An Honest Discussion?

Our courts go to great lengths to ensure that trials are as fair as possible. One way in which they do this is the thorough screening potential jurors are subjected to. This is intended to not only exclude those that have already made up their minds about the case but also weed out those candidates that have even a subtle bias that would prevent them from dispassionately evaluating the evidence and testimony presented in court. Should a potential juror that has already reached their own decision about the case misrepresent themselves during the screening process in order to sit on the jury, simply put, they have lied. They were selected under false pretenses and are quite literally, bearing "false witness" to the proceedings, a violation of the 9th Commandment (the 8th for Roman Catholics or Lutherans). Were such a thing to happen, and it unfortunately does from time to time, the juror is guilty of the crime of perjury.

The procedures used by our courts (screening of potential jurors, rules of evidence, rejection of hearsay, etc.) to ensure fair trials are simply a carefully delineated, formalized distillation of the rules for any kind of honest discussion. An honest discussion cannot take place if any party to it is not open to modifying or revising their views during the course of the dialog. To attempt to engage someone in what is billed as an "honest" discussion when ones own views on the subject at hand are off-limits to revision or modification is to misrepresent oneself, to lie.

At its heart, this is a moral issue. Religious believers frequently attempt to engage others in discussions in an attempt to persuade them of the "truth" of their particular dogma. They do this knowing full well that their own views are, at least as far as they are concerned, not open to revision or modification in the light of new arguments or evidence. The blatant duplicitousness and dishonesty of this must be publicly exposed and loudly condemned in no uncertain terms. Many believers seem to think that it is permissible to deceive others (not to mention themselves), either by lies of omission or commission, whenever it is believed to be justified by their beliefs. This double standard is morally and ethically reprehensible and something which should not be tolerated, either in the public square or in one's personal relationships.

Comments

Kate said…
"Many believers seem to think that it is permissible to deceive others (not to mention themselves), either by lies of omission or commission, whenever it is believed to be justified by their beliefs."

Discovery Institute, Wedge Document. That says it all. Thanks for adding my blogg to your RSS feed. How does one do that? I am stupid.
July 20, 2008 at 11:22 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

eBooks and I

I love to read. I love books and the written word in general. One of the greatest pleasures of my life is to curl up on my couch or stretch out on my bed with a good book‒a real book, with a binding and pages made of paper‒no batteries required. I like having good books on my shelves, and when invited into someone else's home, the presence or absence of tangible, physical reading material, and when present, the subject(s) of the reading material can often, fairly or unfairly, inform my opinion of those whose home it is. I am not rich, or even well-off, by any measure, but I am proud of the depth and breadth of the works in my library of bound books. As long as there are at least some people that like to collect things like stamps, baseball cards, music and motion pictures recorded on a physical medium (i.e. CDs and DVDs/Blu-rays), I suspect there will also be those that will enjoy, and continue to purchase physical, bound books. From a marketing standpoint, if book publishing w
Read more

Rediscovering the Joy of Science Writing

Over the last 12 years or so my writing has changed, and not necessarily for the better. As I recuperated following seven weeks of radiation treatments for tonsil cancer, I happened to come across a printout of an assigned essay I wrote as an undergrad in 2008. At the risk of sounding immodest, I was surprised by how much clearer and cleaner my earlier prose was than much of my later writing. So what the heck happened? As I reread some of my other undergrad writing, what struck me was my focus on sharing the joy, pleasure, and satisfaction of learning about the world around us. Around 2010, the focus and tenor of my writing morphed into an outlet for my frustration and annoyance at—to be blunt—the stupidity of large numbers of my fellow human beings. As a result, my writing became denser and more detailed, increasing the likelihood og my flying off on a tangent—my favorite trig function—but also took much of the joy and pleasure out of the writing process. Though
Read more

Baloney Check—"Nazis are the same as Socialists"–Part 1

I’ve written elsewhere of one annoying downside to being a military veteran is when people, knowing nothing else about me other than I’m a veteran—and the obvious demographic data points like probable age, ethnicity, birth sex/gender, etc.—then go on to make totally unwarranted assumptions about my political, religious, or ideological leanings. This genesis of this particular essay was in a conversation with a client at my desk several years ago. Out the blue, my interlocutor told me in utter earnestness how much he “hates it when liberals call conservatives [presumably upstanding, white, male, veterans like himself] Nazis, because everyone knows Nazis were the real socialists.” Overall find my job rewarding and worthwhile, but I’ve also had a great deal of practice keeping a straight face when confronted by such daft assertions. To see how pervasive this particular misconception is, one merely need look at this web page . Debunking baloney takes far longer than spewing it, and
Read more