| If you watch people debating issues,
you will probably see what has become an unfortunate tendency in our culture.
You will see people who, instead of debating the merits of their positions,
tend to debate the merits of the people who either do or don't agree with
them. It happens on both sides of most issues.
On abortion: Those who are pro-life begin with the
premise that the life in the womb is a separate being from the mother with
rights and personhood to be defended. They then proceed directly to the
question of murder. Those who are pro-choice begin with the premise that
the life in the womb, so long as it is in the womb, is merely an extension
of the woman's body, over which the woman has complete control to do with
as she pleases. They then proceed directly to the question of women's rights.
What neither side is addressing is the point where they disagree: is the
life in the womb a separate person or not? Because they don't address the
point of disagreement, what they do can hardly be called debate. They simply
attack what they assume to be the opposition's motivations, question their
character, and it rapidly degenerates into name-calling: "You kill babies!"
"No, you hate women!" What does this accomplish, other than making both
sides look foolish and making most of the undecideds just wish the issue
would take the path of least resistance and go away.
On affirmative action: Those who support affirmative
action begin with the premise that it works and that it is needed. They
then proceed directly to the question of racism. Those who oppose affirmative
action begin with the premise that it doesn't work and thus is not needed.
They then proceed directly to the question of handouts. What neither side
is addressing is the point where they disagree: does affirmative action
help solve the problems stemming from racism? Like those in the abortion
debate, the name-calling follows quickly: "You don't want to end racism!"
"No, you don't want people to have to earn what they get!" And the foolishness
continues.
My purpose, therefore, in launching "One Man Watching",
is to depersonalize and civilize some of the issues. Will I suggest that
some people are doing things that are wrong? Probably, but disagreeing
with me isn't going to be one of them. It is simply one man's view of the
world around him. It will usually address the interaction of politics,
faith and culture. Sometimes, though, it will take a look at marriage,
family, or anything that seems worthy of note. It is certainly not an expert
critique, nor is it the final word on any issue. In a world, however, when
it seems that few issues are discussed with civility and integrity, it
is one man's attempt to reasonably express his views, to reasonably understand
those who differ with him, and to let arguments stand or fall on their
own merits. I am committed to the notion that people who disagree with
each other, even strongly, can still be at peace with each other IF both
sides choose to be at peace with one another. This is my attempt to do
my part to support civil and thoughtful dialogue in a respectful framework.
I hope you will join me. |
