Thursday, July 15, 2010

Quality control

Am I the only one who thinks there needs to be more information in posts? Regardless if it is a magazine article or blog post, I find myself increasingly impatient with the lack of detail and charity when engaging with one's opponents.

Take for example Bishop Mccelroy's article regarding Iraq. In particular,

"It may seem strange that anyone would question whether the Catholic tradition
on war and peace proceeds from a moral presumption against war. But that is
precisely the case that articulate and theologically informed Catholic advocates
for the war in Iraq, most ably represented by George Weigel and Michael Novak
have been making during the past four years. They point out that the just-war
tradition was founded as a counterpoint to Christian pacifism and was designed
explicitly to show that war was at times the moral duty of the Christian

I'm famillar enough with Weigel's work to know more about this argument, that it emminates from the idea the the Early Christians saw war as an extension of legitimate force to restore order. In any event I find it difficult because I find this to be an incomplete formulation of Weigel's opinion.

Regardless of what one thinks of Weigel's opinion, I believe that the good bishop should either state the complete opinion of Weigel and/or cite his work before taking on the argument. Otherwise one risks the accusation of setting up a strawman.

Lest anyone think that I am picking on the Bishop, I find this deficiency all the out on the web. I was recently banned from one author's blog for pointing out that his accusation had no supporting evidence.

What do you think? I think it is high time that we demand proof in some posts. Especially if it involves an accusation of ideological opponents. Thoughts?

No comments: