Suspicion for me but not for thee

As if to continue my last post it seems that taking your advice is a very difficult thing to do. Over at Vox Nova one of the regular posters writes about the Hermeneutic of Suspicion. I could not help but notice the following:

Today, the pro-life movement is automatically inclined to view any Democratic initiative in this area through the “hermeneutic of suspicion”, always assuming bad motives, and always seeking hidden traps and pitfalls.

Given that the Democratic Party platform is dedicated to the expansion of abortion "rights" as they define it I think a little suspicion is healthy. Although suspicion of politicians in general is a good idea, regardless of your fav government ideology.

What I kept thinking about was what came toward the end of this post:

It would be a grave mistake to prevent passage of such a momentous bill based on a prudential preference for the language of one bill when the differences are second order. It would be a grave mistake for the USCCB to be influenced by the likes of the NRLC in this matter – they are not trustworthy[emphasis mine].

Apparently it is okay to distrust groups that the author disagrees with.

Now in all fairness the author is correct in that there are those who want to use the abortion issue as a wedge to stall the passage of the current health care bill. Just as there are those who would use the current health care bill as a vehicle as a means for more government control over the health industry (Obama himself stated that the public option is a gateway to a single payer).

But to plead for those of us who are "suspicious" to drop our suspicion, not in order for people to approach all sides in charity, but simply to transfer the distrust from the author's view to the author's ideological opponents is a bit suspicious in and of itself.

This is not to say that the NRLC may deserve some criticism for inconsistency(the "evidence" provided for Medicare Advantage is from 2009, not sure what was passed since Medicare Advantage was first passed), or that the Democrats are trying to sneak in abortion funding. It's just that I don't think it is entirely convincing to plead for insinuation of motives to end and then to accuse your opponents of falsehood in the same post. Apparently only those of us who disagree need to "get with it."

A call for civility in debate?

Every once in a while I will read a blogger or writer calling for "civility in public debate." The hatred is too intense. The language is too coarse. We aren't communicating with each other. Etc. All of the above in a certain sense is true (though I truly wonder if it was really different in any other age or time).

What I have found interesting is a curious phenomenon where the person calling for civility is often commits the very crimes he decries. In one post the writer will lament the lick of civility and then in the next declare how his opponents are the very incarnation of evil, because he wants to lower/raise taxes or some other trivial nonsense(depends on what you read).

I read such articles and posts and while in general I agree that we could all do well with a dose of civility, I often feel that those who make the call often enough are in need of their own advice. It's almost a dye marker of sorts. If you find yourself thinking there is too much heat in the kitchen, maybe you were the one who turned up the oven.

I was thinking these thoughts as I realized that I myself was thinking that there is too little charity in the public square. But as I meditated more I realized I was just as much as a problem as anyone else. The Internet, for the good it does in terms of making information readily available, makes it difficult to connect on a human level. A person I tear apart in a combobox I might be best friends with despite our disagreements if sat down and had a beer.

I think anyone who wants more civility in discussion should take a good look in the mirror. Too often we fail to see, in specific terms, how we contribute to the problem. Whenever we accuse someone of ulterior motives, we should be the first to point out our own faults in this matter. To truly see if we are acting in charity rather than simply trying to "win" or "be right."

In this vein I would like to make an apology. There is one person named Henry Karlson, a regular contributor at a site called Vox Nova. Their politics are about as far from mine as they can get. Yet in arguing with him I have said things that were unfair. In particular, I have accused him of supporting the pro-abortion movement despite his protests to the contrary.

For clarification, I think Mr. Karlson argues too much against the pro-life movement. At best, I think his views do little to advance the rights of the unborn, and at worst undermine them. I stand by my view of this and will defend such. Indeed it was because of my view on this that I initially thought he was actually arguing for a pro-abortion position.

But my evaluation of his arguments and what he actually says and believes are different things. Everyone deserves to have his opinion represented accurately. What I think his opinion leads to is not the same as his opinion. Karlson, despite my disagreements with him, says he is pro-life, and without evidence to the contrary he deserves to be taken at his word.

And so with that I offer a heartfelt apology. I hope to rectify this mistake however I can. And will attempt in the future to discuss, debate, and argue in the spirit of charity. If we truly seek to live as Christ's disciples, then we should at least be able to discuss our political differences in the Truth of the Faith.