Your advice: Letter the the editor

[JackVk]

A couple weeks ago, my college newspaper wrote an editorial about why gay “marriage” is okay. I wrote a response, saying that it’s immoral, but that gays should not be hated. In the most recent issue, another student wrote a response, attacking me and insulting my faith and my sexuality, making claims about me that are totally false. I have response letter ready to be sent again, but should I send it or shake the dust off my sandals?

I don’t want the anti-family side to have the last word. But I don’t want to get pulled deeper into a fight I don’t think I can finish. Your thoughts?

 

[GEddie]

This is a fight you can’t finish. It’s like the old Usenet flame wars.

If your opponent has started to use ad hominems and the like, he’s already lost the debate and others will see that. Better to let it go, IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Waiting]

A couple weeks ago, my college newspaper wrote an editorial about why gay “marriage” is okay. I wrote a response, saying that it’s immoral, but that gays should not be hated. In the most recent issue, another student wrote a response, attacking me and insulting my faith and my sexuality, making claims about me that are totally false. I have response letter ready to be sent again, but should I send it or shake the dust off my sandals?

I don’t want the anti-family side to have the last word. But I don’t want to get pulled deeper into a fight I don’t think I can finish. Your thoughts?

Send the letter. If you don’t refute the false claims, many will be left believing what they read about you. Don’t return the insulting remarks, but don’t leave an opening for another attack. Good luck and God bless.

 

[JackVk]

Another thing: the end of the semester is near. Finals are next week, so it might not get published. I kinda feel like I have a heavier responsibility to study and get good grades than argue ad nauseam with a stranger.

 

[sshepeck]

I would send the response letter, including something that points out their insipid hypocrisy. These people spout on and on about “tolerance” and “inclusion”, but yet the moment anyone respectfully disagrees with them the personal insults start. College campuses are an absolute cesspool of this kind of thinking and behavior, so don’t expect much support from anyone - faculty included. Sad…

 

[JackVk]

I would send the response letter, including something that points out their insipid hypocrisy. These people spout on and on about “tolerance” and “inclusion”, but yet the moment anyone respectfully disagrees with them the personal insults start. College campuses are an absolute cesspool of this kind of thinking and behavior, so don’t expect much support from anyone - faculty included. Sad…

Mentioned hypocrisy in it too.

 

[Catholic1954]

Send that letter. (I bet they do publish it to keep the debate going and increase their circulatation). To give the other side the last word is to admit they are right.

 

[JackVk]

I decided to let it go. After talking to a youth minister, he said that this person is simply trying to provoke a reaction. The letter writer didn’t answer a single one of my arguments, and I did not say a malicious word toward anyone in my first letter. I’ll let her “tolerance” speak for itself.

 

[JackVk]

On third thought, I wrote a complaint to the newspaper demanding a private apology. I told them I wasn’t interested in debate if it was going to be like that.

 

[tskrobacz]

A couple weeks ago, my college newspaper wrote an editorial about why gay “marriage” is okay. I wrote a response, saying that it’s immoral, but that gays should not be hated. In the most recent issue, another student wrote a response, attacking me and insulting my faith and my sexuality, making claims about me that are totally false. I have response letter ready to be sent again, but should I send it or shake the dust off my sandals?

I don’t want the anti-family side to have the last word. But I don’t want to get pulled deeper into a fight I don’t think I can finish. Your thoughts?

What on earth prompted you to write such a response? I think you really need to examine your motives for engaging in the controversy unless you have some friends or family that were negatively impacted by the editorial. You really have no business adding oppositional energy to a hot button issue unless you are in defense of someone harmed by the original comments.

By adding your oppositional energy you force people to take sides which does nothing to benefit unity. If your response is routed in personal impacts then it can focus the discussion on the practical implications in your lived experience and not be mistaken as the position of the Catholic church or any other moral authority.

 

[JackVk]

What on earth prompted you to write such a response? I think you really need to examine your motives for engaging in the controversy unless you have some friends or family that were negatively impacted by the editorial. You really have no business adding oppositional energy to a hot button issue unless you are in defense of someone harmed by the original comments.

I just felt like it was the right thing to do at the time. I kept the letter charitable, and I didn’t say a single belligerent word. I should have suspected, however, that people would overlook that and still lash out.

but you’re right. Time to put the lid on the coffin and nail it shut.

 

[underacloud]

To give the other side the last word is to admit they are right.

Sometimes it is important to see an argument/discussion through to the end, and sometimes it is better to let it stand. Two thoughts come to mind…

• Discretion is the better part of valour.
• Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

Once a discussion has moved off point and into personal attacks, I think it’s best not to persist. Maintain dignity and trust that reasonable people will be able to see the merits of your position.

 

[JackVk]

Sometimes it is important to see an argument/discussion through to the end, and sometimes it is better to let it stand. Two thoughts come to mind…

• Discretion is the better part of valour.
• Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.

Once a discussion has moved off point and into personal attacks, I think it’s best not to persist. Maintain dignity and trust that reasonable people will be able to see the merits of your position.

All this girl answering me did with my arguments was mash them into a small paragraph and call them “BS” without an explanation. I need to forgive though. Send a few prayers her way, will y’all?

 

[sshepeck]

What on earth prompted you to write such a response? I think you really need to examine your motives for engaging in the controversy unless you have some friends or family that were negatively impacted by the editorial. You really have no business adding oppositional energy to a hot button issue unless you are in defense of someone harmed by the original comments.

By adding your oppositional energy you force people to take sides which does nothing to benefit unity. If your response is routed in personal impacts then it can focus the discussion on the practical implications in your lived experience and not be mistaken as the position of the Catholic church or any other moral authority.

Huh??? Since when is it immoral to employ one’s “oppositional energy” to speak out against an issue that affects us all? And what if just one person read the response to the editorial and changed their mind about gay marriage? I see no ill motives here at all, and I disagree with your assertion that one should remain silent against wrongdoing if there are no “personal impacts”. I for one applaud the decision (not to mention courage) to address the errors in that editorial.

 

[tskrobacz]

Huh??? Since when is it immoral to employ one’s “oppositional energy” to speak out against an issue that affects us all? And what if just one person read the response to the editorial and changed their mind about gay marriage? I see no ill motives here at all, and I disagree with your assertion that one should remain silent against wrongdoing if there are no “personal impacts”. I for one applaud the decision (not to mention courage) to address the errors in that editorial.

If the OP is authorized and qualified to speak on behalf of the church then fine. If however, his/her response was from his own “opinion” then representing it as “the Catholic position” is not only dangerous…it is irresponsible. We must all take greater caution as we approach truth.

 

[sshepeck]

If the OP is authorized and qualified to speak on behalf of the church then fine. If however, his/her response was from his own “opinion” then representing it as “the Catholic position” is not only dangerous…it is irresponsible. We must all take greater caution as we approach truth.

I agree. However, his original post said nothing of attaching the Church to his response in any way, nor did it say anything about the Catholic position. He only said he wrote a letter disagreeing with an editorial on moral grounds. I too dislike when others irresponsibly claim to speak on behalf the Church, but I do not think that was the case here.

 

[JackVk]

If the OP is authorized and qualified to speak on behalf of the church then fine. If however, his/her response was from his own “opinion” then representing it as “the Catholic position” is not only dangerous…it is irresponsible. We must all take greater caution as we approach truth.

What would constitute that? I am a daily communicant and I am fairly knowledgeable about the faith. Since I’m a layman, am I not qualified?

Okay, confession time. I said I was a Catholic, and yes, I did say I was speaking on behalf of the Church Please forgive my recklessness.

 

[sshepeck]

What would constitute that? I am a daily communicant and I am fairly knowledgeable about the faith. Since I’m a layman, am I not qualified?

Okay, confession time. I said I was a Catholic, and yes, I did say I was speaking on behalf of the Church Please forgive my recklessness.

Forgiven! And I commend you for your willingness to stand up!

 

[Newbie2]

If you’re responding to a specific person’s letter, it’s polite and to the point to say something like “The anti-Catholic (Christian) hyperbole aside…” then go on to state the facts. You’d be acknowledging in a respectful way that the other person’s POV is based on nothing more than wild unfounded claims (hyperbole) without being insulting or rude. It’s best to be matter-of-fact when addressing wild claims:

“Quite to (name’s) claim, the Church actually teaches (this or that).”

As well, it’s OK to acknowledge that the other side doesn’t/won’t ever share your beliefs:

“While I understand that some may disagree, it’s important to accurately state the Church’s position on (such and such). (Name) wrote that the Church teaches X, which is not true; the Church teaches that…”.

However, if you’re in this to “win” an argument, don’t respond. This is an argument you cannot win; you’ll get shouted down by unrestrained nastiness. If you’re going for correcting false claims, the best you’ll do is to get the correct information out there. The rest of the job is up the the Almighty.