Attached with this post is a fascinating You Tube video from Dr. John West from the Discovery Institute dealing with the initiative from the scientific community in dealing with religious expression centered around an accepting disposition towards Darwinian evolution. As you view it, you note a trend that such religious expression is confined to liberal theologians that would agree with a theistic evolutionary process, declaring the compatibility of science and religion. That is, if science has the final say on what is true religion. Dr. West makes a statement that such contacts with liberal Christian denominations would be welcomed, but there would be warnings if the neighborhood would be defined as a religiously conservative bloc. Then such a welcome to religious expression on evolution would be forbidden.
The hypocrisy is thick. The listing of religious organizations that Dr. Eugenie Scott would promote might just as well double as a listing of the apostate church.
It is the nature of the viewing of areas of life as liberal and conservative that makes me wonder about the nature of the field of apologetics. In the defense of the faith, is there a degree of liberalism and conservatism, and if so, to what degree does it hamper the study of this discipline? I acknowledge that there are apologetes that embrace theistic evolution (William Lane Craig) and old earth creationism (Dr. Hugh Ross). As a young earth creationist, I would disagree with these fine men on this issue. But their understanding of the nature of Christ's ministry of substitutionary atonement is a basic area of agreement. I laud Dr. Craig's efforts in debating (and decisively!) the panoply of the New Atheists. I respect Dr. Ross' work in his field of science. I would never hold a candle to them in their areas of expertise. Still, I humbly consider the matter as the efficacy of macroevolution as ill-defined. The Question Evolution Movement has cited fifteen hardcore questions that show that evolution has not, and possibly will never, explain the origin of life, sexuality, intriquate celluar structures, etc. I hold to a simple line of argument.
Premise 1: The origin of the universe is either explained by natural or supernatural causes.
Premise 2: The naturalistic explanations have been found wanting, particularly in the light of discrediting possible supernatural agencies.
Conclusion: The origin of the universe could plausibly be caused by supernatural agencies.
This could be as conservative a position as one can imagine. Does this lead to a rupture between liberal and conservative apologetics. No. I value the classical apologetical approach of Dr. Craig, but I assume an evidential approach, even though by rights my Lutheranism would make me a fideist. But I understand I could produce rationale for faith, based on evidence. I find myself disagreeing with some of the points raised by apologists as Lane, Licona, and even McDowell (Josh and Sean). But the essentials of the faith we defend are consistent. The brilliancy of apologetics is a well-defined "agreement to disagree" on matters. The code of all apolgetes is found in 1 Peter 3: 15 after all:
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts; and always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, with humility and fear. (WEB)
Now for Dr. West. Watch and ponder.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
On Also-Rans and the Issue of "Electablity"
The recent victories of Rick Santorum in Minnesota, Colorado, and Missouri, coupled with Ron Paul's improved showings in Maine and the CPAC Convention leads to a gratifying feeling that the remaining four Republican candidates will have an engaging campaign through the remainder of the season. The complacent world of journalism tends to generalize too soon, and a failure of producing a string of endless Mitt Romney victories has put the pre-presidential campaign of Barack Obama vs. Republican contender into a desirable limbo. We are far from electing a president at this time, and straw polls and surveys are lame substitutes for the reality of November 2012. We have four candidates, and all have made token remarks to win over the conservative element of their party.
The general misgivings on Santorum and Paul has been the idea that they would not fare well in a theoretical showdown with the President at this time. Voters have been given the specter of some entity called "electability." This quality is presented as a sine qua non for candidacy. As these two have not done well in the early primaries, it has become a foregone conclusion that Paul or Santorum are not qualified to run. A campaign of two candidates would be more appealing than one with four, especially if the two definitely present something of a widened political spectrum, a moderate versus a conservative. Too many conservatives seem to be superfluous.
