Monday, November 20, 2023
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Persecution: American Style
Western nations attacking Christians don’t normally use the violent, brutal attacks we associate with the term “persecution.” Because of that, it is easy to pretend that Western Christians are not targeted for their beliefs. But that’s the fallacy of relative privation. The fact that attacks on Christians in Country A are far worse than harassment of Christians in Country B does not mean the situation in Country B is not unjust.
In the West, attacks on Christians begin over teachings against popular vices. Foes portray Christian opposition to moral wrongs as hating the people who commit them. Then they accuse Christians of violating an esteemed cultural value out of bad will. These accusations justify laws (or, more commonly, executive action and court rulings) against the alleged wrongdoing of Christians. When Christians insist on obeying their faith despite unjust laws, foes harass them by Criminal and Civil complaints aimed at forcing compliance.
Political and cultural elites argue that the injustice is just a consequence of Christians doing wrong. If they would abandon their “bigotry,” they would not face legal harassment. The problem is, they accuse us of wrongdoing, but we are not guilty of wrongdoing. We deny that we base our moral beliefs on the hatred of people who do what we profess is wrong. They must prove their accusation. People cannot simply assume it is true.
In response, foes bring up the bigoted behavior of a few who profess to be Christians. The Westboro Baptist Church was a popularly cited bugbear before the group fell into obscurity. They argue that groups like this prove bigotry on the part of Christians. This means that those who deplore stereotypes stereotype us. They claim (and we agree) that people can’t assume all Muslims are terrorists or that all Hispanics are illegal aliens just because some are. But they do use fringe group Christians to argue all Christians are bigots.
To avoid guilt in this persecution, Americans must learn that our believing certain acts are morally wrong does not mean we hate those who do those acts. Yes, some Christians confuse opposing evil with hating evil-doers. You condemn them. But so do we. Just behavior demands you investigate accusations against Christians, not assuming our moral beliefs are proof of our guilt and claiming the only defense is to renounce our beliefs.
Please, do not try to equate our moral objections with America’s shameful legacy of slavery and segregation. We don’t deny the human rights of any sinner—for then we would have to deny them to ourselves—but we do deny that law can declare a sinful act the same as a morally good act. Do not assume we want to reinstate laws and punishments from past centuries to punish sinners. We’re also shocked by what nations saw as necessary to deter crime that harmed society [1]. But saying theft is wrong does not mean we think chopping off the hands of a thief is right. Even when an act is evil, there can be unjust and disproportionate punishments in response.
Also, please do not assume that your lack of knowledge of what we believe and why we believe it means we have no justification but bigotry when we say things are wrong, Just because a foe cannot imagine why we believe X is wrong does not mean we have no valid reason. I can speak only as a Catholic [I leave it to the Orthodox and Protestants to explain their own reasons when it differs with the Catholic reasoning] but we do have 2000 years of moral theology looking into acts, why they are wrong and what to remember for the moral considerations about personal responsibility. Our goal is not coercion or punishment. Our goal is reconciling the sinner with God. That means turning away from wrongdoing and doing what is right.
Foes may say they think our ideas of morality are wrong. But if they believe we are wrong, then they have an obligation to show why they are right and we are wrong—with the same obligation to answer criticisms of their claims that they demand of us. They cannot accuse us of “forcing views on others” and then demand we accept their views without question. That’s not the values America was founded over. That’s partisan hypocrisy worthy of the old Soviet Union, and should have no part in American discourse.
______________________
[1] Of course, remember that France as a secular nation did not abolish the guillotine until 1980, so perhaps we shouldn’t think we’re so far ahead of those times as we would like to think?
Sunday, May 3, 2015
On People and Actions: You Are Not Your (Expletive) Khakis.
You are not your job, you're not how much money you have in the bank. You are not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You are not your @#$%ing khakis.
—Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
One of the major problems that comes up when people hear the old adage of loving the sinner and hating the sin is that nowadays, people assume that what they do is what they are. Therefore, when the Church condemns an action, people assume this means the Church hates them personally. This is why people assume Christianity is “homophobic” or “anti-woman” when they condemn behavior like homosexual acts, contraception, abortion and divorce/remarriage. Then we get to hear a lot of people quoting Matthew 7:1 out of context.
