Pontius Pilate famously asked Jesus the question “What is truth?” Though it was more of a statement than a question. During the political season the question “What is truth” can be answered as something there is little concern for.
This poisonous political period can feel like an oppressive fog that permeates everything. There is little or no concern for truth so we get everything from exaggerations to outright lies and we shrug it off as “just politics.” We have come to expect that politicians are not intimate friends with the truth and just as long as we support part of their agenda we are willing to put up with it. The ends don’t justify the means except when they do. We want zingers more than truth.
Now as an admitted political partisan myself I certainly would say that one side of the political divide is abusing truth more than the other. That does not mean that I will pass by departures from truth for partisan reasons. Something we almost never get is a politician accurately speaking about a policy of their opponent. Showing concern that first they understand it before critiquing it. I guess when things are compressed down to a soundbite the compression algorithm used removes truth for compactness. I think of the care that St. Thomas Aquinas took in the Summa Theologica to accurately state objections before answering them. St. Thomas Aquinas said “All that I have written seems like straw”, but what he had written contained no straw men.
What makes me reflect on this is the reaction to a statement from Senate candidate Richard Mourdock.
“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
This was seized on immediately to make him a supporter or rape. Any honest person not wanting to pin everything with an agenda would see that this was a badly worded answer that conflated rape as being the will of God. I have a hard time of seeing how somebody can so misread this other then bad will. At worse you could see him as confusing God’s ordained will vs. His permissive will not a support of rape.
When I wanted to find the actual quote of Richard Mourdock I had to wade through dozens of articles regarding it to find one that actually printed the quote in whole. If his statement was so indicting of him you would think they would print it for all to see.
On the other hand considering Todd Akins previous remark I think we need to send Republican Senate candidates to some kind of school as to how to articulate themselves regarding abortion and the rape exception. It is almost always painful to hear a politician articulate themselves on this. I must applaud Richard Moyrdock for his pro-life conviction that didn’t take the normal pragmatic route. Really though if he had stated it better, there would have probably still been some news concerning it.
The President of course took little time to mischaracterize Mourdock’s remarks for political gain. Unfortunately this is to be expected since I do not see our President as much of a lover of truth. I wish I could think of Gov. Romney as a lover of truth, but I do no delude myself this way.
It seems odd to me in this Presidential election where there is so much that divides the candidates policy wise that so much is wasted on something other than valid critiques of policy. As a political junkie it is easy to forget that many are not so engaged in what is going on and politicians would rather sway them with zingers and soundbites hoping it will get into their narrow window of political engagement. The first victim of war is truth, and the same goes for political campaigns that increase the victim count.
All I know is that I need to be much more of a prayer junkie than a political one.
9 comments
I want to ask Obama, who said: “Rape is rape. It is a crime,” if he can give any other instance when a child is justifiably killed for his/her father’s actions?
Pro Life politicians would do well to stick with science & human rights when speaking about abortion. When this issue is debated using only secular logic one can show that the pro-choice position MUST reject either science or human rights (or both). Paul Ryan touched on this in the VP debate, but did not take it far enough in my opinion.
(((Beate { 10.25.12 at 9:15 pm } I want to ask Obama, who said: “Rape is rape. It is a crime,” if he can give any other instance when a child is justifiably killed for his/her father’s actions?)))
Folks, I’m not trying to be sarcastic when “I” say that Mr Obama is not a bad guy. He just doesn’t know spiritually speaking what he’s truly doing when a woman uses the card of rape cause even after 43 years of marriage when Victor’s wife says “NO” I’ve noticed that she really means “YES” butt don’t tell her cells that “I” said so butt then again his wives cells spiritual speaking again, are probably just over sex and/or maybe spiritually speaking “ONE” more time, “IT” could be cause Eve is still UP SET with MAN and MEN still won’t give UP trying to get her,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R2F9f2Cl6Y
I mean trying together back, if ya know what “I” mean?
Keep trusting in GOD (Good Old Dad) and everything with be OK!
You wouldn’t lie to U>S (usual sinners) would ya vs. I mean Victor?? 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLpLTgqqz6A
NOT FUNNY sinner vic! 🙁
Peace
What the Dems have been doing to other people’s words reminds me of cut-up writing. The writers, usually in a group, get a magazine, newspaper or cheap old novel, cut it into confetti, pick up a handful of the pieces and make sentences out of them, throwing away whatever doesn’t form part of a sentence. The result is nonsense but sounds like it should mean something. Some rock/pop songwriters did it in the 70s.
Serena Rainey! That sounds like card stacking to me but if they’re playing a friendly game and all agree to show off their spiritual reality skills then me, myself and i think that only a true GOD (Good Old Dad) could really be able to stop them if He so chose to.
What’s that you say sinner vic! That would be U<S (usual sinning) gods who own about 92% of your body flesh cause your so called 7% "Jesus Cells" are nothing butt a pussy cat and that's if the majority even believe that HE does exist! 🙂
Careful what you say sinner vic cause "I'M" getting tired of defending ya and that pussy cat might just catch ya in a corner some day and where would my flesh be then, I ask ya? 🙁
Peace
Ben, should politicians stop mentioning their faith so they will be less likely to be denigrated? The press (or any other so called pro-choicers) don’t care about science – they know it’s a baby, but they judge it’s the mother’s right to either carry that child or not. This is more of a property rights issue for them than a scientific one.
“At worse you could see him as confusing God’s ordained will vs. His permissive will not a support of rape.”
It’s all in Swedenborg. What DO they teach them in these schools.
Hi Beate,
They can mention their faith, but I think you may agree that if they get into theology or “the will of God” it tends to get misconstrued. Science and general human rights are a bit more difficult to misconstrue.
I think Ben’s point is very good in persuading the public discourse.
No, it is not fair that God is pushed out of the conversation. But life is never fair.
When we bring up our Catholic faith in politics, the platitude of “separation of church and state” gives those who disagree the mental permission to dismiss you.
The best book I read on how to argue abortion using only reason is Peter Kreeft’s “The Unaborted Socrates.” I would go so far as to say it is one of the most important books I’ve ever read. I’ve used his arguments in the classroom and it is amazing to see Catholic teens realize that their opposition to abortion isn’t just faithful, but rational.
(by the way, Will, I like your nod to “The Last Battle” in your post)