However, the argument could be expressed that the standing conservative, with his unsavory marital history, has unyieldy baggage, allowing the moderate (aka, a conservative's liberal) a decided advantage. Even I, whom I would label as "conservative," would have difficulty pushing Newt over Mitt. I am delighted that the other two candidates have persisted in their efforts, and that some success has come of it all. I am against the candidate that too soon becomes a "media darling" or the expressed choice of the party's "powers-that-be." As a veteran of last year's Walker vs. Neumann primary, I hold especially any favored status promoted by the party (e.g. "electability") to be an insult to the voting populace. As a "Neumann backer," my friendly advice would forever be "find the man the party proposes, and vote for the other fellow." After all, I remain of the opinion that the man (or woman) I would back must hold to the fundamental positions I support.
Thus a field of four offers more hope for those who believe that the 2012 must field two candidates of varied political positions, the classic liberal vs. conservative showdown. Two moderates lacks a feel for entirety. The victory that Obama secured over John McCain four years prior could easily have been a mandate to elect the first African-American to demonstrate progress towards a noble goal. It could also easily be seen as the Republican Party's effort to offer a candidate that has qualities similar to the Obama juggernaut. But that smacked too much of a "me-too-ism" that was featured in the Kennedy-Nixon debates, a series of encounters that showed two candidates, one young and dynamic, one young and haggard, with similar positions. The aura of dynamism that Kennedy held was the edge in that election. My hope is to allow a real choice in this year's election. But to do this, any weight that a strawman argument such as "electability" has to be seen as the smokescreen that it is. The country should vote its conscience according to the issues that guide the nation, not political opportunism.
The general misgivings on Santorum and Paul has been the idea that they would not fare well in a theoretical showdown with the President at this time. Voters have been given the specter of some entity called "electability." This quality is presented as a sine qua non for candidacy. As these two have not done well in the early primaries, it has become a foregone conclusion that Paul or Santorum are not qualified to run. A campaign of two candidates would be more appealing than one with four, especially if the two definitely present something of a widened political spectrum, a moderate versus a conservative. Too many conservatives seem to be superfluous.
However, the argument could be expressed that the standing conservative, with his unsavory marital history, has unyieldy baggage, allowing the moderate (aka, a conservative's liberal) a decided advantage. Even I, whom I would label as "conservative," would have difficulty pushing Newt over Mitt. I am delighted that the other two candidates have persisted in their efforts, and that some success has come of it all. I am against the candidate that too soon becomes a "media darling" or the expressed choice of the party's "powers-that-be." As a veteran of last year's Walker vs. Neumann primary, I hold especially any favored status promoted by the party (e.g. "electability") to be an insult to the voting populace. As a "Neumann backer," my friendly advice would forever be "find the man the party proposes, and vote for the other fellow." After all, I remain of the opinion that the man (or woman) I would back must hold to the fundamental positions I support.
Thus a field of four offers more hope for those who believe that the 2012 must field two candidates of varied political positions, the classic liberal vs. conservative showdown. Two moderates lacks a feel for entirety. The victory that Obama secured over John McCain four years prior could easily have been a mandate to elect the first African-American to demonstrate progress towards a noble goal. It could also easily be seen as the Republican Party's effort to offer a candidate that has qualities similar to the Obama juggernaut. But that smacked too much of a "me-too-ism" that was featured in the Kennedy-Nixon debates, a series of encounters that showed two candidates, one young and dynamic, one young and haggard, with similar positions. The aura of dynamism that Kennedy held was the edge in that election. My hope is to allow a real choice in this year's election. But to do this, any weight that a strawman argument such as "electability" has to be seen as the smokescreen that it is. The country should vote its conscience according to the issues that guide the nation, not political opportunism.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Rob Bell, Hell, Thin Ice, and the "Scare 'Em" Strawman Fallacy
What prompted this line of thought was a recent news item that declared the ice on Lake Winnebago to be dreadfully thin at this season when the annual sturgeon run was at hand. The yearly ice-shanty villages that dot the northern edge of this sizable lake seem threatened. Those 100-200 lb. brutes of the depths seem to have been spared the fate of the spearer. Growing up living near this lake had been my fondest boyhood memories, including fishing its shorelines, swimming its beaches, skipping stones onto its surface, and walking the ice.
