~~weekly~~ (…I’m so irresponsible…) links post!

The Human Animal
Working women who claim partners don’t pull their weight do so to feel more feminine and in charge in the home

Better Off Deadbeat: Craig Cunningham Has a Simple Solution for Getting Bill Collectors Off His Back. He Sues Them:

While most Americans with unpaid bills dread the collector’s call, Cunningham sees them as lucrative opportunities. Many collection and credit card companies, intentionally or not, violate little-known consumer rights laws, and Cunningham’s favorite pastime is catching them doing so and then suing them. In fact, it’s a profitable side job.
…
[Most debtors], either because they feel morally obligated or because they don’t know their options, get backed into a corner by their creditors and believe they have to repay their debts, he says. Not so with Cunningham. “I don’t have to do anything but stay black and die,” he says, a small, smug smile on his lips.
…
Former New York debt collector turned consumer advocate … Steven Katz doesn’t believe that people are morally obligated to pay back their debts. That notion was invented by debt collectors as a way to beat people into submission, he says. “Bill collectors would love for you to send them a check and then explain to your kids because you have the moral obligation to pay your debt they’re not eating this week,” he says. “But they don’t see the moral obligation to feed your children or yourself.

Another article celebrating the wickedness of man. The Secret Lives of Married Men.

The Political Animal
The Forfeiture Racket:

Over the past three decades, it has become routine in the United States for state, local, and federal governments to seize the property of people who were never even charged with, much less convicted of, a crime.
….
State officials can seize property without a warrant and need only show “probable cause” that the booty was connected to a drug crime in order to keep it, as opposed to the criminal standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Washington Post Columnist writes about young activists adding fuel to antiabortion side

‘Realistic-size me’. FDA looks at changing serving sizes to fit what people actually consume.

Most Americans fail a basic civics test made up of questions from naturalization exams given to immigrants seeking citizenship. Take the 33-question test yourself to see how you do: Civics Quiz.

Ron Paul Helped Inspire the Tea Party Movement, and Now It Could Take Him Down

Terrorism Derangement Syndrome

The Religious… Animal?
Be careful how you speak of God. Using the “wrong” word could get your church bombed.

A retired engineer determined to prevent his home being sacrificed to the sea is battling on, despite being denied the right to maintain his self-made sea defences.

Links for Which I could Not Figure out a Clever Way to Use the Word “Animal”
EUGENE, Ore. — We’re learning more about a Eugene man, Ben Bond, who was fined $810 after a confrontation with a meter maid. The trouble started Wednesday when Bond tried paying the expired parking meters of strangers.

A farmer who secretly built a castle and hid it behind straw bales for four years while he lived in it has lost a court battle to stop it being demolished.

If you have been under a rock: Here is the best you tube economics rap ever.

How to Report the News: Cliches in News Programs

Should We “Obey Those Who Rule Over” Us? - A Short Commentary on Hebrews 13:17

Published by Colin January 27, 2010 in Theology. 2 Comments

Part of the problem with being a Christian who is also a libertarian, unless one goes to a pretty unique church, is questions (either from one’s self or others) about just how the anti-authoritarianism inherent in libertarianism meshes with the bible. In my personal devotional time yesterday, I came across one of those passages which can provide Christian libertarians some trouble:

Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you (Hebrews 13:17 NKJV).

This verse does not seem to leave any room for interpretation. It definitely appears to make a strong case for both obedience and submission to “those who rule.” There is no question that a Christian reading this passage would have to conclude - yes, we must obey and submit to those who rule over us.

But who are “those who rule?”

The ESV and the NIV use a slightly less secular sounding word: obey “your leaders.”

I then busted out my Greek New Testament and Lexicon and looked up the word. The Greek word used is “ηγουμενος” and it is exactly the same word used in verse 7 and is translated in both places as “a chief officer in the church.” This gels well with verse 7’s qualification of the roles of “those who rule:” they speak the word to us, demonstrate faith to us and have Godly conduct.

So the answer is that we should obey and submit to the leaders mentioned in Hebrews 13 - because these leaders are our pastors and elders in the church. That authority is a voluntary authority for the sake of order in God’s church, and God holds them accountable. This may not be a verse commanding obedience and submission to secular rulers, but it does remind us of God’s order in the church and his wisdom and care in putting men in pastoral authority to provide as teachers, leaders, servants and examples to us in our Christian walk.