As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, "Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine.” (“Small error in the beginning; large [error] will be in the end”). From the beginning error of believing a person is what they do, the concluding error is condemnation of a sin = condemning a person. A person may have a job as an accountant, but that does not make the person an accountant and a person may have a same sex attraction, but that does not make the person a homosexual. The Church believes that a person is more than their actions or ethnicity—and to reduce them to their behavior is to treat them as less than human.
In terms of Catholic teaching, the person is primarily a child of God. The individual may be ignorant of that fact. The person may reject that fact. The person may accept that fact. But regardless of what the individual does with that information, the fact remains that he or she is a child of God and however they are treated must reflect this fact. Because of this, the Catholic Church never allows us to turn our backs on the sinners, the poor or anyone else—we’re not allowed to write off anyone as irredeemable.
But the fact that we, as Christians, cannot write off anyone as irredeemable has one very important fact that follows from it—every person is in need of redemption. That indicates that we are at odds with God in how we live to some extent. When we act in a way which is contrary to how God calls us to live, that needs to change. Living contrary to God’s call blocks us from Our Lord's redemption, and such behavior must be abandoned if we would be saved. People who know what the truth is can offer correction, just as the person who teaches can offer a student correction when the student gets a wrong answer. That’s not being judgmental. Consider this excerpt from a Socratic dialogue by Peter Kreeft (one that does not deserve to be in obscurity):
Libby: You sound so damned sure of yourself, so dogmatic, so judgmental! Your namesake[*] said, “Judge not.” But you don’t dig that soft stuff, do you?
‘Isa: What do you think Jesus meant when he said “judge not”? Do you think he meant “don’t judge deeds, don’t believe the Commandments, don’t morally discriminate a just war from an unjust war or a hero from a bully”? He couldn’t have meant that. He meant “don’t claim to judge motives and hearts, which only God can see.” I can judge your deeds, because I can see them. I can’t judge what your motives are, because I can’t see that.
Libby: Then stop being so judgmental about that, at least.
‘Isa: But I can judge what your motives ought to be—just as you’re doing, when you judge “judgmentalism”.
—Peter Kreeft, A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist
(San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 108.
So the Christian teaching is not “homophobic” or “anti-woman” (two popular epithets today). Rather the teaching is concerned with letting people know how their lives estrange them from God and what they must do to be saved. It’s not a hatred. It’s a case of viewing a person as being worth the effort to save—worthy of receiving our love because God loves them.
Sure, you’ll find Christians who are judgmental and hateful. You’ll also find atheists and Buddhists who are judgmental and hateful. But the Christian who actually hates another person because of their sins is not acting as God commands them to act. They are not acting as the Church commands them to act. I think people forget that. Yes, in the Middle Ages, punishments that we now see as barbaric were seen as normal. But even then, the person was not reduced to the evil they did. Even when the evil done resulted in Capital Punishment, the Church was still concerned for the salvation of the person—to bring them back to right relationship to God before they died.
But what happens when a person refuses to be brought back into right relationship with God? We certainly cannot say “Oh well, might as well go ahead and do it then.” We cannot allow people to redefine their action as “good.” But we can try to show love in pointing out that this action is harmful to a person based on what God wants them to be—because trying to encourage a person to abandon a harmful action is an act of love, not an act of hatred.
________________________
[*] The Arabic form of “Jesus” is ‘Isa. Hence the reference to “Your namesake” in the quote from Peter Kreeft.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Monday, April 21, 2014
Asking the Wrong Question: A Reflection
The Wrong Question
I came across a headline which asked if Christians were out of step with the mainstream. I found that question to be very saddening. It indicates that for a certain portion of the population and the elites think that going along with the preferred position is more important than determining the truth of a position... because the two are not the same thing.
As I have cited many times in the past in my blog, Aristotle once defined truth as saying of what is, that it is and saying of what is not, that it is not. In other words, we need to explore the nature of a thing before accepting the mainstream view of it.
