Last week I wrote an article counter the common arguments against gay marriage (in a very tongue-in-cheek manner, I will admit), and ended with a call to arms over the issue of gay marriage, as it pertained to Question 1 on the upcoming Maine election. Needless to say, I’m sure by now most have heard that this referendum passed, and that same-sex marriage is now illegal again in the State of Maine. I for one, am disappointed and disgusted, but this loss raises a valid point which few seem to be willing to address on the national or state level. President Obama addressed it a little bit on the campaign trail, and this sentiment can often be heard in almost all political discussions between friends. How often do you hear people say something similar to “Ugh, how can they be so stupid? I don’t even understand where they’re coming from!”
Now, clearly the “the other side is so dumb” sentiment is dismissive, and unnecessary, but the second portion of this is what I wish to write about. This concept of “I don’t even understand how the other side could reach this conclusion” raises an important point. Part of the premise of our political system is that within a democratic system, the thought processes of the majority will be put into law, but that everyone’s voice will be heard and, at least ideally, considered. However, this seems to be quite the opposite of what is happening. The current political atmosphere seems much more centered around visceral emotional responses to an issue, and I think this is at best unfair and unreasonable.
The United States of America is, to steal a common phrase, a melting pot. That is to say, people from all sorts of ethnic, religious, economic and political backgrounds live in the United States. Allegedly, all of these people have an equal voice in the way political decisions are made. To paraphrase President Obama, the only way to make sure the law is just and fair to everyone is to be able to carry-on a rational, reasoned discussion about the topic. He was talking about this in the context of his personal religion, and how this would affect his decisions as president, but I feel that there’s a larger point to be taken away from this.
Consider the vote on Tuesday in Maine. It is fairly obvious to anyone who watched the campaigns unfold and the discourse leading up to the vote, fear of change seemed to win the day. Now, this is a rather superficial definition of the reason that the Yes on 1 campaign won, and there’s an argument to be made that the vote was religiously motivated, that fear about the societal affect of same-sex marriage, that it was fundamentally wrong for children to be taught that homosexual couples exist, that the sanctity of marriage would be destroyed, or even that homosexuality is too gross, a disease, or even a biblical abomination were the underlying reasons for why the Yes on 1 campaign won. All of these arguments may have some merit, but the consensus of analysts seems to be that superficially, voter turnout on the No on 1 side just wasn’t there, and this was probably because “protection of marriage rights” is much less of an emotional issue than “protecting the institution that has been in place for thousands of years”.
Note the word emotional in the last sentence. This is the crux of the issue. Politics within the United States has turned into a visceral emotional issue. President Obama arguably won on this very campaign, he inspired people by using very emotional mantras, “hope” and “change”.
This is directly the reason religion seems to have such a stronghold on the United States political atmosphere, religion is, for the majority of religious people, a very, very emotional issue. However, emotion is something that is very difficult to convey to others. Have you ever felt something, tried to explain it and given up because they “just wouldn’t understand”? Or consider a political topic that is very emotionally charged, like abortion. Much of the discourse over abortion centers around the “abortion is murder” argument. Now, whether you’re for or against abortion, I think you would have to look long and hard to find someone who has no opinion about abortion. Even those that one may encounter that say “I don’t know much about the issue” usually finish with “but I feel X way about it”. Again, not the use of the word “feel”.
As President Obama said (albeit not directly about political discourse in the United States), the only way to ensure that everyone feels like they are being represented is to make the discourse founded in intellectual, reasoned discussion. One is allowed to feel however one wants on a subject, but the argument presented ought to be as devoid of emotion as possible, or it’s hard to find a common ground.
To use the gay marriage referendum in Maine again, much of the discourse from the Yes on 1 campaign was very emotionally charged. The No on 1 campaign was accused of “redefining marriage” (arguably a fairly personal attack on those married couples in the State of Maine). While the No on 1 campaign presented a very well thought out, intellectual argument about how same-sex marriage wasn’t different from straight marriage, how these are just people that deserve equal rights, how the other states that have legalized gay marriage aren’t suffering from any societal degeneration, and even how same-sex marriage does not affect the economy (and in some cases boosts the economy) of the states that have legalized it. Obviously, these arguments failed against what seemed to be a very simple, consistent, emotional message.
