As a one-time member of a township planning commission, I was stymied by the number of rules and regulations introduced during my tenure.
Similarly, more than 9,300 bills were introduced in the U.S. Congress since January, a considerable decrease from the 16,601 bills introduced two years prior. The Michigan legislature introduces between 3,000 bills and 4,000 bills each two-year session.
My point isn’t to judge the merits or otherwise of the number of bills or the contents of each and every piece of proposed legislation. My point is simply this: “Things change.” T’was always thus.
Each bill would enact some type of change inherently different than the status quo, for better or worse. Most people accept that as immutable truth. Further, most people would view the process of such sausage-making a good thing regardless whether they agreed or disagreed with the results. That’s been our system of government for quite some time.
Likewise our nation’s courts reverse each other on a regular basis. Thankfully, the berobed clerics of the U.S. Supreme Court have reversed several ignominious decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson, etc., and a sincere, heartfelt hooray for that.
Rules change in the sports world all the time as well. Examples are too numerous to enumerate in the space allotted.
Don’t even get me started on science and philosophy. Both subjects are well-represented through many time periods on my personal bookshelves, including a bit of Aristotle. Smart guy for his time, sure, but he also got a few things wrong. So wrong, in fact, it would be reasonable to assume he’d change his mind if confronted with what we take as contemporary factual information. Name-dropping, in any event, is the appeal to authority logical fallacy.
All this as prologue to asking a question prompted by Ed “Col. Musty” Fisher’s column two weeks ago: If new laws and sports rules can be put on the books, why is it not permissible for governing bodies of the world’s major religions to change their official positions?
Readers may recall Fisher’s (incorrect) description of the Roman Catholic Church’s “waffling” on the abortion issue over the centuries. I dealt with setting the record straight in last week’s column, but there’s another prong of attack waiting in the wings.
That prong essentially consists of the “so what?” factor. Assuming for a nanosecond Fisher’s erroneous recitation of history was indeed correct (and, again, it definitively wasn’t) … so what if Catholic doctrine changed over time? Does that render the current position of the Church invalid or hypocritical? Seriously … sometimes it seems I’m arguing against a petulant fourth-grader.
Using the same argument, we could say SCOTUS was wrong to overturn Plessy because Plessy was on the books. In that case, why not demand universal adherence to Hammurabi’s Code? I would be interested, however, in reading Fisher’s position on baseball’s infield fly rule or permanently extending the designated hitter rule to the National League.
At the bottom of Fisher’s argument is Catholic doctrine should change to accommodate his social views, but at the same time stay the same to accommodate those same social views. It’s not a very consistent argument other than a convenient and disingenuous means by which to advance Fisher’s social views.
At this point, I should reiterate the colonel is entitled to his social views however far they veer from those prescribed by the Roman Catholic Church. However, he should leave well enough alone with his bigoted attacks on Catholicism and the rhetorical contortions he employs to support those attacks, especially when those contortions can’t withstand reasoned analysis, logical scrutiny or even elementary common sense.
In conclusion, the Catholic Church is a conservative institution. Russell Kirk observed “the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.”
Bruce Edward Walker (walker.editorial@gmail.com) is a Morning Sun columnist.
"bad" - Google News
September 30, 2021 at 05:04PM
https://ift.tt/39SboZm
Column: Bad-faith arguments and the conservative church - The Morning Sun
"bad" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2SpwJRn
https://ift.tt/2z7gkKJ
No comments:
Post a Comment