This one I approve of. Unfortunately FF (Former Friend- see previous post) has once again flaunted his lack of logic in being angered by the above photo. Here is his comments:
Preface to posted photo: Dear Mr. Hass: You're missing a critical premise in your argument, and just for your information, your surname means "Hate" in German.
Your counterargument hinges on the assumption that the U.S. Constitution is a higher authority than a given religious text. I think a few billion devouts worldwide would beg to differ, and thus, you will fail to encourage any change not achieved by a flamewar or a fistfight.
Sincerely,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Satanist Who Is Also Interested In Skepticism And Interfaith Dialogue To Further The Rights Of Everyone
Comment 1: I like to stimulate many things, including discussion.
I also like when people who are employing some sort of logic, to rebuke other people's arguments, actually understand what it is that is being argued before they answer it.
I had a whole conversation about this very same photo yesterday, in which I made it quite clear, someone who is arguing about the sanctity of marriage being violated is operating on the assumption that marriage is sacred. Therefore, trying to dismiss their ideas on the basis of "but marriage is a legal union" is like two ships passing in the night. It's completely missing the point and failing to address the original argument at all.
Comment 2: Here's a more reasoned rebuttal of the claim that gay marriage violates the sanctity of marriage:
Marriage is not exclusive to Judeo-Christian religions.
Therefore, marriage outside of the Judeo-Christian religions is not a threat to the sanctity of marriage within, any more than Islamic marriages, Hindu marriages, Sikh marriages, or atheist marriages are.
I would like to begin my rebuttal by discussing why I approve of the above image. Mainly, I appreciate the creator of this image showing linguistically how the argument "it violates the sanctity of marriage" is a religious argument and as such can not be used as a legal justification. He does not make the claim that gay marriage is good or bad, he simply points out that by our Constitution this particular argument is invalid. The opposition is welcome to present any other arguments they deem prudent but this particular one is void by our first amendment rights.
The problems I have with FF's comments I will explain chronologically:
1) Pointing out the meaning of the image creator's last name- this is irrelevant and is intentionally derogatory towards the creator. Its only aim could be to cast the creator in a negative light right from the start. Not a good foot to start out on.
2) "the assumption that the U.S. Constitution is a higher authority than a given religious text"- whatever an individual believes is a "higher authority" (a phrase that has religious tones in and of itself) is irrelevant when it comes to the establishment of law. The US was formed, in part, by a body of people seeking freedom from religious persecution. This is why we have the first amendment and it's preservation of freedom of religion. The US Constitution is the penultimate standard by which all secular laws are judged. Whether a particular church chooses to accept gay marriage or not is up to their religious laws but the US Government is not allowed to make that judgement as it is discriminatory against some segments of society.
3) "you will fail to encourage any change"- I missed where the image was implying a change. But, embracing FF's assumption, it is not necessary for every individual to embrace gay marriage. What matters in this argument is the actions and consequences of the government.
4) "flamewar or a fistfight"- I'm sorry, is FF honestly encouraging or at the least excusing the use of violence as the only way to achieve his ideals?
5) "Your Friendly Neighborhood Satanist Who Is Also Interested In Skepticism And Interfaith Dialogue To Further The Rights Of Everyone"- Like point 1, this comment is irrelevant and it's only aim seems to be to create a positive image of FF in the mind of the reader.
6) "someone who is arguing about the sanctity of marriage being violated is operating on the assumption that marriage is sacred."- Exactly, but the whole point of the image is trying to separate this, the religious argument, from the legal argument for/against gay marriage. Religious belief and legal action must be treated as two separate animals.
7) "Therefore, trying to dismiss their ideas on the basis of "but marriage is a legal union" is like two ships passing in the night."- I've already said that the image does not make an argument for or against gay marriage, it just refutes one argument against. Additionally, the image is only dismissing the sanctity of marriage as a legal argument, not an individual's ideas/belief about the sanctity of marriage.
8) "It's completely missing the point and failing to address the original argument at all."- Just to clarify, the original argument for this image was whether legalizing gay marriage "violates the sanctity of marriage". It was not about whether gay marriage is sacrilegious or trying to establish marriage as a solely secular practice. The argument made by the image is very narrow and must be seen as such.
9) Comment 2- I actually agree with the argument made in this comment. It is addressing a conflict quite different from that of the image, but it is still a valid argument.
I think FF is the one who should "actually understand what it is that is being argued before they answer it."
The fact is that in the United States of America the Constitution is the highest form of law in the land.
ReplyDeleteSo looking at the quote you quoted "the assumption that the U.S. Constitution is a higher authority than a given religious text"-
Well it's a pretty good assumption that in fact the US Constitution is a higher authority then any religious text, in terms of the law and frankly that's what matters.
FF makes an utterly irrelavent point when he says "I think a few billion devouts worldwide would beg to differ"
Frankly, it does not matter whither a few billion people not in the United States agree with it or not.
The fact is that like I said before the constitution here is the supreme law of the land.
-Ler
I agree. The distinction is religious law vs. secular law. Our nation is often described as a melting pot with all different races, ethnicities, religions, and philosophies living alongside one another. Our Constitution is what binds us together when our personal differences would divide us. It is the backbone of our nation and should be treated with respect.
Delete