It’s clear that many political issues are emotionally charged (abortion, gay marriage, immigration, insert-your-topic-of-choice-here), but choosing to react to emotions first, and try and justify your emotions second is the wrong way to go about having a debate that will sufficiently satisfy every party. Often times emotional issues cause people to zealously stake out a position, and subsequently not budge.
In order to move this country forward we, as a whole, must start forcing political discourse to be entirely grounded in an intellectually supported way. Once this expectation has been laid down, the “abortion is murder” argument will need to be supported by a working definition of murder, why abortion falls under this category, why a fetuses life is more important than that of the mother, and a plethora of other questions. The same-sex marriage debate will no longer be able to use “fundamental redefinition of marriage” as a mantra without providing a definition of marriage, and evidence to support that this definition really has never changed throughout the course of history. The healthcare reform debate will have to actually support that “death panels” will occur, providing proper citation directly from the bill.
Fearmongering, hatred, and prejudice will no longer be valid political arguments, and will instead be marginalized in preference of reasoned political debate. Emotion is clearly an important part of being human, and we need not remove it from who we are. However, emotion ought to take a secondary role in the national and state level political discussion.
Posts Tagged ‘religion’
emotion as a rational argument? No thanks
Monday, November 9th, 2009liberty and justice for all
Saturday, October 10th, 2009I wrote this for the University Register, last week.As such, those of you in $small_town may have already read this.
Over the summer, the State of Maine legalized same-sex marriage, and became the fifth state to allow same-sex marriage. After what was a pretty easy battle in the scheme of political fights in the state house and senate, the bill was put on Maine Governor Baldacci’s desk, and was signed into law.
In Maine, like in California, there is an option for a “People’s Veto”, wherein the citizens of the state have the option to petition to put the decision to referendum, and get voted on during the next general election. Like in California, citizens of the state of Maine collected the amount of signatures to get the decision put to referendum, and now (like in California) there will be a vote in November over the legalization of same-sex marriage in the State of Maine.
Clearly, in terms of process, there are quite a bit of similarities between the situation in Maine right now, and the situation in California before the 2008 election (as though you couldn’t tell from the previous paragraph). However, these are not the only similarities. In California, the Church of the Latter Day Saints poured a significant portion of money into pushing the political campaign “Yes on 8″ (remember that a “yes” vote meant same-sex marriage would be illegal, and “no meant that same-sex marriage would stay legal). Similarly, in Maine, we are seeing a big push by the Catholic Church and Catholic-based “for the family” organizations to similarly advocate for “yes” votes (illegalizing same-sex marriage).
This trend towards tax-exempt religious groups pushing very, very hard in one direction on political issues is, quite frankly, disturbing. Unfortunately, in our society, money can make or break a political campaign, and these religious groups did, and continue to, pour large amounts of money into these campaigns. Why do I find this disturbing? A pretty simple concept, and one made pretty clear in the First Amendment to our Counstitution.
The legalization of same-sex marriage is a political issue, plain and simple. There are arguments to be made that “marriage” is a religious term, but it’s not. Or, it is, but it’s also a very secular term, used very widely in our society. Therefore, these arguments will be ignored for the duration of this article. Religious groups are allowed to be tax-exempt, with the stipulation that they do not participate in political activity, this is what political action groups are for. The idea that religious groups are allowed to use their tax exempt status to help fund a very public, very political, and ultimately very unjust campaign goal seems wrong.
Yes, I understand religion is very crucial to many people in our country, and I understand that people’s religious view permeate their opinions on public policy. I’d like to consider a fairly harsh example, but I think there are a number of parallels. In the South, during the civil war era, there was a sentiment among many southern Christians that Africans were descendants of Ham (the son of Noah who was punished, and told he would forever serve his brothers), that slavery was therefore entirely justified from a biblical/religious perspective.
