Appeals to irrelevant higher authority

A long time ago, at least it seems so, I was working in an emergency food and clothing program. I answered phones, distributed food, sorted clothing, raised money, supervised volunteers and more. But I was almost always the person approving and disapproving issues. We had some guidelines that I could and did break without having any of my supervisors object. But I learned that if I wasn't going to do something, e.g. allow someone more food than the guidelines, I could often finish the discussion with an appeal to the rules.

Somehow people stopped arguing when I said, 'it's out of my hands'. When I was the one making the rules, they felt the discussion could be prolonged. When I realized I wasn't going to hear anything new and nothing that had been said was convincing, then I appealed to an irrelevant higher authority and allowed both of us to go on to do something else. In my case it may not have been productive since I was still learning many things, but at least I didn't feel trapped in a cycle of 'Please, do this.' and 'No, I won't.'

I'm glad to see that learning that response has continued. I don't mind if people come in off the street to get warm. But I also don't want to have them around to long. I've told this to my desk clerks and leave it up to their discretion whether or not someone, to be specifically a tramp or hitchhiker, can come in for a few minutes. And they, sometimes, appeal to an irrelevant authority. "My manager's coming in, so I can't have you staying any longer." is their response when they don't want to have a discussion about how long it's been.

Having learned how to appeal to an irrelevant higher authority makes me suspicious when people in government or the church try to fob off answers with things like, "We're fighting a war on terrorism, so can't answer that question." or "We just need to give up civil liberties for a little while until things are better" or "The Bible says so and if you knew the Bible you wouldn't have to ask where, so shame on you for not following scripture." or .... Well, the idea is clear.

There are times and places when the answer, 'because I said so' is and should be sufficient. There are times and places when any attempt to answer with 'because I said so' should be met with derision and opposition. The idea of holding prisoners in secret camps so as to fight terror is one of those times. There is no excuse for anyone in a country that rebelled against the idea of unlawful search and seizure for supporting or being involved in holding prisoners in secret, without due process or a quick and speedy trial.

We should be holding ourselves to higher standards rather than seeking to find with how much we can get away. Terrorists seek to solve their issues with destruction and chaos. If we give up our civil liberties then we are on the way to despotic rule and injustice that are a hallmark of terrorism from those in leadership positions. If we give up civil liberties, if we give up respecting people whether or not they are the citizens of our country, then we give up what we are fighting for in the war against terrorism.