Why? Because the mainstream of a country can go very far astray in what it favors. The extreme example, of course, is the example of Nazi Germany. The Nazi Party came to power legally and achieved things that were popular -- righting perceived wrongs that came from the Treaty of Versailles. While the party did some things that made people uncomfortable, these tended to be dismissed as being less important than the perceived good. The opponents of the regime tended to be dismissed or attacked.
The point here is not to equate America with Nazi Germany (so spare me the flames). The point is to show that what the mainstream accepts is not necessarily good. Whether it is the acceptance of National Socialism or whether it is the acceptance of modern sexual morality in the West, the acceptance of things by the mainstream of a society is NOT an indication that the thing is good.
The Right Questions
So what are we to do about this? We have to start by asking the right questions. We don't start by asking whether Christians are outside of the mainstream. We start by asking whether the assumptions held by the mainstream are true. Truth must be the criterion for accepting or rejecting values.
Unfortunately, this is precisely what people fail to consider. When the cultural elites assert that those who champion the traditional understanding of marriage are "homophobic," they are making an assertion that needs to be proven and not assumed to be true. Very few Christians who understand the obligations of their faith properly actually hate the people who live in opposition to what God commands. But instead of investigating what they believe, it's easier to attribute a motivation that makes the opponent look bad.
What Reason Tells Us
The result is a slew of logical fallacies which don't prove the point. It provides spurious reasoning to claim that boils down to, "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a bigot."
I find it ironic that the definition of bigot, "a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others," fits the champions of tolerance much better than it fits the people who believe some behaviors are wrong.
As GK Chesterton pointed out, "It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong." In other words, the bigotry doesn't exist in believing right and wrong. The bigotry comes from refusing to question whether you properly understand what you oppose.
The Dilemma
Now, if one believes in the existence of objective good and evil, it is not bigotry to refuse to accept a view deemed evil as valid -- provided that you understand the nature of the issue you reject. Nor are you hypocritical to say that a sin is wrong while still loving the person who sins.
The same cannot be said for the one who takes the position that there is no objective good and evil. If you insist others must tolerate views they disagree with, then you must also tolerate views you disagree with. If you refuse to accept the views of those you disagree with, you are guilty of what you accuse your opponents of being: bigoted (refusing to accept different views) and hypocritical (denying there are moral absolutes while holding moral absolutes). But if you actually follow what you claim to champion, you have to tolerate people who support views you believe to be wrong. If the persecutors of Brendan Eich were truly tolerant, they would have left him to his own views and not sought to oust him.
But, on the other hand, if one sees the acceptance of abortion or homosexual acts as objectively good and believes others are morally obligated to accept this, then he or she is under the same onus of proof that he or she demands from opponents. After all, if opposing abortion is "imposing values," then so is promoting it!
Conclusion
Asking if someone as being "outside the mainstream" ultimately ignores the more pertinent question: Is it good to be part of the mainstream? History tells us that oftentimes it is not.
Asking the Wrong Question: A Reflection
The Wrong Question
I came across a headline which asked if Christians were out of step with the mainstream. I found that question to be very saddening. It indicates that for a certain portion of the population and the elites think that going along with the preferred position is more important than determining the truth of a position... because the two are not the same thing.
As I have cited many times in the past in my blog, Aristotle once defined truth as saying of what is, that it is and saying of what is not, that it is not. In other words, we need to explore the nature of a thing before accepting the mainstream view of it.
Why? Because the mainstream of a country can go very far astray in what it favors. The extreme example, of course, is the example of Nazi Germany. The Nazi Party came to power legally and achieved things that were popular -- righting perceived wrongs that came from the Treaty of Versailles. While the party did some things that made people uncomfortable, these tended to be dismissed as being less important than the perceived good. The opponents of the regime tended to be dismissed or attacked.
The point here is not to equate America with Nazi Germany (so spare me the flames). The point is to show that what the mainstream accepts is not necessarily good. Whether it is the acceptance of National Socialism or whether it is the acceptance of modern sexual morality in the West, the acceptance of things by the mainstream of a society is NOT an indication that the thing is good.