Tips for Leaders and Pastors on Being Approachable

Published by Colin January 19, 2010 in Religion and Theology. 2 Comments

My wife sends me some great stuff in the old email. This article on how leaders and pastors can be more approachable was especially challenging and insightful.

I’ve led worship for eleven years and in two churches, and I can say that approachability has been one of those areas that has frustrated, confused and perplexed me. How is it that a person can be interacting with a church almost every Sunday, for almost as much time as the pastor himself, and yet experience completely varying amounts of intimacy with others in the congregation? At the same time, I have met different leaders in churches and some just seemed “aloof” and the idea of confiding in them or seeking their help for real, important issues seemed discouraged or unwanted.

Many leaders conceal a proud attitude under a demeanor of humility, which is not the same as actual humility. One of the many evidences of actual humility is the inclination to “consider others better than yourself,” which results in valuing their thoughts and interests as highly as your own (Phil. 2:3-4). A closely related evidence of humility is to sincerely welcome critique and correction, no matter who brings the “observation” (Prov. 13:10, 17:10). Therefore, wise leaders regularly meditate and pray about the “pride and humility” passages in Scripture (see Prov. 11:2, 19:20; Isa. 66:3; 1 Pet. 5:5-6), asking God to help them put off self-confidence, pride, and every hint of arrogance, and to put on a humility that genuinely welcomes questions, suggestions, criticism, and anything else that might aid us in the process of presenting ourselves before God as empty vessels, so that we might be utterly dependent on and fulfilled in him, which is the essence of true humility.

It’s easy as a leader to assume that simply because we lead in some way that we simply are approachable. This article along with a few other teachings and resources (CJ Mahaney’s Humility among others) has been a real eye-opener for me, enabling me to learn more about cultivating an attitude and mindset which promotes deeper and more effective ministry. It was even more (”fun” - is that the right word?) to go through this book along with another man, whom I could trust for honest feedback and critical, loving suggestions about my own life in this area (next, we are going through this book, and I am absolutely squirming with dread/excitement).

Christianity and Covenants: The Local Church

Published by Colin January 4, 2010 in Religion and Theology. 1 Comment

This is the fifth article in a multi-part series examining contracts and Christianity. Here is the full list of written and upcoming works in this series:

Overview
God and Christians
Christians and Marriage
Christians and Employers
Christians and Finances/Debt
Christians and the Local Church
Christians and Governments
Christians and Animals and the Environment

Christians and Their Local Church
First of all let me state that it is essential for Christians to be part of a local church. Christianity is not merely an individualistic, solitary pursuit of God - but the gospel compels us to seek and save the lost in our community and also to support, encourage and challenge other Christians. While advances in technology and transportation have enabled “the local church” to comprise people living in wider and wider geographic spaces - it has not yet made it such that Christianity is “beyond” the need of local fellowship, support and service.

The internet especially has made it possible for many pastors and pastor-like figures to minister to people all over the world. Yet could, say, John Piper or Rick Warren provide me accountability and encouragement like my local pastor or small group leader?

Pastors exist for more than just teaching. They also serve a role in counselling and contributing to the discipline of church members. But this is not because pastors are in a position of hierarchical authority - but authority for the sake of order. The agreement between pastors and members (and there should be some kind of explicit agreement - a relationship between pastors and “church attenders” is often ambiguous and weak) is one where the member agrees to submit to the pastor’s authority for the sake of order and where the pastor agrees to care for and accept some responsibility for the discipline and growth of a member.

Pastors, however, need to be supported. Church members should support their pastor financially so that his basic needs are met and he can make his living from the gospel. Yet the church also is not a jobs program. The giving in the early church was to support the gospel and to help the poor. Members should not feel obligated to give for extravagant marketing, “outreach” programs which have unclear goals and dubious methods or to support unneeded staff and purchases. Churches should be open about their budgets to enable members to scrutinise and evaluate how their money is being spent (and it is their money).

Serving in the Local Church
Serving in the local church has been a topic that has been clouded by the principles of government and business. It has become hip for churches to hand out fancy titles to people serving along with recognition and various forms of ego-stroking. It is also difficult for church members not to assign status and rankings to various kinds of service: things like teaching, leading worship and other more visible opportunities are favoured while cleaning, Sunday School and preparing coffee are seen as less important. But serving is serving - and we are not serving an organisation which ranks us and values us according to the “level” of our service - but we are serving God, who we cannot impress or earn favour from.

