“Answer a fool not according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.” (Proverbs 26:4)
This paper doesn’t need to incite a
posture of suspicion toward one’s opponent (whether real or merely assumed). It is distrust which impels accusations such as,
“You can spot a liar every time you see his lips moving.” But I advocate instead a spirit of openness in
the expectation that good-will is possible whenever there is a mutual goal of
arriving at either truth itself, or mutually agreeable strategies for reaching resolution
(“Come, let us reason together, says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18). Neither does this essay demand, in itself,
that one assemble all of the facts of a given matter for the purpose of destroying
one’s adversary. My point here is
not to denigrate the desire to become informed about matters under consi-deration. To the contrary! Yet indeed my highest purpose in this essay is
to identify the most fruitful way to discern the degree of sincerity or the
validity of any assertion about matters of consequence.
So what
I propose is a body of criteria so simple and straightforward that a young person[1]
or even an adult, can, not only grasp, but also employ and even apply in full
confidence. What I urge all people to do
is take notice of public persons-of-consequence (high elected office holders, influential
bureaucrats, and journalists) with the
following over-arching, multifaceted, body of questions in mind:
(A) Does the person submit
him/herself to relevant scrutiny by exposing themselves to ques-tions from
critics that hold differing points of view?
Do they indeed consider these views?
(B) Does the person fully answer
questions the public is actually asking as opposed to just fur-thering their
agenda which, as a matter of public record, is opposed by a majority of citizens?
(C) Should the official be an
elected person, does he/she express a sense of responsibility to those who
voted them into office in accordance with the Constitution?
(D) Does the person appreciate that
non-specialists are often sufficiently qualified to challenge the logic of certain
public policies since rationality is an aspect that is common to humanity?
(E)
Does the person’s appeal to “follow the science” honor scientific
methodology in actuality, by promoting rigorous public scientific debate
that employs high-level academically-degreed specialists who bring differing
points of view to the table?
(F) Does the person decry the undeniable
tyranny of censoring opposing undesirable points of view (in contradiction to
the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights)?
(G) Does the person propose
solutions that are constructive and actually superior to the status quo in such
a way that society is improved, or merely dismiss or decry the views of others?
(H) Is the person fully, and
without guile, committed to our official Constitutional documents?
In summary, do the persons in question boldly submit
themselves to scrutiny, or do they cower in fear that facing their challenge will
publicly expose an utter absence of good will in their designs? Now to lay my cards on the table, I say it is
the current Administration which, hands-down, fails these questions with a
glaring “NO!” to all. I defend my view with
hard evidence as I honor scrutiny by any opponent. In turn I earnestly challenger dissenters to,
with your evidence, demonstrate where you think me wrong.
[1] See Han Christian Anderson. The Emperor’s New
Clothes. https://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html
No comments:
Post a Comment