I am not afraid of being proven wrong. Not being perfect, it actually happens quite a lot. When someone presents a legitimate argument that counters my points, either with evidence or better logic, I will do my best to change my opinion. That might not happen every time, or even most of the time, but I usually try. My problem with Ann McElhinney was not her point of view. That is her prerogative. I don't agree with it, but that is irrelevant here. In her original presentation, she constructed an eloquent argument, with facts that I was unaware of, but I'm sure were true. Again, I didn't agree with pretty anything she said, but her arguments were valid for her point of view. My problem with her presentation was her inability to answer any question with an answer that didn't have to do with children dying of malaria in Africa. Ask her why it was bad for this university to support a year of sustainability, to support recycling, to build a solar farm and a windmill, and she answered with: "the banning of the use of DDT is the direct cause of millions of children's' deaths a year." Actually, I lied earlier when I said I had only one problem with her presentation. My other problem was the open hostility she displayed for or Abbot and our University, but that is a personal problem.
Now I'm going to pose a couple of questions that I wish I could have asked her. One of her largest defenses of her hostility towards this school and our Abbot was that we were a catholic institution, and as such we should follow the Bible word for word, literally, as written in Genesis and beyond. She further supported this literal approach to Bible reading by saying that God put the coal under the ground for us to use. I'm sorry to offend anyone's religious beliefs, but that is wrong. Coal comes from the natural process of decomposition of plant and animal matter under intense pressure over millions of years. I would have liked to ask her just how literally she used the bible, and if she eats shell fish, keeps slave, stones adulterers, or anything like that. But that would have just me being mean and spiteful, so its probably good that I didn't get to ask that question. She also said that she loves unnatural things such as chemicals, pesticides, and modern technology. She said that she wanted anything that allowed her to live a better life right now. An example she gave was of her mom or dad's artificial hip. That hip was a good thing. The gross overuse of DDT and similar chemicals in the USA and all over the world is another example she gave. It is easy to make your point when only focus on obviously good that and obviously bad things that support your side. Where do we draw the line from good chemicals and bad? Hip replacement is an easy good. What about acid of LSD or some other unnatural chemical that makes you feel better as long as you use it? I feel like that is very clearly bad, and following the logic that Mrs. McElhinney used, you could easily come to a different conclusion. That goes the same for other obviously bad chemicals that seemed great at the time. I did get to answer my other question, and that was "what is wrong with University sponsored recycling, wind and solar power, and energy conservation?" Her answer briefly addressed the point, saying that people who didn't want to recycle were being forced to against their will. This would have been valid if it were true, but no one is being forced to recycle. It is simply a matter of the school telling students that it is a good and environmentally sound idea to recycle. After saying that, she then continued to berate the student body for being conservationists, when it was conservationists that caused DDT to be banned, thereby directly killing African babies, and that I should address my concerns about plastic to the mother of a child killed by malaria. I think that is everything I had a problem with, and everything I would have asked her. If I think of anything else, I'll let you know. Also, check out the video of McElhinney's presentation, it should be up on the SJU website.
Thanks, Andrew. The things she said about Catholicism are interesting and perplexing, particularly the notion that Catholics are supposed to be literalists with the Bible. I think that is formally not so, via the Vatican, but I'm not 100% on that.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I completely agree. I wondered the same thing in regards to her interpretation of the Bible. Just how literal are we supposed to be?
ReplyDelete