Moderacy key to debate

Alec Strenge

Alec Strenge

Hello everyone. Great paper the last two weeks! I love arguments over religion and abortion; they are lovely topics that will surely continue to be debated until the end of time! If nothing else, they are topics that certainly make for stirring debates and interesting reading. I was first content just writing lighthearted humor columns, but now I’m feeling slightly left out.

The topics of religion and abortion are subjects that should be debated exclusively in a philosophy class. Public displays and debates regarding these issues are an enormous waste of time. Most people feel strongly about their religious beliefs and their views on abortion. These feelings are deeply ingrained for most adults and young adults. In most cases, these views are not going to change unless individuals are open to that change. If people want to find God or gain knowledge on abortion, they will seek it out, and under those circumstances, it will truly mean something.

I’m surprised that the GAP program would take such an aggressive approach in their attempt to sway students’ beliefs on abortion. People simply don’t respond well to having views pushed upon them or to any form of aggressive tactics such as the graphic images displayed on campus. Some might say that people had the right to look away, but that is irrelevant. Seen or unseen, the images represent an aggressive means of delivering a message which deviates from the whole point of the display. Yes, the images serve to stir up a well-established and never-ending debate, but isn’t the goal to inspire a change in viewpoint. It would be like SDSU students going to USD and hanging up posters saying “USD sucks” in an attempt to recruit new students. The better approach would be SDSU going to USD and saying we respect your institution, but this is why you should come to SDSU. The same holds true for groups on our campus. Just for the record, USD is a fine school, although their campus looks like something I’d expect to see nestled in a paper bag and flaming on a doorstep.

While these organizations hope that people will be open minded to their message, they often show little respect or consideration for opposing views. Due to the sensitive nature of some issues, that type of behavior usually puts people on the defensive whether they oppose a group’s position or they are in the middle. This might explain the frustration of Eric Novotny. While Christian and anti-abortion groups may feel like they are serving a purpose by setting up tents and displaying posters, they often serve only to alienate people who don’t share their views or those who are undecided.

My point is that sensitive issues require sensitive forms of conveyance. I personally believe in God, but would never push my beliefs on anyone else unless they asked that I share. While I applaud the passion and conviction that campus organizations have shown, I think some need to re-examine their methods of delivery. One’s dedication to a cause or unwavering beliefs would better serve and be more appreciated by someone seeking that knowledge.