I have considered the work of the evangelical Rob Bell in his recent book Love Wins, and his rationale for dismissing the realms of eternal punishment. Hell, to Bell, seems inconsistent with the idea of a loving God, and even faced with the necessity of dealing with a perfectly just God, Hell would be overkill. To many who flinch at the concept of Hell, the notions of annihilation or a temporary stay in the Inferno are palatable options. The insistence on the reality of Hell is touted by some to be a loveless message, a strategy to hold people fear-bound in the pews or scare them into fellowship. It is in treating this misconception that I turn to this topic, and neatly try to explain what the first paragraph of this blog has to do with the second.
I stated that I grew up near Lake Winnebago, the proud resident of Neenah, Wisconsin. Check Google Earth to get the lay of this land. This wonder of a lake is 30 miles north to south, six miles at its widest stretch, and is remarkably shallow for its dimensions, 21 feet at best. Near my section of Lake Winnebago flows the Fox River south and north of Doty Island. For me, it was a trick to be walking on the ice near this confluence of river and lake. We had to be very wary in reading the ice. The whiter, the thicker. And never, ever go near sections of "black ice." It had "thin" written all over it. It had gotten to be a simple matter to determine how many inches of ice by viewing the particular shade of white, and we were quick to notice the graying of ice, an indication that warm weather was beginning to decay the ice. We noted the evenings when the winds were strengthening in the transitional months of February and March, and we marveled at the heights of the ice jams that forced themselves on the western shores of the lake, 15 to 20 feet high. Armed with that knowledge, it was rather safe for an ice savvy person to walk the ice. As a boy, I swung far away from the suspicious ice near the entrance of the Fox River at Kimberly Point to walk to Doty Island. Could one go through the ice on Winnebago? Certainly, but such a one would not have been able to read the ice at that moment.
So what does this have to do with the fear factor in dealing with Hell? Much. To a Texan or a Floridian, the idea of walking on areas where there may be thin ice may be a fearsome concept, but perhaps also an idea that would not simply cross the mind. To one uninfomed of walking on ice covered lakes, such people who do would appear to be terrible risk takers. Except to the knowledgeable, such walking has no risks. We become alert to the situations, and are safe. In the same way, Hell is a reality to the one who takes Scriptures seriously, but not much of one. Hell is a doctrine that the Bible teaches, and it should be taught. But not as a scare tactic or to prompt stable and increased membership in the Church. But as a truth with consequences, a fair warning, a lesson in walking the ice. A danger that is there, but not threatening to the initiate. To the Christian, Hell is for those who wish separation from God, a logical consequence for choosing poorly. But what type of fellow would choose poorly if s/he would acknowledge a better option? If we all worry about getting to Heaven, the simple answer is to find out how one gains access there.
Finding that answer may be the most pleasant one has in life. No one fears going through the ice if they are smart about it.
I have considered the work of the evangelical Rob Bell in his recent book Love Wins, and his rationale for dismissing the realms of eternal punishment. Hell, to Bell, seems inconsistent with the idea of a loving God, and even faced with the necessity of dealing with a perfectly just God, Hell would be overkill. To many who flinch at the concept of Hell, the notions of annihilation or a temporary stay in the Inferno are palatable options. The insistence on the reality of Hell is touted by some to be a loveless message, a strategy to hold people fear-bound in the pews or scare them into fellowship. It is in treating this misconception that I turn to this topic, and neatly try to explain what the first paragraph of this blog has to do with the second.
I stated that I grew up near Lake Winnebago, the proud resident of Neenah, Wisconsin. Check Google Earth to get the lay of this land. This wonder of a lake is 30 miles north to south, six miles at its widest stretch, and is remarkably shallow for its dimensions, 21 feet at best. Near my section of Lake Winnebago flows the Fox River south and north of Doty Island. For me, it was a trick to be walking on the ice near this confluence of river and lake. We had to be very wary in reading the ice. The whiter, the thicker. And never, ever go near sections of "black ice." It had "thin" written all over it. It had gotten to be a simple matter to determine how many inches of ice by viewing the particular shade of white, and we were quick to notice the graying of ice, an indication that warm weather was beginning to decay the ice. We noted the evenings when the winds were strengthening in the transitional months of February and March, and we marveled at the heights of the ice jams that forced themselves on the western shores of the lake, 15 to 20 feet high. Armed with that knowledge, it was rather safe for an ice savvy person to walk the ice. As a boy, I swung far away from the suspicious ice near the entrance of the Fox River at Kimberly Point to walk to Doty Island. Could one go through the ice on Winnebago? Certainly, but such a one would not have been able to read the ice at that moment.
