Welcome Back!, and a good question

John Savage over at Brave New World Watch is back from his short, but I'm sure needed vacation, and it seems to me he hasn't missed a step in the interim. As an example of what I mean, check out this entry.

John writes:

"I'd like to ask the question: "Does it ever benefit us to claim that liberals are being hypocritical if they don't want to destroy every sexual taboo?" For example, even liberals are often viscerally grossed out by incest. Some right-leaning pundits have criticized them for not taking their position to the logical extreme and calling for an end to laws against incest. But is that a smart way for traditionalists to talk?"

And here is one way in which I would answer it:...

Perhaps some of you are aware of the recent contentious incident between a traditional church in Dallas, Tx., and the homosexual community in the area? I read the story in the Dallas Morning News, and what happened according to the story was basically this:

The church in question volunteered its facitities and its services, at no cost to the family, to host the funeral of a church member's deceased brother. The church agreed to the family's putting together of a multi-media slide show depicting the deceased's life with the understanding that church officials would view the slide-show before approving it. The issue came about in this viewing where the family had inserted photos highlighting the deceased's homosexual behavior and lifestyle. Concerns were raised with the nature of the material and brought before the family, but the family would not agree to have any of it edited. No acceptable terms could be reached, and the church reneged on its promise. But what I'm getting at here is the goofy way in which the church's spokesperson handled the questions coming from the media. He said something to the effect of:

"What if the church were to volunteer its services to host the funeral of a murderer? Would it be required of us, or would it make any sense for us to allow depictions of that aspect of the person's life to be shown in our sanctuary?"

Obviously this is a ridiculous comparison to make. And all it accomplishes is to bring into question the credibility of the church and its reasoning, or its ability to take a reasonable position on anything. I mean, this person is its spokesperson, right? You can imagine how the homosexual community in the area reacted to this explanation of the church's position. You can imagine how liberals would react to this; not very favorably.

But here's the deal. The spokesperson from the church could have strengthened the church's position and its credibility immeasurably by simply responding to the media's questions in a way that people can understand and relate. For example, he could have said something like this: "What if a homosexual church in Dallas (of which I'm sure there are several) agreed to host the funeral of the straight brother of a member of that church? Would the church allow to be shown in their sanctuary depictions and images of the deceased working to inhibit the progress of the homosexual agenda in the Dallas area? Would the church leadership not reject such material based on what it perceived to be hostility toward homosexuals of which the congregation in question is made up? Furthermore, why would the family expect it to? Why would the straight community expect it to? Is any organization bound to honor a commitment to another party when certain pre-established and known boundaries have been crossed and no acceptable compromise can be reached?"

If you're going to accuse someone from another perspective of being hypocritical, you need to be able to show examples of their hypocracy. Otherwise, don't make the accusation to begin with if you're not able to back it up.