The Problem With Toning Down the Rhetoric – And Why We Probably Won’t Do It

[fix]

I have noticed a lot of that on this site, not just this thread. I have read some insightful and helpful things- I really appreciate what you have written about your experience with pregnant girls- but I have noticed that once people on this site stake out a position, they tend to run roughshod over anyone or any view that might challenge them. It is disappointing that so many of the posts which seem to “answer” a previous post actually only ignore it. It is especially ironic in this thread, because the basic positions seem to be 1) “WE HAVE TO SHOUT LOUDER TO MAKE SURE THEY HEAR US!!!” and 2) Sometimes people hear better when they listen. They listen better when you talk nicely to them.

Then the people who hold the 1) position say WE CAN’T HEAR YOU BECAUSE WE ARE SHOUTING LOUDLY.

This seems a good example of what the OP is talking about. If one does not subscribe to one’s particular view on this issue it is termed “shouting” or “inflammatory”.

IOW, if one does not agree with your way of viewing the situation then one is shouting.

 

[rpp]

When people use the twisted terminology of those who promote the culture of death, then the battle has already been lost. That was one of the main points in Orwell’s book 1984 when the characters were taking about how the language was shrinking with each subsequent edition of the Dictionary of Newspeak. Controling the language controls how people are able to think and express themselves. That is how Big Brother oppressed people and not only won, but was unbeatable.

Using the terms of “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion” is nothing less than yet another field of battle in the war against the culture of death. When the enemy controls the language, the enemy controls the discourse. When the enemy controls the discourse, the enemy is able to constrain how people are can think or express themselves. When the enemy constrains thought and expression, the enemy has won.

There is such a thing as being too polite. Christ Himself was none too polite when He dealt with the money-changers who were desecrating the Temple in Jerusalem.

 

[fix]

When people use the twisted terminology of those who promote the culture of death, then the battle has already been lost. That was one of the main points in Orwell’s book 1984 when the characters were taking about how the language was shrinking with each subsequent edition of the Dictionary of Newspeak. Controling the language controls how people are able to think and express themselves. That is how Big Brother oppressed people and not only won, but was unbeatable.

Using the terms of “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion” is nothing less than yet another field of battle in the war against the culture of death. When the enemy controls the language, the enemy controls the discourse. When the enemy controls the discourse, the enemy is able to constrain how people are can think or express themselves. When the enemy constrains thought and expression, the enemy has won.

There is such a thing as being too polite. Christ Himself was none too polite when He dealt with the money-changers who were desecrating the Temple in Jerusalem.

Those are good points. My problem with this issue is not so much that people are in fact too strident. My problem is that one side complains that the other side is too strident. The constant complaint of being inflammatory, or uncivil, or disrespectful are charges used to shut down discussion and get pro life folks to back off. In fact, just because someone claims disrespect, or all the rest, does not make it so.

This is very much like the pro gay lobby claiming the bible is hate speech or that Vatican documents spur violence. The idea seems to be to paint the pro life side as uncivil so that the supporters and their message are deemed illegitimate.

 

[RSD]

There is such a thing as being too polite. Christ Himself was none too polite when He dealt with the money-changers who were desecrating the Temple in Jerusalem.

Yes Jesus was strident with the moneychangers, but He was not like that all the time. In fact a frequent complaint against Him was that He was too polite and kind to sinners. He ate with tax collectors, He publicly forgave the woman taken in adultery, He spoke with unclean people. I think it is very important to differentiate between people who agree on fundamental aims but disagree on methods versus people who disagree on fundamental aims. You might have two different people who both see a pregnant girl approaching an abortion clinic. One believes that it is absolutely important to do anything to stop the killing of the baby- even going to the extreme length of talking gently to the girl to help her to find a way to have the baby. That person will say “Don’t shout at her. Talk nicely to her.” Another person believes that it is absolutely important not to interfere in any way with the killing of the baby. That person will also say “Don’t shout at her.” Do not make the mistake of thinking that these two people are in agreement. Their apparent agreement is an illusion. Do be clear which one you actually agree with. And help that person.

Remember that Jesus does not believe in or support adultery, but He was very gentle with the woman taken in adultery. His gentleness can be a way to save souls.

 

[Drawmack]

I read them. You agree to use terms. That is your method and you call for others to do the same.

I call for others talk and act with an attitude of kindness and love. Kindness and love must be portrayed in words first. Just because I agree to use terms does not make them mine.

If you read my posts than why did you ask a question that is clearly answered in those posts?

 

[Drawmack]

When people use the twisted terminology of those who promote the culture of death, then the battle has already been lost. That was one of the main points in Orwell’s book 1984 when the characters were taking about how the language was shrinking with each subsequent edition of the Dictionary of Newspeak. Controling the language controls how people are able to think and express themselves. That is how Big Brother oppressed people and not only won, but was unbeatable.

