Re: "The hypocrisy of the politically correct", p. 25, Nov. 28 Gazette
Straw man arguments are harmful. They cause division and spread misinformation. As a left-leaning atheist living in a deeply conservative and religious area of Alberta, I'm actually quite used to people straw-maning my positions, but it is always deeply disappointing to see those misrepresentations printed in the local paper.
Frankly, it's hard to decide where to start with Mr. Hermann's letter, but I'll give it a whirl. We on the left generally find it mystifying whenever we are accused of being intolerant of bigotries, because as far as I'm aware, it's never been our position that every single idea under the sun should be tolerated.
Yes, generally we take the stance that differing ideas that do not cause significant harm to others should be tolerated, but perhaps next time someone wants to throw out the "you're being intolerant of my intolerance" line, they could also provide your readers with a source that evidences boundless tolerance as a left-wing value.
I'm sure I'm not the only one on this side of the political spectrum who would be fascinated to view it. But the really problematic part of Mr Hermann's letter is his ignorance of science and the implications its findings have had in our world. People are free to accept or reject scientific findings as they like, but whether or not a consensus is palatable has no bearing on its truth. There is a reason that proponents of creationism, intelligent design, and a flat Earth do not win Nobel Prizes, or even for that matter, provide us with innovation: they are incorrect. This is not a problem for many people of faith by the way, as evidenced by the fact that even the Vatican accepts scientific consensus. And the implications of these findings are not quite as dire as some would have us believe. Contrary to his assertion that there would be "no right or wrong" in a world where evolution is true, most people who accept scientific consensus, and most atheists, have a very well thought out moral standard, which Mr. Hermann would be aware of if he could actually be bothered to speak to us. Of course, just like in religious circles, we are not a monolith, but speaking for myself, I can think of several absolutes that I hold, despite my acceptance of evolution: being a proud and admitted sexual predator, insulting a military veteran and former POW for getting captured, and mocking a person for their disability should all automatically disqualify a person from holding public office in a civilized society. Thankfully, not all who ascribe to the ideology of intelligent design or find themselves right of centre on the political spectrum insist on using false information and caricatures to frame their ideological opponents' positions.
I recently had the great privilege of presenting my point of view to a class of Grade 12 students at a conservative Christian school as well as a small class of religious home-school students.
While we clearly disagree on many, many positions, I greatly appreciate and respect their decision to engage honestly and openly, and it was obvious that many of my answers surprised them.
Of course, should Mr. Hermann, or any of your readers that find themselves in agreement with him be willing to do the same, I would gladly take the time to engage with them in good faith.
In the meantime, I would encourage everyone to spend a little bit of time in honest and open conversation with someone they disagree with. You might just find yourself surprised.
Maria De Leeuw
Olds