The Right Questions
So what are we to do about this? We have to start by asking the right questions. We don't start by asking whether Christians are outside of the mainstream. We start by asking whether the assumptions held by the mainstream are true. Truth must be the criterion for accepting or rejecting values.
Unfortunately, this is precisely what people fail to consider. When the cultural elites assert that those who champion the traditional understanding of marriage are "homophobic," they are making an assertion that needs to be proven and not assumed to be true. Very few Christians who understand the obligations of their faith properly actually hate the people who live in opposition to what God commands. But instead of investigating what they believe, it's easier to attribute a motivation that makes the opponent look bad.
What Reason Tells Us
The result is a slew of logical fallacies which don't prove the point. It provides spurious reasoning to claim that boils down to, "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a bigot."
I find it ironic that the definition of bigot, "a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others," fits the champions of tolerance much better than it fits the people who believe some behaviors are wrong.
As GK Chesterton pointed out, "It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong." In other words, the bigotry doesn't exist in believing right and wrong. The bigotry comes from refusing to question whether you properly understand what you oppose.
The Dilemma
Now, if one believes in the existence of objective good and evil, it is not bigotry to refuse to accept a view deemed evil as valid -- provided that you understand the nature of the issue you reject. Nor are you hypocritical to say that a sin is wrong while still loving the person who sins.
The same cannot be said for the one who takes the position that there is no objective good and evil. If you insist others must tolerate views they disagree with, then you must also tolerate views you disagree with. If you refuse to accept the views of those you disagree with, you are guilty of what you accuse your opponents of being: bigoted (refusing to accept different views) and hypocritical (denying there are moral absolutes while holding moral absolutes). But if you actually follow what you claim to champion, you have to tolerate people who support views you believe to be wrong. If the persecutors of Brendan Eich were truly tolerant, they would have left him to his own views and not sought to oust him.
But, on the other hand, if one sees the acceptance of abortion or homosexual acts as objectively good and believes others are morally obligated to accept this, then he or she is under the same onus of proof that he or she demands from opponents. After all, if opposing abortion is "imposing values," then so is promoting it!
Conclusion
Asking if someone as being "outside the mainstream" ultimately ignores the more pertinent question: Is it good to be part of the mainstream? History tells us that oftentimes it is not.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
TFTD: Relativism In Space (or In Space, Nobody Can Hear You Reason)
In watching or reading modern science fiction, there seems to be a trend where more "enlightened" aliens rebuke people of Earth for their narrow views on morality. They point out that their own values are different, and ought to be respected, because all morality is subjective.
The irony is, these "enlightened" aliens seem to have no respect for the values of the people of Earth.
Essentially, these aliens are saying, "Your views are subjective. Ours are objective."
But since the aliens are arguing that values are subjective, they contradict themselves...
...or rather, the scriptwriters do. Since when this kind of dialog is used, it's basically pushing a moral relativity and portraying it as an objective good that only backwards people oppose.
What's overlooked is the fact that if all values are relative, there's nothing wrong with with these "Earth values," and nothing right about "alien values" of relativity.
TFTD: Relativism In Space (or In Space, Nobody Can Hear You Reason)
In watching or reading modern science fiction, there seems to be a trend where more "enlightened" aliens rebuke people of Earth for their narrow views on morality. They point out that their own values are different, and ought to be respected, because all morality is subjective.
The irony is, these "enlightened" aliens seem to have no respect for the values of the people of Earth.
Essentially, these aliens are saying, "Your views are subjective. Ours are objective."
But since the aliens are arguing that values are subjective, they contradict themselves...
...or rather, the scriptwriters do. Since when this kind of dialog is used, it's basically pushing a moral relativity and portraying it as an objective good that only backwards people oppose.
What's overlooked is the fact that if all values are relative, there's nothing wrong with with these "Earth values," and nothing right about "alien values" of relativity.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Hypocrisy or the Lowest Common Denominator? Dangers in Selectively Denying Moral Norms
The area of moral teaching in which Christians seem to be most hated is the area of sexuality. Persons who act on certain inclinations become angry when told that those sexual acts are evil. Christians are called hateful and judgmental people because they say that certain acts are always wrong. Now, while there can be people who say they are wrong in a grossly inappropriate way (The Westboro Baptists come to mind), the badly expressed message does not take away from the fact that certain acts are wrong.
