Public debate requires knowledge and understanding
Public debate would be improved if people studied all sides of an issue before putting forth their own viewpoint. Matt Chorpenning has clearly demonstrated what happens when one enters a conflict knowing little about one’s opponent (“Wagner misses God’s point,” ODE, April 7).
Chorpenning apparently thinks that Wagner believes God’s word is limited to a single book. There is an obvious error in Chorpenning’s response: As Kimberly Wagner mentioned, she is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, an unorthodox Christian religion that believes not only in the Bible, but also in several other canonical texts, the words of a living prophet and in personal revelation.
Whether or not one shares Wagner’s beliefs, only a fool would argue with her without understanding them. Premises of faith are personal phenomena which aren’t subject to third party validation, so theological claims are generally unproductive in secular debates. Those who already believe that God opposes homosexual marriage don’t need further convincing, while non-believers won’t have their opinions changed by Biblical commandments. Fortunately, Wagner recognized this.
Regarding the separate question of the legalization of homosexual marriage, she said only that one should “have what opinion you wish,” and concluded that she would base her opinion on her religious views. This is an entirely logical conclusion if one believes, as does Wagner, in an eternal God who has hopefully acquired more wisdom over His prolonged existence than your average college student has acquired over a couple of decades. In the future, I suggest that those wishing to debate an issue research all viewpoints and write coherent arguments that contribute positively to the discussion. Whatever your informed opinion ends up being, I urge you to learn to recognize and avoid ill-informed, inflammatory rants and instead to increase your understanding and tolerance of other viewpoints through the marketplace of ideas that is political debate.

Nathan Baker

graduate student

music theory