Serving in the local church can take a lot of forms - and need not necessarily be in some “official” capacity on a Sunday morning. Opening up one’s house for students or other families can be ministry - as can helping someone work on their house. The local church is a collection of people - not a building or set of leaders. Serving these people is serving the church.

What The Local Church Shouldn’t Be Doing
A good old friend of mine used to pastor a church in Idaho somewhere. He told me once about a woman in his congregation who had been wanting to see her neighbour saved. She called the pastor one day, telling him that he should come over and speak to the person about the gospel. The pastor informed her that it was not his job to evangelise for her - it was her neighbour and her responsibility to be sharing the gospel. The woman was not happy.

This pastor’s response may have been a little crass - but it was correct. Part of the entitlement mentality brought on by the explosion of material wealth in the western world has affected even this most basic Christian institution - evangelism. Christians are too busy with their careers, friends, family and church responsibilities to evangelise - better leave that to official church “outreaches” or, even better, just invite people to church and maybe they will just “get it.” Personal, one-to-one evangelism which expresses individual care and attention to sinners is too much work in today’s world. Economies of scale now requires these people to get the gospel en masse in church services, community events, holiday services or concerts.

But it is not the job of pastors and other church leaders to do evangelism for Christians. It is their job to equip Christians to do these things themselves (Ephesians 4:12).

Evangelism for a Christian is not asking someone along to church or some other activity. It is not taking someone out for dinner or having them over. Evangelism is sharing the gospel - it is speaking the words of the gospel in compassion to individuals. Church members must not expect that because their church puts on events for the public, they are exempt from actually sharing the gospel with people. The local church also needs to be focussing more resources on teaching and encouraging people to share the gospel themselves, not wasting money and resources building up lifestyle-evangelism practices.

Financial Support of the Local Church
How we support the local church, and indeed, whether we even should, is tied back to the question of why a local church exists. The local church is not a jobs program, a business or a representative actor for what Christians should be doing on their own. It is, however, a collective gathering of Christians, administered by pastors, for corporate worship, ministry and teaching, a source of material aide for poor Christians and a resource to support Christians in evangelism.

This model requires some financing, and Christians should be giving to undergird such a resource. But the local church is in no way comparable to any Hebrew institution which was tithed to, nor is the local church God. The local church is the primary means for God to work in the life of a believer so it should be getting funded in corresponding priority. I believe that the bible gives only a few “rules” about how the church is funded - as one is able, voluntarily, cheerfully and in grace (2 Corinthians 9).

Christianity and Covenants: Debt

Published by Colin December 1, 2009 in Religion and Theology. 4 Comments

This is the fourth article in a multi-part series examining contracts and Christianity. Here is the full list of written and upcoming works in this series:

Overview
God and Christians
Christians and Marriage
Christians and Employers
Christians and Finances/Debt
Christians and the Local Church
Christians and Governments
Christians and Animals and the Environment

Christians And Debt
In many ways, this article is a companion to the previous post on Christians and employers. Many of the exact same principles are in play. Let me just note again, that it is not my intent to sound like one who is coming from an elevated position of perfection down onto others who have made large mistakes.

For the record, I have about $15,000 in school debt, and by the time I am done with my education, I anticipate having somewhere between $40,000-$54,000. So I am part of the audience here - let there be no illusions about that.

Let me also say that I do not believe in tithing, but rather in proportional giving. I believe that Christians should give as they are able and willing - with no minimum or maximum limits on gifts. This view is explained well in Decision Making and The Will of God by Garry Friesen.

Debt Now and Then
We have to remember that there are some fundamental differences between debt in the Ancient Near East and Roman world. Debt in the modern world is a generally stable way to extend purchasing power and manipulate time preference in order to secure goods or services which otherwise would be more difficult to obtain. Debt, especially at low levels of unsecured debt and even higher levels of secured debt (for, say, a house) is a relatively stable and secure tool in a personal or family budget. No one in the modern western world risks debt-bondage - or even bears anything remotely similar to the kinds of risks in the ancient world. There is a lot of debt in the modern world that is probably less risky then transporting a cart of goods 30 miles in the 1st century AD.

There are also some similarities. Debt today, just like in antiquity, can place people into contracts which conflict with their obligations to God. Debt can be an indicator of a love of money (which is a root of many evils). Debt can hinder or even conflict with Christian giving. Debt can be incredibly unwise, imprudent and risky - akin to gambling or casting lots.

