Tag Archives: first amendment

Simple responses to common objections

contradiction.jpgMy guess is that if you have any conversations about abortion or the definition of marriage that you encounter these objections.  They seem to have lasting rhetorical force, which is why they are used so often.  But they crumble under a little bit of analysis.

Here are some easy and bullet-proof responses.  Don’t expect answers, though.  I can almost guarantee that they will change the subject and/or attack you personally.  When they ignore them a second time you can be sure that you are dealing with a dishonest debater.

Use them politely and hopefully you’ll plant a seed.

1. Objection: “You are just forcing your beliefs on others!”

Response: Do you think murder and theft should be illegal?  If so, are you forcing your views on others?  By that definition of “forcing” all laws would be wrong.

2. Similar objection, with bonus anti-religious bigotry: “You are forcing your religious beliefs on others and we have the ‘separation of church and state.’”

  • Since the Bible says murder and theft are wrong, does that mean I’m forcing those religious beliefs on others?
  • Must I vote the opposite of my religious views, such as requiring that stealing from and murdering atheists should be legal?
  • Why are you trying to suppress my First Amendment rights?  The First Amendment explicitly protects religious and political speech, it doesn’t restrict it.
  • How does opposing the destruction of the unborn or stating that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman qualify as forcing others to join my religion?
  • Do you speak as consistently to silence the opinions of theological liberals who share your views, or do you just try to stifle those who oppose you?  (The latter would be hypocritical of you.)

3. Objection: “You pro-lifers only care about children in the womb and you don’t care about them once they are born.”

  • Protesting an immoral act does not obligate you to take care of its victims.  
  • If the government wanted to solve the homeless problem by killing homeless people, could you object to their destruction without having to personally house them?  In the same way, we can object to the killing of innocent human beings without having to feed, clothe and house them for life.
  • Your statement is false.  Pro-lifers help women and children before and after pregnancies with their own time and money.  There are more pregnancy centers (which offer services for free) than their are abortion clinics (which make huge profits).
  • Unless you are insisting that poor people must have abortions, the same obligations of support and care that you require of pro-lifers would fall on you.
Advertisements

Easy responses to those dismissing your political views because they align with your religious views

Congress shall make no law .... abridging the ...
Image by gnuckx via Flickr

You will often find skeptics and theological Liberals trying to dismiss your views because they are driven by or merely align with your religious views.  They invoke the oft-misunderstood “separation of church and state” notion (for the 237th time, that phrase is not in the Constitution).  But the 1st Amendment protects religious speech, it doesn’t restrict it.

Aside from that, here are some quick and easy replies when people try to dismiss your pro-life, pro-real marriage, etc. views.  You are simply pointing out that the issue isn’t religious views, it is them being unwilling to argue the issues on their merits.  They are trying to dismiss your views without having to respond to them.

1. “Do I  have to vote opposite of my religious views or be silent about them?   Christianity teaches me not to kill atheists and steal their stuff.  So am I “forcing my religious beliefs on you” if I support laws against theft and murder?”

This argument shows how they are just dismissing your views because they disagree with them.  They have no issue with your religious views in principle, just the ones they disagree with – which means religion isn’t the issue.

2. “Do you protest the religious speech of theological Liberals?  I can point you to countless false teachers and religious types who insist that God is pro-abortion, pro-gay theology, pro-open borders, pro-wealth redistribution, etc.  Can you show me where you are just as active in dismissing their religious views as you are mine?”

This points out their hypocrisy in claiming to oppose religious views when they really just oppose religious views they disagree with.  Again, it shows that religion isn’t the issue.  I’ve yet to find one person crying “separation” against theological Liberals.

3. “My arguments (for pro-life, pro-real marriage, etc. positions) didn’t even mention religion.  But if you want to bring Jesus into this I’ll be glad to.”

I can and do argue for many of these issues without using “religion.”  I save the biblical arguments for those claiming to be Christian, or I am at least very careful in keeping the arguments separate.  For example, to advance the pro-life view I just need the irrefutable scientific fact that  the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception and some simple philosophy (we shouldn’t destroy innocent human beings for 99% of the reasons given for abortion).

When opponents will reflexively use the anti-religion card I have fun pointing out that I haven’t used religious arguments.  But hey, if they want to talk religion that would be great!  This argument shows them that they are mired in stereotype-land and are just trying to dismiss opposing views without doing the hard work of responding based on facts and logic.

—–

Have fun with these!  Use them gently.

Roundup

Let’s see: Harry Reid says opposing the health care bill it is akin to promoting slavery, yet his party favors public funding of abortions for the poor?  Hey Harry, black human beings are already destroyed at a rate three times that of whites.  Isn’t that high enough for you, and isn’t that the real racism?

Why does the RNC just oppose government funded abortions in their purity test?  I realize that the issue in the health care bill is front and center, but let’s not forget that all abortions kill an innocent human being. 

Christian man fired after gay rights group contacts his employer to complain — Your freedoms are eroding at a rapid rate, people. 

More on Kevin Jennings, the most ironically titled Czar of them all.  What a sick freak. 

He is Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar.

He is a supporter of men who openly and vocally support pedophilia.

. . .

Kevin Jennings, however, is not just a gay man, but a man who believes in the full gay rights agenda, where men and boys can have sexual relationships free of prudish moral people frowning.

Jennings has championed NAMBLA’s [the North American Man Boy Love Association] causes and lauded a pedophilia advocate.

He even wrote the forward to a book called “Queering Elementary Education.” That’s right, Jennings wrote the forward to a book that, in its own description advocates the aggressive homosexual agenda among elementary school students. From the book: “queering education happens when we look at schooling upside down and view childhood from the inside out.” No irony is intended apparently in that description.

Americans of moral decency should be stunned to know the President of the United States would put in charge of “safe schools,” a man who encourages predatory relationships between young boys and grown men.

Barack Obama has done exactly that. Has he no shame?

And here are some of the tips from GLSEN, which Jennings led for many years.  This group is one of the most vile and perverse I’ve come across, because they target children. 

Also read the Washington Posts’s Obama’s Buggery Czar — Jennings’ group made sex between children and adults look normal.

People who support organizations like Planned Parenthood  or GLSEN are spectacularly evil and/or ignorant.