The anger and hostility directed against Christians is accompanied by some rather bad reasoning. The argument that if people choose to live in a certain way, nobody should tell them otherwise. In other words, we are not allowed to have moral judgments on these activities.
Then these individuals get furious when you employ a reductio ad absurdum and apply that argument to other moral issues which they do find offensive.
That anger is revealing though. It shows that the individual does recognize that certain things are wrong. That individual just refuses to accept that their own behaviors can be part of the group [Things that are morally wrong]. Basically, it means "Other people do evil things, not me."
The problem is, those "other people" can often use the same arguments to justify their own deplorable acts. For example, the same arguments used to justify homosexual "marriage" can also be used to justify incestuous marriage and polygamy: free and mutual consent between people who profess some level of affection for each other. That isn't hypothetical, by the way. I've personally encountered proponents of "polyamory" relationships who get offended when people say it is immoral, using the same arguments the proponents of homosexual relationships – and the same demand not to be judged. These proponents got extremely angry when I pointed out that the concept of "polyamorous marriage" is an oxymoron.
Yet the fact that advocates of homosexual "marriage" do get offended when a Catholic Bishop makes that comparison shows that these advocates do think these things are wrong. So, essentially, that means they believe a moral line exists. Otherwise, when the comparison with polyamory and consensual incestuous relationships came up, they'd probably just shrug and say, "So what?" Their anger then just want to draw the line differently, including their own preference in the list of "acceptable behavior." People don't normally get offended when their beliefs are compared to something which doesn't offend them after all.
But that leads to the question of who draws the line? Either there is a line to be drawn, or else we have no choice but to accept the lowest common denominator. Take Pedophilia for example. NAMBLA argues that the modern age of consent laws are artificial and that consensual relationships can exist between adults and children. Most people find the existence of this group as well as their proposals horrific, but they use the same arguments that are used to justify other sexual activities condemned by Christian moral teaching. They merely add the condition that the age of consent should be lower than 18 and invoke the ancient Greeks and Romans to justify their views.
It also demands a justification for drawing a different line. If people want to say absolutes exist, but want to include homosexual acts as morally acceptable, they need to show how their absolute is justified while other consensual relationships are not. Otherwise they become guilty of what they accuse Christians of: forcing their own view of morality on others. In other words, why draw the line HERE and not THERE?
Actually, when it comes to showing justification for an absolute, Christianity has the advantage – and not from saying "God says so," either. The belief in marriage as a lifelong exclusive relationship between a man and a woman which is open to the possibility of having and raising children has the biological data (pregnancy comes from sex) and sociological data showing the family as the foundation of a society and that societies with strong family ties also tended to have strong societies.
Eliminating the elements of lifelong, exclusive and being open to the possibility of having and raising children makes stopping at "gay marriage" an arbitrary decision by who is in charge. That's the irony of it all. Those people who get offended at this reductio ad absurdum have contradicted themselves. By drawing the line at "gay marriage" but going no further is to make an arbitrary imposition – which is what they have accused Christians of in the traditional view of marriage.
This is the problem with "selective morality." If a person demands that the traditional understanding of marriage be set aside in the case of one preference, then it leads one to ask, "Who has the authority to determine where the law may be redrawn and where the new absolute lies?" Why should it be drawn to only include "homosexual marriage" and not incestuous marriages or polyamorous relationships? Why should the age of consent be 18 instead of 15 or even 11? After all, we can point to a time in the past when such things were seen as acceptable? Of course we can also point to times when slavery and torture and other things we condemn today were considered acceptable, so maybe it's not always such a good idea to point to the morals of the past indiscriminately… it opens up the doors to the reductio ad absurdum.
You can see the problem which those who would change morality tend to avoid. People don't want to permit things they believe are wrong, but they want to justify their own wrong by making themselves the "victim," claiming that the people who say their own vice is wrong are "judgmental" and "hate-filled" people. But then they can't explain why others can't take their same principles and demand to have them applied in a way that goes even further than they want to go.