In this respect, what the bible has to say about debt is entirely relevant to the Christian today - whether it is addressed specifically or by implication (as with vows and contracts). Moreover, our approach towards debt can reveal the motives of our heart and show us our need to depend more on God.

Debt and Giving
There are a couple of questionable views out there about the relationship between debt and giving. First, should people in debt be giving? By this, I mean people without an income (such as students) or whose income is substantially affected by debt. I believe the bible addresses this topic by way of principle here:

Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For each one shall bear his own load (Galatians 6:1-5).

Yes, this is a passage about sin, not debt. But there is a principle here - bear one another’s burdens, but beware, lest we also become burdens to others! It is echoed here:

Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others (Philippians 2:3-4)).

Continue reading ‘Christianity and Covenants: Debt’

Hey DailyKos, I’m A Real Libertarian

Published by Kenneth Martens September 1, 2009 in Politics. 6 Comments

From DailyKos comes the Top 10 Signs You Might Not Be A Libertarian. DailyKos lists of a bunch of reasons why most self-proclaimed libertarians are just Republicans who have ditched the label as Bush’s poll numbers dropped. As a certified* Christian libertarian, I’d like to respond.

10. If you think Ron Paul isn’t conservative enough and Fox News is fair and balanced, you might not be a Libertarian.
Well, not all libertarians think Ron Paul is hot stuff, although I personally am a big fan. His support for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, his reluctance to support gay marriage, and his pro-life views make many libertarians uneasy. I suppose you could make the case that all those positions make Ron Paul too conservative rather than not conservative enough, so let’s give DailyKos the benefit of the doubt here.

As for Fox News, I have to agree with DailyKos on this one, too. I rarely watch Fox News anymore. I do sometimes go to FoxNews.com, and it’s a filthy pool of smut. There are weekly columns by a “Sexpert” who apparently gives tips on sex. Then there are the frequent links to slideshows of celebrities in bikinis, celebrities with their new boyfriends, celebrities giving interviews to Maxim, “articles” about celebrity sex tapes, or whatever. I always browse with images turned off because Foxnews.com is just that bad.

9. If you believe you have an inalienable right to attend Presidential townhalls brandishing a loaded assault rifle, but that arresting participants inside for wearing a pink shirt is an important public safety precaution, there’s a chance you’re dangerously unbalanced, but no chance you’re a Libertarian.
It doesn’t take long for DailyKos to start lying. Nobody attended a Presidential townhall lecture with an assault rifle. The man with the assault rifle–identified only as Chris–attended a rally nearby a convention center in Arizona where Obama was giving a speech–not a townhall meeting. DailyKos is conflating that incident with another incident in New Hampshire where a protester legally carried a handgun outside (again, not attending) an Obama townhall lecture. Both men carried their weapons legally, and neither man “brandished” their weapon. Further, the Arizona incident was a staged publicity stunt, a fact which DailyKos knows unless they are completely incompetent.

Finally, let’s pick apart the comment about “arresting participants inside for wearing a pink shirt.”

They were not at a Presidential townhall meeting, they were in St. Paul, MN for the Republican National Convention
They were protesters, not participants
They were not inside, they were singing and dancing in the street
They were not arrested for wearing pink shirts. They were arrested for disorderly conduct. Police moved them onto the sidewalk (instead of the street), and they responded by crawling under a fence to escape the police cordon

8. If you think the government should stay the hell out of Medicare, well, you have way, way bigger problems than figuring out if you’re really a Libertarian.
This is nothing but a mean-spirited attack on Republicans. DailyKos links to a poll which asked respondents “Do you think the government should stay out of Medicare?” That’s not a sensible question, of course, because Medicare is a government program. Someone who was asked that question might interpret it to mean “Do you think that, in the midst of this debate on healthcare, we should keep politics and partisanship out of Medicare?” Of course Republicans would answer Yes more often than Democrats–because Republicans are wary of any changes that threaten to expand government control over the health care industry.

But without knowing how respondents actually interpreted the faulty question, we can draw no meaningful conclusions from the data. The poll is a joke, and DailyKos is intellectually dishonest for referencing it.

7. If you rank [Antonin] Scalia and Roy Moore among the greatest Justices of all time, you may be [profanity] [profanity] crazy, but you’re probably not a Libertarian.
Rating justices is complex, because although a good justice should uphold the Constitution, the Constitution is not always libertarian. It’s simply not possible to correctly interpret the Constitution and always arrive at a good, libertarian answer. Nevertheless, some justices are better than ever, and Scalia is one of them. Scott Turow wrote a New York Times article in 2006 that suggests Scalia is becoming a strong civil libertarian. Not all libertarians agree, of course, but respect for Justice Scalia does not automatically make one a Republican.

