Saturday, July 12, 2008

You simply cannot dialogue with some people...

Readers of this Blog are familiar with homosexual activist John Hosty who has repeatedly labelled me a "bigot" because of my moral opposition to homosexual acts and same-sex "marriage." In a recent exchange at JayG's Catholic Blog Defend the Faith (which may be found here), Mr. Hosty alleged:


"The Church has no place making laws that oppress the unwilling, and protection from this sort of action is promised by the Bill of Rights. The bottom line is that I am a caring, loving person. I want us all to get along, and if there was something I was doing that harmed someone else, I would want stop. However, you can't come to me with unfounded charges and expect me to give up my liberties simply because you want me to. Understand that you do not have any control over me, you can elicit my co-operation just like you would any other neighbor. We can have a discussion about what we CAN do to live together in peace, or you can continue the attacks. I'll check back when I can; the choice is yours.Until then I leave you all with blessings and prayers for peace in the name of Christ."

Of course, the Church does not oppress homosexual persons so it's unclear what Mr. Hosty means by this. But I responded:


"Mr. Hosty, we have no desire to limit your liberty. We simply reject your definition of liberty, your erroneous idea of what constitutes liberty. It was Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter Libertas Humana, who reminded us that: "It is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man,but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he please, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the state; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law . . . the binding force of the human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law . . . where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest while obeying man we become disobedient to God."

When you say 'liberty' you actually mean 'license,' or the throwing off of all responsibility. By liberty, you mean a carte blanche to do as you feel. Your concept of 'liberty' is, thereby, incompatible with virtue and destroys community. In the words of John Milton, 'None can love freedom heartily but good men; the rest love not freedom but license.' (Tenure of Kings and Magistrates).

I do not expect you to acknowledge these truths. Indeed, an authentic dialogue with you is impossible since (as JayG has noted) you want to continuously redefine things. In other words, you're not interested in real or meaningful dialogue. You want to define all the terms, set the tone, and provide all the ground rules. To put it simply: you expect us to disregard the perennial wisdom of the ages and to simply kow tow to all of your demands."

And Mr. Hosty replied:


Paul, it is people like you that are the problem. You put words in my mouth when you tell me what I do not want meaningful dialog. I have said from the beginning that we should have dialog about how we can live together as respectful neighbors while maintaining our rights to disagree on matters important to us. I work and live in a very diverse and progressive enviornment, yet all of us give the other the respect afforded by an individual's actions, not who they inherently are.

You seem incapable and unwilling to see that, so you merely twist the truth and blame me, saying I am the one who does not want meaningful dialog. Here is my proof: 'In the words of John Milton, "None can love freedom heartily but good men; the rest love not freedom but license.' This shows what you think of GLBT people as a whole, it gives no lattitude to see us as individuals worthy of individual judgment. To you men who are gay simply cannot be good men. I can't blame you because you are a product of your upbringing and leadership. When you have a Cardinal like O'Maley who can pass out T-shirts that reference the failed drive to end gay marriage whic hsay on them, 'All evil needs in order to be triumphant is for good men to do nothing' I suppose I can't expect much from his flock.

I ask you, are all Catholics the same? Should "Joe Public" have one opinion that encompasses all Catholics and whenever the subject comes up that is the one track mind point of view that people should think?Stop with the ad hominem attacks. Argue my points instead if you are on solid ground and defeat my points with logic instead of emotion and misinformation.

Your religious opinions matter little when setting social policy, and I am protected by the Constitution from the tyranny of laws made in such fashion. We will have our equality, not at your expense, and you are living in a world where you are forced to deal with GLBT people, like it or not. How you conduct yourself tells of your character, not mine.I'm shocked we have a direct dialog Paul, thusfar you have been too homophobic for that. Perhaps you are trying to grow as you need to and I should give credit for the baby steps you now take in trying to understand this problem.

And I responded:


"Mr. Hosty, you just wrote: "Stop with the ad hominem attacks. Argue my points instead if you are on solid ground and defeat my points with logic instead of emotion and misinformation."Please produce some evidence that I have engaged in ad hominem attacks against you. My last comment was a refutation of your definition of liberty. How does this constitute an "ad hominem attack"?

Isn't it more accurate to say that it is YOU who engages in ad hominem attacks. For example, you wrote: "...it is people like you that are the problem," "you merely twist the truth," "you are a product of your upbringing and leadership," "When you have a Cardinal like O'Maley [O'Malley] who can pass out T-shirts that reference the failed drive to end gay marriage whic[h] say on them, 'All evil needs in order to be triumphant is for good men to do nothing' I suppose I can't expect much from his flock," "Your religious opinions matter little when setting social policy," "you are living in a world where you are forced to deal with GLBT people, like it or not. How you conduct yourself tells of your character, not mine," "I'm shocked we have a direct dialog Paul, thus far you have been too homophobic for that" and "Perhaps you are trying to grow as you need to.."

Mr. Hosty, you wrote: 'Argue my points instead if you are on solid ground and defeat my points with logic instead of emotion and misinformation.' I was under the impression I was doing just that. If you disagree with Pope Leo XIII, rather than attacking my character, please show me where His Holiness is wrong."

Mr. Hosty fails to appreciate the difference between criticism and condemnation. The former being an evaluation of a person's ideas or conduct and the latter being a devaluation of a person. Note how it is Mr. Hosty's ideas which I challenge and how he responds by devaluing my person. This is a pattern with Mr. Hosty. While I have shown him nothing but respect (even while disagreeing with his ideas), he has treated me with nothing but contempt, referring to me continuously as a "bigot" who is "supportive of hate." And not just myself. Any serious orthodox Christian who opposes homosexuality is labelled in the same way. JayG being included.

We need to pray for Mr. Hosty and all of those who angrily reject the Lord's Commandments and His Church. Jesus has come for us to have life and have it abundantly (John 10: 10). Let's all pray that Mr. Hosty will set aside his anger and choose to live the abundant life by keeping the Lord's Commandments. For this is the only way to authentic peace.

Related reading: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-intolerance-from-homosexual-hate.html

3 comments:

John Ansley said...

Paul, I left this comment at DTF:

He cannot show you where Pope Leo XIII is wrong because the Pope was not wrong. This is why John Hosty is so upset and throwing a tantrum. Whenever his ideas are challenged, his rhetoric becomes harsh and impatient.

John Hosty has quoted from John Stuart Mill at his Blog. The same Mill who wrote, "Liberty consists in doing what one desires" (On Liberty, p. 118).

But Leo XIII correctly refutes this when he says: "..the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he please, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the state; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law.."

John Hosty knows that Leo XIII is right. To deny this would be to legitimize anarchy. If John Hosty really believed that "Liberty consists in doing what one desires," he would have to allow the murder of Matthew Shephard because his killers desired to kill him. Weren't they simply following Mill's injunction?

And he would have to allow the murder of the Jewish People by the Nazis. After all, they too were simply following their own desires.

Mill's thought is intellectually bankrupt. Hosty knows this deep-down hence his rage at you Paul.

Sanctus Belle said...

The only way to defeat evil is to pray and shine the light of God's truth upon it.

William said...

Trying to dialogue with John Hosty is an exercise in futility. In his own mind, everyone else is always wrong and he alone is right, and any suggestion that his ideas are incorrect always results in accusations of "ad hominem attacks" (John learned two words in Latin in an attempt to impress others - yawn). This while he mindlessly accuses everyone who disagrees with him of bigotry and of supporting hate.

My advice to anyone who encounters this unfortunate soul? Don't waste your time with him. He's too obstinate to admit when he's wrong and too dull to recognize the value of another's argument.

Site Meter