Using the terms of “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion” is nothing less than yet another field of battle in the war against the culture of death. When the enemy controls the language, the enemy controls the discourse. When the enemy controls the discourse, the enemy is able to constrain how people are can think or express themselves. When the enemy constrains thought and expression, the enemy has won.

There is such a thing as being too polite. Christ Himself was none too polite when He dealt with the money-changers who were desecrating the Temple in Jerusalem.

Let me get this straight, you think it is okay to use the term pro-abortion but you take exception with the term anti-abortion. How is that not propaganda? If I am pro something and you oppose me then you are anti that same thing. To phrase it any other way is to obfuscate the language and hide your true intent. At least that’s what you’ve told me.

Additionally, I am not advocating for letting them control the language. I am saying talk nicely and kindly. While I acquiesce and use pro-choice I do not let them call me anything other than pro-life. How is that allowing them to control the terminology or the language?

Finally, if you’re going to tell me that I’m wrong I am going to insist that you do so in terms of the pregnant teenagers I counsel whom this language does offend, whom this language does confuse, and whom this language does harden. I’m not speaking philosophically about some novel from the 1920’s – I’m talking about real people who are considering killing their child.

 

[Drawmack]

Yes Jesus was strident with the moneychangers, but He was not like that all the time. In fact a frequent complaint against Him was that He was too polite and kind to sinners. He ate with tax collectors, He publicly forgave the woman taken in adultery, He spoke with unclean people. I think it is very important to differentiate between people who agree on fundamental aims but disagree on methods versus people who disagree on fundamental aims. You might have two different people who both see a pregnant girl approaching an abortion clinic. One believes that it is absolutely important to do anything to stop the killing of the baby- even going to the extreme length of talking gently to the girl to help her to find a way to have the baby. That person will say “Don’t shout at her. Talk nicely to her.” Another person believes that it is absolutely important not to interfere in any way with the killing of the baby. That person will also say “Don’t shout at her.” Do not make the mistake of thinking that these two people are in agreement. Their apparent agreement is an illusion. Do be clear which one you actually agree with. And help that person.

Remember that Jesus does not believe in or support adultery, but He was very gentle with the woman taken in adultery. His gentleness can be a way to save souls.

There was a post on these boards, which the moderators deleted, where I was called “pseudo pro-life”. That is printed and hanging in the office I work through to do my pro-life work because it was about the funniest thing any of us had ever seen.

 

[fix]

I call for others talk and act with an attitude of kindness and love. Kindness and love must be portrayed in words first. Just because I agree to use terms does not make them mine.

Great, then you agree that correcting such terms is true love and kindness.

If you read my posts than why did you ask a question that is clearly answered in those posts?

So, you agree pro choice is an incorrect descriptor?

 

[Drawmack]

Those are good points. My problem with this issue is not so much that people are in fact too strident. My problem is that one side complains that the other side is too strident. The constant complaint of being inflammatory, or uncivil, or disrespectful are charges used to shut down discussion and get pro life folks to back off. In fact, just because someone claims disrespect, or all the rest, does not make it so.

This is very much like the pro gay lobby claiming the bible is hate speech or that Vatican documents spur violence. The idea seems to be to paint the pro life side as uncivil so that the supporters and their message are deemed illegitimate.

What about when it’s not one side claiming that the other side is too strident, but a member of one side saying that both sides lack respect in the way they talk to and write about one another? That is what I’m saying.

 

[Drawmack]

Great, then you agree that correcting such terms is true love and kindness.

I think it is true love and kindness to take the time to construct an apology about the term they use. I do not think it is true love or kindness to simply insist on calling them by a divergent term without constructing such an apology.

So, you agree pro choice is an incorrect descriptor?

As they are supporting a choice I do not think it is incorrect. I do, however, think that a pro-life should say I’ll use pro-choice and then construct a well written, respectful apology explaining exactly what it is a choice to do.

 

[fix]

What about when it’s not one side claiming that the other side is too strident, but a member of one side saying that both sides lack respect in the way they talk to and write about one another? That is what I’m saying.

It depends on the situation. Also, if you look at things like the POTUS speech at ND you can see one side uses the “uncivil” card as a propaganda tool. That does not mean there may not be genuine incivility in some places at some times but that mantra is becoming more frequent.

 

[fix]

I think it is true love and kindness to take the time to construct an apology about the term they use. I do not think it is true love or kindness to simply insist on calling them by a divergent term without constructing such an apology.

That depends on context and situation.

As they are supporting a choice I do not think it is incorrect. I do, however, think that a pro-life should say I’ll use pro-choice and then construct a well written, respectful apology explaining exactly what it is a choice to do.

Again context is everything.

 

[Drawmack]

It depends on the situation. Also, if you look at things like the POTUS speech at ND you can see one side uses the “uncivil” card as a propaganda tool. That does not mean there may not be genuine incivility in some places at some times but that mantra is becoming more frequent.

I do not think there was propaganda in that speech. Also, maybe the claim is becoming more frequent because the problem is becoming more wide spread?