6. You might not be a Libertarian if you think recreational drug use, prostitution, and gambling should be illegal because that’s what Jesus wants.
Now DailyKos has decided to insult Christians as well as Republicans. Thanks. But DailyKos does have a point: libertarians oppose laws that criminalize drugs, sex, and gambling. Christian libertarians take a nuanced position that recognizes drug abuse, prostitution, and gambling as sin, but also understands that the government has no authority to criminalize them.

5. If you think the separation between church and state applies equally to all faiths except socially conservative Christian fundamentalism, you’re probably not a Libertarian.
On the other hand, if you acknowledge the historical (and present!) role of Christianity in America, you can still be a libertarian. Christianity is an important part of America and played–still plays–a pivotal role in shaping the nation’s values.

4. You’re probably not a Libertarian if you believe the federal government should remove safety standards and clinical barriers for prescription and OTC medications while banning all embryonic stem cell research, somatic nuclear transfer, RU 486, HPV and cervical cancer vaccination, work on human/non human DNA combos, or Plan B emergency contraception.
DailyKos is just plain wrong here, because they don’t consider the position of Christian libertarians. A Christian libertarian (of the minarchist variety) objects to government regulations into the pharmaceutical industry except in cases involving human life. That means a libertarian Christian can consistently hold to his libertarian principles while opposing:

embryonic stem cell research (it involves murdering human beings)
somatic nuclear transfer (a technique used in stem cell research which involves murdering human beings)
RU 486 (the abortion pill, which murders unborn human beings)

I think you get the point.

3. If you think state execution of mentally retarded convicts is good policy but prosecuting Scott Roeder or disconnecting Terri Schiavo was an unforgivable sin, odds are you’re not really a Libertarian.
Even libertarians understand the difference between a) punishment for a crime, and b) deliberately letting a helpless invalid die. Many libertarians will object to capital punishment, and many have no problem with disconnecting Terri Schiavo, but it’s quite possible to hold the other view and still be a good libertarian.

Scott Roeder is the man accused of murdering abortion doctor George Tiller. For libertarians who believe that life begins before birth, abortion is murder. Roeder’s actions could be construed as justifiable, if he acted to prevent the murder of the unborn. I still have to say that the killing of Tiller is murder, regardless of his chosen profession, and I hope his killer is found and convicted. However, I can understand how a libertarian–or anyone who believes that the unborn are human beings–might disagree.

2. If you argue that cash for clunkers or any form of government healthcare is unconstitutional, but forced prayer or teaching old testament creationism in public schools is fine, you’re not even consistent, much less a Libertarian, and you may be Michele Bachmann.
A libertarian would probably argue that public schools should be abolished. But failing that, at the very least, public schools should be allowed to operate as their communities want–not the way some federal or state politician or bureaucrat decide. If the community wants to teach their children about the Old Testament, they should have that right. Libertarians will not–as DailyKos seems to think–side with the federal or state government when it cracks down on what can be taught in schools.

1. And the number one sign: if you think government should stay the hell out of people’s private business — except when kidnapping citizens and rendering them to secret overseas torture prisons, snooping around the bedrooms of consenting adults, policing a woman’s uterus, or conducting warrantless wire taps, you are no Libertarian.
I alluded to the abortion issue earlier. A libertarian who believes life begins before birth can consistently and logically be pro-life. But yeah, on the other issues, a libertarian would have a hard time defending warrantless wiretaps or secret prisons.

* That’s not true. I don’t have a certificate. But I do have an NRA membership card, and I have voted for Michael Badnarik, Ron Paul, and Bob Barr.

How To Sabotage An Argument, Part 2

Published by Colin July 20, 2009 in General. 3 Comments

This is the second and final article in a series on how to basically lose an argument before you start it [part 1 here]. This line of reasoning is based on the premise that people who engage in an argument are doing to so in order to discover and communicate truth.