So what does this have to do with the fear factor in dealing with Hell? Much. To a Texan or a Floridian, the idea of walking on areas where there may be thin ice may be a fearsome concept, but perhaps also an idea that would not simply cross the mind. To one uninfomed of walking on ice covered lakes, such people who do would appear to be terrible risk takers. Except to the knowledgeable, such walking has no risks. We become alert to the situations, and are safe. In the same way, Hell is a reality to the one who takes Scriptures seriously, but not much of one. Hell is a doctrine that the Bible teaches, and it should be taught. But not as a scare tactic or to prompt stable and increased membership in the Church. But as a truth with consequences, a fair warning, a lesson in walking the ice. A danger that is there, but not threatening to the initiate. To the Christian, Hell is for those who wish separation from God, a logical consequence for choosing poorly. But what type of fellow would choose poorly if s/he would acknowledge a better option? If we all worry about getting to Heaven, the simple answer is to find out how one gains access there.
Finding that answer may be the most pleasant one has in life. No one fears going through the ice if they are smart about it.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Law's "Evil God Challenge" and the Problem of Limited Vision
Bernard Law's concept of the identification of God as essentially evil has been limping from the first day. Plagued by the ontological basis of God being good as a logical consequence of a functional designed universe, the difficulties in the moral argument as being divinely founded over against a core of moral initiatives that lack positive authority apart from natural consequences, Law's premises lack substance. Suspicious of having the capability to understand God well enough to establish His ways as evil, it is equally possible to fail to appreciate His activities to the point of determining their motives. To this I offer the following analogy. Read and ponder.
THE ANALOGY OF THE "EVIL" BANK
You have been led to conclude that the financial entity called "the bank" is evil because of the following facts: It has 1) foreclosed on your home, 2) led to legal proceedings that caused the repossession of your car, and 3) refused to lend you money for your plans and projects. You rail on the deficiencies of the bank to all your friends and colleagues. They sympathize with you, and this heartens you in the knowledge that their disapproval of the bank's actions against you has become their shared viewpoint. But some of your friends have made inquiries on the motivations of the bank, and have discovered that 1) you have refused to make the necessary payments, 2) have made actions that have worked against the reclamation of property purchased through bank money, and 3) have shown a tendency to be reckless with funds and funding procedures. In short, there is a basis for the bank to conclude that dealing with you would not be in their best interests. However, you have personally blocked these reasons from your mind and have warmed yourself with the notion that such banking transactions were founded on a core concept that all bank activity is essentially "evil." In short, it is coming to a grip on the idea of personal responsibility with bank officials that is lacking, and the declaration of "evil" is a rationale that satisfies you, in spite of the factors that you feel must be dismissed from the equation.
Such a declaration of evil is based on anecdotal evidence, a refusal to contemplate the full array of information that would settle the true nature of banking and its way with men and society. A quick estimation of banking as "evil" is adequate because you deem it adequate, and further review of the topic would lead to uncomfortable premises that would soon unravel your position. All factors are not weighed, only the ones you hold. God is far beyond the complexities of economics, and gathering all indicators of His nature would be a perplexing task, much in the same line of comtemplating the universe. Science, for all its achievements, is no closer to that level of understanding.
In line with this disertation on the "Evil God Challenge," I offer this selection from Paul Washer and his defense against the so-called "evil god" supposition. Watch and ponder.
