Myths, Facts and Culture Wars
What are the chances that the data presented in the studies cited in this article are accurate?
I guess the first question is, are the sources (or even a majority of them) reputable, and if so, which ones? What have scholarly reviews said about their findings? If they aren't very precise, what are the chances that they're mostly accurate or even half accurate?
These findings are among the reasons I am troubled by the continued "bi-partisan" culture wars. It frightens me that such seemingly overwhelming evidence could be either (1) completely or mostly false, or (2) ignored by those with opposite opinions. If the first option is the case, then it stands to reason that all research is utterly useless. If the second option is true, then it doesn't matter what the research says; prideful people will always put their agendas first and demonize those contrary. So which is it?
I guess the first question is, are the sources (or even a majority of them) reputable, and if so, which ones? What have scholarly reviews said about their findings? If they aren't very precise, what are the chances that they're mostly accurate or even half accurate?
These findings are among the reasons I am troubled by the continued "bi-partisan" culture wars. It frightens me that such seemingly overwhelming evidence could be either (1) completely or mostly false, or (2) ignored by those with opposite opinions. If the first option is the case, then it stands to reason that all research is utterly useless. If the second option is true, then it doesn't matter what the research says; prideful people will always put their agendas first and demonize those contrary. So which is it?
Research will always be useful, but only to those with open minds willing to accept it. After all, we have to respect the fact that many times, Christians have disbelieved what seemed to be "overwhelming evidence" that the Bible was false, and eventually were vindicated for taking a stand.
ReplyDeleteThis a perfect set-up for a new paradigm in persuasion. I like what the article said, and that it was mostly for educating Christians on how to approach the homosexuality issue. It seemed to recognize that we can't just throw facts at people to try to fix them. That has never worked in the history of humanity. Not only that, we can't set out trying to fix people PERIOD. If we don't already love them enough to want them to change for their own good, we have no business with them.
I think if the Church spent half as much time getting to know homosexuals, and above all praying for them, as it spent engaging in the "culture war", then there might not even be a war to fight. Because anybody can say, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." But it's another thing to actually go out and love a sinner.
Think public health here. Think about the tobacco companies who hid the studies that showed the addictive and destructive effects of their products, and how millions of people consequently became addicted, with tobacco-related disease claiming the lives of 25% of all Americans. Think about the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and the involvement of so many Christian organizations and celebrities like Bono to raise public awareness.
ReplyDeleteIF the results of these studies are true, then the above examples directly correlate to the homo/bisexual issue. It's a public health concern. Fluffy talk about love that doesn't include actions that actually help people is nothing more than mere rhetoric. Loaded language like "throwing facts at people" isn't helpful either. Again, rhetoric.
I work in prevention, and the first rule of prevention is that in order to be effective, you have to take a multifaceted approach. It doesn't do any good to "throw information" at teens regarding drugs and alcohol AS A STAND ALONE EFFORT. DARE's abysmal failure is evidence of that. But it is also impossible to have a successful prevention campaign without accurate information dissemination to large numbers of people.
I would join your criticism of people who identify a problem and then do nothing about it. It pisses me off, as a matter of fact. But I disagree that just being nice to people is going to be sufficient protection from risks inherent in lifestyle choices they should avoid. A brief study of Risk and Protective Factors (something my field of work as well as fields of counseling, treatment, and social service rely heavily upon) will convince you of this rather easily.
I would agree, however, with the priorities you listed. Our battle is not against flesh and blood. We have to fight our battles with spiritual artillary. And I would also agree that people would certainly be less likely to stumble down a destructive path if they had the social and emotional support of Christians. I just don't want us to make the mistake of keeping hush-hush about the facts, because there are people in the Church who condone this type of behavior and are giving inaccurate signals to the gay community, which leads to continued involvement in this lifestyle. So I am directing this conversation at Christians, as you recommended.
Thanks for the dialogue. :)