Hence, four more ways to sabotage your argument:

Ascribe Nefarious Intentions and Motives to the Other Side
This is quite prevalent in large, seemingly irreconcilable debates: abortion, religion, left versus right, etc… People who are pro-choice are not seen as intelligent people who are making a self-ownership case for abortion (although this would be wrong), but as “baby killers” or people who “support murder” or “do not support life.”This is ridiculous. Aside from the negligible portion of the population who are homicidal, no one else wants to see babies being killed. These people are not wrongly motivated - rather, they are wrong in methods.

Political leaders are called evil all the time - some of them are. George W. Bush has been hailed as the great Satan for the last seven years or so (and Obama has not been treated any different - except by the media), but it is very realistic that Bush has pursued what he has out of good motives and intentions. He has been sincerely wrong, probably criminally so, but he is not necessarily out there to thwart humanity and bring about apocalypse.

Attack the Personal Actions of Your Opponent
This line of reasoning follows from a very valid principle - practice what you preach. But at the same time, for the purposes of arguing things that aren’t always liveable (or if they are, aren’t lived anyway) it is completely useless. Ron Paul was attacked in the 2008 election for being one of the higher proposers of appropriations (earmarks) in congress. It was alleged that because Paul put forward earmarks, that someone this discounted what he said about fiscal responsibility. But truth isn’t dependent on our acting it out (Paul also voted down every single earmark he proposed). Just because someone doesn’t stop at stop signs, doesn’t mean they would be wrong to suggest that stopping at them is a good idea.

Become Self-Righteous About Your Arguments, Facts and Case
This is an easy mistake to make. After all, if we didn’t think we were right, then why would we argue? But this is not a problem with being right, it is a problem with believing one is infallible or that a morally neutral position is somehow “right” in the sense that it is good, while the other side is bad/evil. But more than that, it is a condescending attitude toward your opponent and/or his ideas. This is presuming a certain argument before your opponent makes it. With your own ideas, it is a blind refusal to allow them to be penetrated by other’s reason, logic or facts.

Forget That You Are Speaking With A Person
This is the most important thing, and the summary of the article. We aren’t arguing with robots, with brainwashed automatons, with ideologies - we are arguing with people. People deserve to be respected and treated as people - they are intelligent, rational beings - despite how silly, ignorant or radical their worldview is.

How To Sabotage An Argument, Part 1

Published by Colin July 6, 2009 in Essays, Religion, Politics and Philosophy. 2 Comments

Before I take a look at the meat of this article, I want to use a situation common to most of us to try and lay out my argument.

When I get upset with other drivers on the road, regardless of how “legitimate” my case is, and I actually become angry (as opposed to simply annoyed) it is often because:

I am not merely upset at the other driver, but am engaged in part of a universal quest to educate/set straight the mass of bad/discourteous drivers ruining the roads for others.
I question the ability of the driver in question (this is especially true of the very old and the very young - and sometimes the female gender) and wonder how they have managed to get licensed, let alone insured.
I am ticked off directly by what they have done.
I lack empathy for people who have circumstances which require them to drive slowly (transporting breakables, they have medical issues, they are enjoying the scenery).
I forget that there is actually a driver in the other car.

In many ways, this is a microchasm for human interaction when it comes to debate in general - especially intellectual discourse. Our base instinct, in discourse, if often to act like this with people with whom we are arguing. As the debate wears on, the chances of seeing the implosion of the discussion increase as instinctual techniques begin to take over and our very own words and ideas start to lose the argument before we begin.

I want to lay out a few common ways to sabotage your argument (this often happens early in the argument) by way of tactics I have seen on this site, other sites and mistakes that I myself have made over the years. Feel free to add your own thoughts on items I have missed or not explained well enough.

Not Understand What “Winning” and “Losing” Mean in Debate
In some ways, this is starting with the basics. What is the point of debate? If it is to convince others that I am right and they are wrong, then I’ve already “lost.”

The point of debate is not intellectual conquest, or the winning of hearts and minds to your cause. Debate should be a cooperative exercise that discovers, communicates or clarifies truth between individuals. When I am arguing about capitalism, or if I am witnessing to someone who is sceptical, it should not be my hope to decimate their current thinking and replace their conclusions with my own. Rather, I hope that I am contemplatively leading them to understanding that they were yet unaware of, while, at the same time being aware that I don’t know everything myself, and can learn from their counter-points.

Winning a debate doesn’t mean that each side comes away agreeing with the other side. But in a “won” debate, each person has new information to add to their own frame of reference, and hopefully has made a meaningful contribution to the collected knowledge of another.