THE ANALOGY OF THE "EVIL" BANK
You have been led to conclude that the financial entity called "the bank" is evil because of the following facts: It has 1) foreclosed on your home, 2) led to legal proceedings that caused the repossession of your car, and 3) refused to lend you money for your plans and projects. You rail on the deficiencies of the bank to all your friends and colleagues. They sympathize with you, and this heartens you in the knowledge that their disapproval of the bank's actions against you has become their shared viewpoint. But some of your friends have made inquiries on the motivations of the bank, and have discovered that 1) you have refused to make the necessary payments, 2) have made actions that have worked against the reclamation of property purchased through bank money, and 3) have shown a tendency to be reckless with funds and funding procedures. In short, there is a basis for the bank to conclude that dealing with you would not be in their best interests. However, you have personally blocked these reasons from your mind and have warmed yourself with the notion that such banking transactions were founded on a core concept that all bank activity is essentially "evil." In short, it is coming to a grip on the idea of personal responsibility with bank officials that is lacking, and the declaration of "evil" is a rationale that satisfies you, in spite of the factors that you feel must be dismissed from the equation.
Such a declaration of evil is based on anecdotal evidence, a refusal to contemplate the full array of information that would settle the true nature of banking and its way with men and society. A quick estimation of banking as "evil" is adequate because you deem it adequate, and further review of the topic would lead to uncomfortable premises that would soon unravel your position. All factors are not weighed, only the ones you hold. God is far beyond the complexities of economics, and gathering all indicators of His nature would be a perplexing task, much in the same line of comtemplating the universe. Science, for all its achievements, is no closer to that level of understanding.
In line with this disertation on the "Evil God Challenge," I offer this selection from Paul Washer and his defense against the so-called "evil god" supposition. Watch and ponder.
Regionalism, Presidential Politics, and the Pedastaled Argument
In the realm of strawman arguments, the political process is the main consumer. I have found the debates of the Republican candidates a refreshingly different game of "king on the mountain." As political promises shift, the game of perceive the front-runner as prime target deals out re-examinations of the proposals and policies of the most recent winner of any primary, caucus, or debate.
As the primaries shift from state to state, I have noted the winner as representative of a region. Santorum's slender victory in Iowa deprived Romney of a triumph in the Heartland. No tears for the Massachusetts governor, as he crushed all comers in the New Hampshire primary. In his euphoria of victory, his momentum was throttled in South Carolina, where Gingrich eclipsed all comers. Thus I began to wonder if there would be a trend where Romney would fare better in liberal states, Gingrich in Southern states, and Santorum, if he has a ghost of a chance, in the mid-section of the nation. Especially in the light of the radically changing fortunes of the Republican "leader du jour." Could it be possible in a nation that the populace could easily tire of the two main contenders and scan the field for what is left? Time will tell, but in the too easy to ponder milieu of the scarecrow argument, we've been stuck with a choice between a Mormon and a philanderer. Unenticing menu that.
I look forward to primaries that will move towards the West, and definitely in the mid-section of the country, particularly the northern and southern prairie states. A few sorties in the "rust Belt" around the Great Lakes may be an eye-opener. California, with its expansiveness, would contrast its rustic north with its urban south. It could well be that Texas could be Ron Paul's only hope for recognition. It all leads one to ponder why one would wish to vote for a particular person. His region could be the reason. We in the Midwest can't understand the background of the Northeast, and vice versa. We all wonder at the temperament of the Red Staters if we are Blue Staters, and vice versa. But it is from these regions that Americans as a rule pronounce our wishes for leadership, a sense of "one of our own" even if he is not from the neighborhood.
I have written of the pedestaled argument, the position that wins by default due to political pressures on society that would like to establish settled absolutes. The foundation for such acceptance, even downright obedience, is declaring a core group as elite sources of proper behavior, tolerant understanding, and trends to incorporate into the socio-economic community at large. It is a thinly veiled argumentum ad verecundiam, a yield all counter-argument in light of allowing society to function smoothly without dissent. The concept of election is based on the republican idea of representation of the electorate's desire for leadership to be derived from a mandate of voters who have sought a candidate much in line with their own political viewpoints. This is extremely hard in a nation that has become more and more divisive and divided. In the world of politics, compromise recognized the truth that no political solution is easy, but based on a sea of factors that cannot simply be balanced by any social calculus. And yet we persist, happy in the lingo of "neo-cons" and "tree hugger libs" that tends to consolidate a feeling of us vs. them in the political arena, sanctioning negative political ads, seemingly pointless questions aimed to savage political careers, and a general feeling that America will never find its Cincinnatus that will come in, lead well, retire humbly. A career politican may well be our best bet, or our worse nightmare.
