Their conclusion? You know their conclusion. “ All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture…”
You would think, after centuries of being consistently wrong on everything from astronomy to zoology that church leaders would have developed some humility when it comes to, er, pontificating, on matters secular.
Seems not.
Earlier this month four hundred cassocked and tonsured clerics, bishops, priests reverends, very reverends, Commissioners, Cardinals and Archbishops dipped their wicks into the political mainstream. They declared that debate on the Treaty of Waitangi would “…lead to division between the peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand, cause the spread of disinformation, and hinder efforts at healing and reconciliation.”
It takes some chutzpah to criticise others about spreading misinformation when your founding document is the greatest collection of fables masquerading as fact ever promulgated.
Now. I could dwell on this obvious hypocrisy, or raise the turbulent history of various religious orders when it comes to wars, pederasty, heretic burning and repeated moral failure in the face of evil during the last century; but that would be to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad hominin.
Because a person has some moral flaw or taint, does not invalidate the argument they are presenting. A fool’s observation can be prescient. This column, perhaps, is evidence of that.
Perhaps not. Forgive me father, for I have sinned. Boy, have I sinned.
When assessing an idea, we need to examine what is being said, not dismissing it based upon the merits of the author.
The converse of this fallacy is the appeal to authority. This, also, has a long tradition in matters religious, so it is not surprising to see it being repeated by those caught in the ferment of faith.
English philosopher John Locke wrote, in 1689, “When men are established in any kind of dignity, it is thought a breach of modesty for others to derogate any way from it…. Whoever backs his tenets with such authorities, thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause, and is ready to style it impudence in any one who shall stand out against them. This I think may be called argumentum ad verecundiam”
The appeal to authority is an error, because assumes that a reference to the status of the person determines who is right. In a debate between a prince and a pauper, the prince is always correct.
This might be true when debating who shall have access to the ladies in waiting, but it is not a basis to resolve deeper issues.
Ideas should be debated on their merits. Those holding religious office have an expertise in their chosen field and were I to wish to understand how many lashes I may deliver to my slave, then I shall consult these individuals on how I should interpret Exodus 21 in a contemporary era.
However. If I wish to understand the workings of an electric engine, the correct method of assembling patio furniture or how to interpret historical documents, the views of religious leaders are of no moment other than the force of their plain words.
So. Let’s deal with the argument being made; that to debate this issue is to risk disharmony and discord, and consequently this topic and the treaty referendum proposed by Act should be shelved for the good of the realm.
The assertion is that some arguments are unacceptable and should be silenced. From a Christian perspective, this is consistent. The bible has a lot to say about obedience and harmony. But we are not a theocratic state.
In the secular realm we discover truth by debate, reason and disproving one proposition after another. We cannot progress unless we examine ideas, however awful some may perceive them.
We have been having this discussion since 1975. The Treaty of Waitangi Act put this issue into the political arena. David Seymour did not initiate this conversation; he is merely participating in it.
It is correct for those with a religious viewpoint to join Seymour in this debate. They have a perspective and it should be listened to. What they have no right to do is to claim, as a consequence of their status as religious leaders, the moral authority to ask others to fall into silence.
The clerical 400 opened with a Beatitude; Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God; presumptively elevating themselves to be divine adjacent for their efforts in this area.....The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
Seems not.
Earlier this month four hundred cassocked and tonsured clerics, bishops, priests reverends, very reverends, Commissioners, Cardinals and Archbishops dipped their wicks into the political mainstream. They declared that debate on the Treaty of Waitangi would “…lead to division between the peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand, cause the spread of disinformation, and hinder efforts at healing and reconciliation.”
It takes some chutzpah to criticise others about spreading misinformation when your founding document is the greatest collection of fables masquerading as fact ever promulgated.
Now. I could dwell on this obvious hypocrisy, or raise the turbulent history of various religious orders when it comes to wars, pederasty, heretic burning and repeated moral failure in the face of evil during the last century; but that would be to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad hominin.
Because a person has some moral flaw or taint, does not invalidate the argument they are presenting. A fool’s observation can be prescient. This column, perhaps, is evidence of that.
Perhaps not. Forgive me father, for I have sinned. Boy, have I sinned.
When assessing an idea, we need to examine what is being said, not dismissing it based upon the merits of the author.
The converse of this fallacy is the appeal to authority. This, also, has a long tradition in matters religious, so it is not surprising to see it being repeated by those caught in the ferment of faith.
English philosopher John Locke wrote, in 1689, “When men are established in any kind of dignity, it is thought a breach of modesty for others to derogate any way from it…. Whoever backs his tenets with such authorities, thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause, and is ready to style it impudence in any one who shall stand out against them. This I think may be called argumentum ad verecundiam”
The appeal to authority is an error, because assumes that a reference to the status of the person determines who is right. In a debate between a prince and a pauper, the prince is always correct.
This might be true when debating who shall have access to the ladies in waiting, but it is not a basis to resolve deeper issues.
Ideas should be debated on their merits. Those holding religious office have an expertise in their chosen field and were I to wish to understand how many lashes I may deliver to my slave, then I shall consult these individuals on how I should interpret Exodus 21 in a contemporary era.
However. If I wish to understand the workings of an electric engine, the correct method of assembling patio furniture or how to interpret historical documents, the views of religious leaders are of no moment other than the force of their plain words.
So. Let’s deal with the argument being made; that to debate this issue is to risk disharmony and discord, and consequently this topic and the treaty referendum proposed by Act should be shelved for the good of the realm.
The assertion is that some arguments are unacceptable and should be silenced. From a Christian perspective, this is consistent. The bible has a lot to say about obedience and harmony. But we are not a theocratic state.
In the secular realm we discover truth by debate, reason and disproving one proposition after another. We cannot progress unless we examine ideas, however awful some may perceive them.
We have been having this discussion since 1975. The Treaty of Waitangi Act put this issue into the political arena. David Seymour did not initiate this conversation; he is merely participating in it.
It is correct for those with a religious viewpoint to join Seymour in this debate. They have a perspective and it should be listened to. What they have no right to do is to claim, as a consequence of their status as religious leaders, the moral authority to ask others to fall into silence.
The clerical 400 opened with a Beatitude; Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God; presumptively elevating themselves to be divine adjacent for their efforts in this area.....The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
2 comments:
It is now glaringly obvious that many factions do not want, will not permit - and will actively prevent - taxpaying NZers to speak via a debate and referendum on the continuation of democracy for the nation.
All these factions are related to power and money. What is going on here?
Well expressed, Damien. Between you and Chris Trotter, I think these church leaders should now be issuing forth an open letter of apology, for their individual and collective foolishness, ignorance and hypocrisy in making claims that they had no right to make, yet alone had any measurable substance.
Post a Comment