Make Your Argument an “Us Versus Them” Battle
At times, I do feel like I am on a crusade when it comes to debating about certain ideas about which I am passionate. Take Ron Paul supporters in 2008. I felt a lot of solidarity with these people and I found myself more agitated over certain issues than I normally am. I was so zealous about what I viewed as my “us” (big-tent libertarianism - from the libertarian GOP to newly converted democrats supporting Ron Paul) that it became easy to believe that those who were arguing against me were part of a “them” (Neo-Cons, Compassionate Conservatives, Theocrats, etc…). But the moment that collective motives and group activism are attached to our debating - are we really sharing the intellectual road to discovery with someone, or are we stereotyping, classifying, dismissing and attempting to “war” with them as if defeating an “enemy” rather than working with an ally, albeit one very different than ourselves.

A tale-tell sign of this is ad hominems and other demonisation tactics. The second I begin painting my opponent with broad brush strokes is the moment where I’ve stopped seeking truth, and started zealously proselytising and regurgitating some kind fo party line.

Ascribe an Entire Ideology to Your Opponent Because of One Point, Line of Reasoning or Word
This could be viewed as a sub-point of the”us versus them” problem because it uses the same categorisation, stereotyping and dismissal - but it is different. Allow me to explain.

We all have certain words, phrases and concepts that conjure up past experiences (perhaps even traumatic ones) or simply evoke knee-jerk reactions based on philosophical or intellectual dislikes. Some of these for me are:

friendship evangelism
tithing
gossip
freedom isn’t free
free X (where X is healthcare, school or some other social good)
global warming
credit crunch

There are lots of different reasons that these words are more likely to reveal argumentativeness in me. But the point is that when someone uses these phrases (and others) I get a quasi-instinctual urge to correct them in ways that vary - from merely making a face, to opening a canned lecture and going on for half an hour.

But worse than that - it is part of that process of making uninformed conclusions and ascribing entire ideologies to your opponent because they’ve used language that triggers something in you. In other words, they may have meant something completely different (and the unique perspective of each individual almost guarantees that this is the case) but in one fell swoop, all of your own prejudices have been heaped onto their argument.

Aside from my own blunders in this area, I see this a lot with traditional hot-button issues for people such as abortion, feminism, supporting the troops and drugs. I think there are a lot of people in the academy, for example, who can accept my classical-liberal economic views. But if I spoke very loudly about my views on abortion or feminism, I might be practically blacklisted. By the same token, there are a lot of left-leaning bible-believing Christians who have trouble finding places in conservative churches because they might be anti-war or for universal healthcare.

Belittle/Disparage the Credentials/Lack Thereof of Your Opponent
I hope to do a whole piece on this soon, but one place where I see this being commonly practised is in the pulpit and some churches. Because of the heresy coming out of the academy (this has been a problem for thousands of years, by the way - it is hardly a “post-modern” phenomenon), it has become fashionable to broadly criticise education, theologians and academics.

A PhD doesn’t automatically make someone arrogant, proud, idolatrous, humanistic or a heretic (among other words I’ve seen). It simply means that someone has spent a lot of time specialising in a certain area of a specific field. If an academic (perhaps even one who went to a bible college) who researched Israel in 750-735BC wants to then go and talk about why Jesus didn’t exist and all religions lead to God - it says nothing, absolutely nothing about formal education, other academics or academics and Christianity. By the same token, I have seen some well-educated clergy and church leaders dismiss men who, with little formal bible education, were able to do great works from God, start large churches and write edifying books.

But the broader point is this - the other side in an argument has education and experience that is different that yours - and this is going to lead them to different conclusions. Rather than judgementally classifying and then dismissing their experience and education, try to come to grips with thier findings and consider that they might have an angle on things that you have missed. Where their experience and education are misinforming them - correct it.

In the second half of this series [go to part 2], I hope to look at more ways to sabotage an argument, including issues of motives, practising versus preaching, self-righteousness and the fact that were are debating with people (which may seen self-evident, but you’ll see what I mean).

Links: We All Know What Is Being Covered This Week

Published by Colin July 3, 2009 in General. 1 Comment

Nixon’s Reaction to Roe v. Wade / Nixon’s racism:

Nixon worried that greater access to abortions would foster “permissiveness,” and said that “it breaks the family.” But he also saw a need for abortion in some cases — like interracial pregnancies, he said.

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” he told an aide, before adding, “Or a rape.”

Abolish the Bank of England

List of Christian Libertarian websites

Zeal For Truth