The strawmen are fast becoming busy.
As the primaries shift from state to state, I have noted the winner as representative of a region. Santorum's slender victory in Iowa deprived Romney of a triumph in the Heartland. No tears for the Massachusetts governor, as he crushed all comers in the New Hampshire primary. In his euphoria of victory, his momentum was throttled in South Carolina, where Gingrich eclipsed all comers. Thus I began to wonder if there would be a trend where Romney would fare better in liberal states, Gingrich in Southern states, and Santorum, if he has a ghost of a chance, in the mid-section of the nation. Especially in the light of the radically changing fortunes of the Republican "leader du jour." Could it be possible in a nation that the populace could easily tire of the two main contenders and scan the field for what is left? Time will tell, but in the too easy to ponder milieu of the scarecrow argument, we've been stuck with a choice between a Mormon and a philanderer. Unenticing menu that.
I look forward to primaries that will move towards the West, and definitely in the mid-section of the country, particularly the northern and southern prairie states. A few sorties in the "rust Belt" around the Great Lakes may be an eye-opener. California, with its expansiveness, would contrast its rustic north with its urban south. It could well be that Texas could be Ron Paul's only hope for recognition. It all leads one to ponder why one would wish to vote for a particular person. His region could be the reason. We in the Midwest can't understand the background of the Northeast, and vice versa. We all wonder at the temperament of the Red Staters if we are Blue Staters, and vice versa. But it is from these regions that Americans as a rule pronounce our wishes for leadership, a sense of "one of our own" even if he is not from the neighborhood.
I have written of the pedestaled argument, the position that wins by default due to political pressures on society that would like to establish settled absolutes. The foundation for such acceptance, even downright obedience, is declaring a core group as elite sources of proper behavior, tolerant understanding, and trends to incorporate into the socio-economic community at large. It is a thinly veiled argumentum ad verecundiam, a yield all counter-argument in light of allowing society to function smoothly without dissent. The concept of election is based on the republican idea of representation of the electorate's desire for leadership to be derived from a mandate of voters who have sought a candidate much in line with their own political viewpoints. This is extremely hard in a nation that has become more and more divisive and divided. In the world of politics, compromise recognized the truth that no political solution is easy, but based on a sea of factors that cannot simply be balanced by any social calculus. And yet we persist, happy in the lingo of "neo-cons" and "tree hugger libs" that tends to consolidate a feeling of us vs. them in the political arena, sanctioning negative political ads, seemingly pointless questions aimed to savage political careers, and a general feeling that America will never find its Cincinnatus that will come in, lead well, retire humbly. A career politican may well be our best bet, or our worse nightmare.
The strawmen are fast becoming busy.
Monday, January 2, 2012
One Point About Tolerance
Below is a You Tube Video from the One-Minute Apologist. In it, Greg Koukl makes a very wise point about the argument of declaring one side intolerant, as if this strawman strategy is viable. On viewing, one will see the vaprous lack of substance such a blanket statement makes, and the rather invalid contribution to the discussion of ideas.
Watch and ponder.
Watch and ponder.
Perceptions and the Creation of the Strawman
The topic under discussion is the creation of the strawman that shortcuts all possible intercourse that could seek to resolve issues. To do this study in a reasonable approach, I needed to create the situation that I am dealing fairly in this project and not creating the strawman concerning something I disagree with and defeat the purpose of this post. What would be the point of dealing with the creation of the strawman if in doing so I have fully engaged in the mindset that creates the fallacy? It would be no more a demonstration of the fallacy by committing it myself. A type of "watch me screw something up in the field of logics." I wish to examine this unhealthy phenomenon critically.
In doing this, I wish to present two political movements that are poles apart on the key issues, acknowledging that I will tend to lean towards one position, but also pointing out the shabby tendency to vilify the opposition. These movements are the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement. In the study, I would first show images that would positively present the position of the activists with brief commentary, and then images that promote strawman disemblance of the movement. But without commentary. After showing both positions, I would critique the common fallacy committed by both, with a plea for understanding of these contrasting views.
1. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT
Positive images
In review of the pictures, the movement sees as the problem over-sized government, with a zeal to tax excessively. It sees the role of such government as socialism, which has been a noted failure as a system of regulations of nations, economics, and social structure. It holds such government to be tyrannical, unsympathetic to the citizenry, and wasteful of resources. Such government is incapable of sustained growth and management. This is what the Tea Party movement sees as what the nation must fear.
Negative images:
2. THE OCCUPY ... MOVEMENT
Positive images
The Occupy Movement sees that failure of capitalism as the foundation to all the wrongs of America. They seek to define a method of a reasonable and fair redistribution of wealth to alleviate social injustices that have been mandated by a portion of society that controls the economics of the country. The role of government is to establish the necessary programs that would see to the material needs and equivalent rights that a failure to resolve the effects of poverty had for the most part had caused.
Negative images:
THE POWER OF PERCEPTION IN THE CREATION OF THE STRAWMAN
In examining the negative images of each, it is clear that no effort is made to see the reasonings of a given movement if one happened to disagree with the premises of the movement. To the Occupyan, the Tea Party advocate is a pawn of the corrupt 1%, or inconsistent in the basic positions of the movement. To the Tea Partier, the Occupy protester is an unprincipled slacker who is secretly working for enemy governments that would transform America into a socialist state. We have seen all things in the filter of our own perceptions. The opposition is not a disenting view, it has become a hostile enemy that must be destroyed. It is too easy to point out the tacky signs that label Pres. Obama as fascist, or the wealthy individual as a narcissic drain upon the strength of the American worker.
Bottom line. Both are concerned for the future of their country, but at this point, we have not alerted each other to our visions, our fears, our passion for the continuance of democratic systems and the common welfare of the citizens. Until we have this ability to hear we drives our political viewpoints, our desitny is best expressed in one last image:
In doing this, I wish to present two political movements that are poles apart on the key issues, acknowledging that I will tend to lean towards one position, but also pointing out the shabby tendency to vilify the opposition. These movements are the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement. In the study, I would first show images that would positively present the position of the activists with brief commentary, and then images that promote strawman disemblance of the movement. But without commentary. After showing both positions, I would critique the common fallacy committed by both, with a plea for understanding of these contrasting views.
1. THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT
Positive images
In review of the pictures, the movement sees as the problem over-sized government, with a zeal to tax excessively. It sees the role of such government as socialism, which has been a noted failure as a system of regulations of nations, economics, and social structure. It holds such government to be tyrannical, unsympathetic to the citizenry, and wasteful of resources. Such government is incapable of sustained growth and management. This is what the Tea Party movement sees as what the nation must fear.
Negative images:
2. THE OCCUPY ... MOVEMENT
Positive images
The Occupy Movement sees that failure of capitalism as the foundation to all the wrongs of America. They seek to define a method of a reasonable and fair redistribution of wealth to alleviate social injustices that have been mandated by a portion of society that controls the economics of the country. The role of government is to establish the necessary programs that would see to the material needs and equivalent rights that a failure to resolve the effects of poverty had for the most part had caused.
Negative images:
THE POWER OF PERCEPTION IN THE CREATION OF THE STRAWMAN
In examining the negative images of each, it is clear that no effort is made to see the reasonings of a given movement if one happened to disagree with the premises of the movement. To the Occupyan, the Tea Party advocate is a pawn of the corrupt 1%, or inconsistent in the basic positions of the movement. To the Tea Partier, the Occupy protester is an unprincipled slacker who is secretly working for enemy governments that would transform America into a socialist state. We have seen all things in the filter of our own perceptions. The opposition is not a disenting view, it has become a hostile enemy that must be destroyed. It is too easy to point out the tacky signs that label Pres. Obama as fascist, or the wealthy individual as a narcissic drain upon the strength of the American worker.
Bottom line. Both are concerned for the future of their country, but at this point, we have not alerted each other to our visions, our fears, our passion for the continuance of democratic systems and the common welfare of the citizens. Until we have this ability to hear we drives our political viewpoints, our desitny is best expressed in one last image:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)