I am saying that both sides are guilty. I am saying that both sides do not appear to listen to each other. I am saying that to fix the later problem we first have to fix the former problem. If someone is talking about something you believe in strongly, and they are being truthful but using language you find inflammatory – do you keep listening? (Yes or no will suffice)

 

[Drawmack]

That depends on context and situation.

Again context is everything.

You show me where in the Bible it says that the golden rule is to be applied contextually. This is the point I’ve been making all along, supporting using derogatory, inflammatory, and unkind language is supporting relativistic morality – something the Catholic Church has spoken against stridently and repeatedly.

 

[fix]

You show me where in the Bible it says that the golden rule is to be applied contextually. This is the point I’ve been making all along, supporting using derogatory, inflammatory, and unkind language is supporting relativistic morality – something the Catholic Church has spoken against stridently and repeatedly.

No. You cannot simply claim speaking what is true is uncivil or unkind or inflammatory. That is setting up a straw man argument. We all agree it is wrong to be uncivil.

What we are talking about is an issue of prudence, not moral relativism. That some claim an offense is unjust when there is no right to be offended.

Defending error is relativistic.

 

[fix]

I do not think there was propaganda in that speech. Also, maybe the claim is becoming more frequent because the problem is becoming more wide spread?

Or, maybe more consciences are dead to the truth or embrace relativism?

I am saying that both sides are guilty. I am saying that both sides do not appear to listen to each other. I am saying that to fix the later problem we first have to fix the former problem. If someone is talking about something you believe in strongly, and they are being truthful but using language you find inflammatory – do you keep listening? (Yes or no will suffice)

I certainly do listen. I am an adult not a childish person who seeks offense and covers my ears when someone disgarees with me. Perhaps your real argument is that we, as a culture, have grown effete and callow.

 

[fix]

Let us go back to the OP link:

And why can’t these friends of mine cast themselves in the role of American whites who, during the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s, urged those few outspoken Catholic priests, sisters, and laypeople who rode freedom buses and were arrested during sit-ins to tone down the rhetoric, because it was counter-productive and divisive?

By your standard these folks were relativists who should have never “inflammed” the racists.

 

[Drawmack]

No. You cannot simply claim speaking what is true is uncivil or unkind or inflammatory. That is setting up a straw man argument. We all agree it is wrong to be uncivil.

Okay, could you please provide me with a litmus test which I can apply to speech in order to determine if that particular wording is uncivil or unkind? You say that the claim is not enough, fine then what is? How can I judge if speech is uncivil or unkind?

What we are talking about is an issue of prudence, not moral relativism. That some claim an offense is unjust when there is no right to be offended.

Is it possible to say something that is both true and uncivil? Is it possible to say something that is both true and unkind? If you answered either of these questions yes then how can I know when something is both true and unkind or uncivil?

Defending error is relativistic.

I’m not defending error, please review everything I have written in this thread and explain how I am defending error? Additionally, could you please explain how the tests I am sure you will provide to my earlier questions can be given to the pregnant teens I counsel or are offended by the speech on both sides?

 

[Drawmack]

Or, maybe more consciences are dead to the truth or embrace relativism?

Okay, I’m just following a logical train here. You are claiming that those who call for better language are dead to the truth. I call for better language, can you explain how you are not implying that I am dead to the truth? Also, I notice that you’re Catholic, thus to you the truth is Jesus. Could you please explain to me how it is kind or civil to imply that I am dead to Jesus?

I certainly do listen. I am an adult not a childish person who seeks offense and covers my ears when someone disgarees with me. Perhaps your real argument is that we, as a culture, have grown effete and callow.

No, my real argument is that I counsel pregnant teenagers who are at risk of getting an abortion. (As I’ve already said here – and you’ve ignored) These girls cannot get past the language used, by both sides, in this discussion to actually learn the facts. (As I’ve already said here – and you’ve ignored) So, they are left out in the cold and feel very alone. (As I’ve already said here – and you’ve ignored) When I tell people this, they ignore it. (Like you) They want to talk about classic works of fiction written about communism. (Like you) They want to talk about how claiming offense is not enough to prove offense. (Like you) I’m not talking about ideals, I’m not talking about philosophy, I’m talking about real women, with real babies, who are pushed closer to killing their babies because of this language. Like it or not, see it or not, this is the TRUTH!

 

[fix]

Okay, could you please provide me with a litmus test which I can apply to speech in order to determine if that particular wording is uncivil or unkind? You say that the claim is not enough, fine then what is? How can I judge if speech is uncivil or unkind?

Is it possible to say something that is both true and uncivil? Is it possible to say something that is both true and unkind? If you answered either of these questions yes then how can I know when something is both true and unkind or uncivil?

I’m not defending error, please review everything I have written in this thread and explain how I am defending error? Additionally, could you please explain how the tests I am sure you will provide to my earlier questions can be given to the pregnant teens I counsel or are offended by the speech on both sides?

Are you asking if one can sin through using certain words or tones? The answer is yes and that depends on the speakers intention and what is being said.

The test is the usual test for sin. Does it violate a commandment.