When Words Become Meaningless

I learned something new about myself! Apparently I'm a "Right winger turned Walmart hater". This was news to me. Somehow, it seems, I am among those who were "the right wing idiots whom, for whatever reason, carried the Walmart flag front and center during previous culture war skirmishes now boycotting it." The reason offered for this caricature is my post on the subject on Sep. 1.

Now, my post simply said, "Me? I’m not getting it." I didn't understand the point of a chamber of commerce based on sexual orientation. I didn't understand why Wal-Mart felt the need to side with the NGLCC. I don't get it.

I guess it's no big deal. There were three of us on the list. The first one on the list said he had not been in favor of Walmart for some time (Hey, what about the "carried the Walmart flag front and center during previous culture war skirmishes" accusation?) and thought that Christians shouldn't get too uptight over the issue. Another "Right winger turned Walmart hater" said almost exactly the same things I did, and nothing I could see there was hateful or "right wing". Clearly the only reason we are "right wing" or "haters" is because we are Christians.

Of course, it was also ironic personally. I recently found a "politics test" and ran through the questions to find out where I fall. I was actually surprised to find I was nearly dead center. I was so surprised that I went to two other sites and took their tests for the same thing. Who would have figure it? I'm a centrist. So being a centrist is "right wing", and having an opinion (no matter how mild) about something makes me a "hater".

This is where words become meaningless. We commonly hear words like "left wing" and "right wing". They are almost always meant as an insult from the opposing side. That means that the minute you hear, for instance, "right wing", your job is to ignore whatever that "right winger" has to say. And if you have an opinion on a subject, regardless of how nebulous, if it doesn't coincide with someone else's view, they can refer to you as a "hater". In other words, terms like "right wing" and "hater" in this context become totally meaningless. Their sole purpose is to ignore the question being discussed.

There is a logical term for this approach. It is called officially an "ad hominem" argument, and it is a standard logical fallacy. We recently got to see one of these logical fallacies exercised at the U.N. when the best Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, could offer in rebuttal to President Bush's remarks the day before was to call him "the devil". Nice job. It doesn't address the ideas. It doesn't discuss anything of value. It simply attacks the speaker without any discussion of the ideas.

So, what can we get of any value from this? I would like to point out that "left wing Christian haters" are not the only ones guilty of ad hominem arguments. We all like to agree with people we like and all like to like the people with whom we agree. This is what makes the argument so effective. But it is a fallacy. It fails to address the discussion at hand. So when we who are supposed to be known as humble, gentle, patient, forebearing, and loving (Eph. 4:2) employ this unkind and unwise method, we violate not only logic and simple communication protocol, but damage Christianity itself. Ask yourself this, the next time you want to use such an approach. "If the person about whom I'm speaking heard me speak about them this way, would they allow me to share the gospel with them soon thereafter?" It's not foolproof, but it's a start. And remember: Attacking your opponent is not addressing their ideas, and when you simply attack their person you have only made their views seem stronger, not weaker.