What seems to be at the crux of the anti-same-sex marriage sentiments is that in some form or another, the religion of the people pushing this idea dictates the way they feel about same-sex marriage. This is wrong, just as justifying slavery through religion is wrong, just as getting stoned (with rocks, not marijuana) for eating shellfish is wrong.
Religion, at a personal, self-centering level, doesn’t bother me terribly much. I respect that people get to their conclusions about their creator (or lack thereof) through their own way, and that is entirely valid. I don’t dispute people’s right to believe in god, just as I wouldn’t want my right disputed. I do however, take issue when religious groups, particularly very powerful religious organizations, start pushing their ideals into public policy. If religious groups are going to be turning themselves into, or setting up and funding, political action groups, then they don’t deserve tax-exempt status, and they should be subject to the laws and regulations surrounding political funding.
Catholic musings
Monday, November 3rd, 2008I don’t normally attend church, but this weekend my grandparents were in town, and I felt like I should go to Mass with them, if only because they wanted to. So, I went to the Saturday evening Mass, at the Catholic church near my uncle’s house. I haven’t attended a Catholic Mass since Christmas last year, and I don’t consider myself Catholic, despite being raised Catholic when I was living with my parents.
There are a number of things that bug me about the Catholic church, and a variety of policies that I entirely don’t agree with, but that’s not really the premise of this writing. Instead, I’d like to comment on the things that I noticed only at this one Mass. I’ll make connections to past experiences, shouldy be deemed necessary.
The first thing that I noticed as soon as I walked in was the ornatity of the church. This is a brand new building, as two parishes were merged together. Now, I understand wanting your place of worship/security/calmness/what-have-you to be aesthetically appealing, but I think there are levels of excess. This wa a very large church, and relatively plain, compared to some of the churches I’ve seen. However, while most of the church was plain, the entire altar area was incredibly ornate. There were four pillars surrounding the altar, made out of what appeared to be marble. That’s expensive stuff! I don’t entirely care if people are speding money in what I consider disgusting ways, but one of the core tenets of the Catholic Church (or, at least this is what I was taught) is helping those who are not as well off as you. I can understand needing a new church, that part makes sense to me. However, There is absolutely nothing stopping the Catholics from building a church, leaving out all the pillars, leaving out the enormous crucifix (I think is what they call it) hanging above the altar, leaving out the cushioned kneelers, and just using a bare-bones building. This would free up a lot of fund-raised money, thereby allowing more social justice stuff to be done.
The secod thing that bugged me was the Knights of Columbus. Specifically, the fact that they were dressed up in these costumes, with fluffy hats, capes, and ornamental swords. Swords! Now, maybe my pacifist parents sheltered me from the innate violence that the Knights of Columbus seem to have, but it seems as though this goes against traditional Catholic/christian teaching of “turning the other cheek” when someone attacks you. These men looked as though they were dressed to go battle (albeit a battle against the three musketeers, but a battle nonetheless).
Even the term suggests violence ‘Knights of Columbus’. That is, Columbus’ Knights. Knights for Columbus, etc. etc. Are these ‘Knights’ the kind that walk on the outside of the sidewalk so all the fecal matter on the streets doesn’t get on the ladie their walking with? Or are these the ones that jump onto horses at the first sign of trouble, and go and ‘take care’ of the trouble maker?
Overall, it seems as though the symbolism of things in the Catholic church seemed to go against the teachings of the Catholic Church. Maybe it’s not a big deal, because when you go to church you’re supposed to be in a spiritual place, and your surroundings don’t matter. If that’s the case, why are the surroundings so ornate? Ultimately the Catholic Church can do what they want, but it seems to me that the teachings and the practice are at odds with each other.
If I had any sway, I would advocate getting rid of the Knights of Columbus, and using the money from collections and fund raising to do some good in the world, instead of allowing a suburban church to spend money on things that seem to go against their belief system. Just my thoughts.
-JTS