It's quite clear. Without a rational basis for why a limit should be drawn (a basis Christian moral teaching does possess), one is forced to choose between hypocrisy and the lowest common denominator.
Hypocrisy or the Lowest Common Denominator? Dangers in Selectively Denying Moral Norms
The area of moral teaching in which Christians seem to be most hated is the area of sexuality. Persons who act on certain inclinations become angry when told that those sexual acts are evil. Christians are called hateful and judgmental people because they say that certain acts are always wrong. Now, while there can be people who say they are wrong in a grossly inappropriate way (The Westboro Baptists come to mind), the badly expressed message does not take away from the fact that certain acts are wrong.
The anger and hostility directed against Christians is accompanied by some rather bad reasoning. The argument that if people choose to live in a certain way, nobody should tell them otherwise. In other words, we are not allowed to have moral judgments on these activities.
Then these individuals get furious when you employ a reductio ad absurdum and apply that argument to other moral issues which they do find offensive.
That anger is revealing though. It shows that the individual does recognize that certain things are wrong. That individual just refuses to accept that their own behaviors can be part of the group [Things that are morally wrong]. Basically, it means "Other people do evil things, not me."
The problem is, those "other people" can often use the same arguments to justify their own deplorable acts. For example, the same arguments used to justify homosexual "marriage" can also be used to justify incestuous marriage and polygamy: free and mutual consent between people who profess some level of affection for each other. That isn't hypothetical, by the way. I've personally encountered proponents of "polyamory" relationships who get offended when people say it is immoral, using the same arguments the proponents of homosexual relationships – and the same demand not to be judged. These proponents got extremely angry when I pointed out that the concept of "polyamorous marriage" is an oxymoron.
Yet the fact that advocates of homosexual "marriage" do get offended when a Catholic Bishop makes that comparison shows that these advocates do think these things are wrong. So, essentially, that means they believe a moral line exists. Otherwise, when the comparison with polyamory and consensual incestuous relationships came up, they'd probably just shrug and say, "So what?" Their anger then just want to draw the line differently, including their own preference in the list of "acceptable behavior." People don't normally get offended when their beliefs are compared to something which doesn't offend them after all.
But that leads to the question of who draws the line? Either there is a line to be drawn, or else we have no choice but to accept the lowest common denominator. Take Pedophilia for example. NAMBLA argues that the modern age of consent laws are artificial and that consensual relationships can exist between adults and children. Most people find the existence of this group as well as their proposals horrific, but they use the same arguments that are used to justify other sexual activities condemned by Christian moral teaching. They merely add the condition that the age of consent should be lower than 18 and invoke the ancient Greeks and Romans to justify their views.
It also demands a justification for drawing a different line. If people want to say absolutes exist, but want to include homosexual acts as morally acceptable, they need to show how their absolute is justified while other consensual relationships are not. Otherwise they become guilty of what they accuse Christians of: forcing their own view of morality on others. In other words, why draw the line HERE and not THERE?
Actually, when it comes to showing justification for an absolute, Christianity has the advantage – and not from saying "God says so," either. The belief in marriage as a lifelong exclusive relationship between a man and a woman which is open to the possibility of having and raising children has the biological data (pregnancy comes from sex) and sociological data showing the family as the foundation of a society and that societies with strong family ties also tended to have strong societies.
Eliminating the elements of lifelong, exclusive and being open to the possibility of having and raising children makes stopping at "gay marriage" an arbitrary decision by who is in charge. That's the irony of it all. Those people who get offended at this reductio ad absurdum have contradicted themselves. By drawing the line at "gay marriage" but going no further is to make an arbitrary imposition – which is what they have accused Christians of in the traditional view of marriage.
This is the problem with "selective morality." If a person demands that the traditional understanding of marriage be set aside in the case of one preference, then it leads one to ask, "Who has the authority to determine where the law may be redrawn and where the new absolute lies?" Why should it be drawn to only include "homosexual marriage" and not incestuous marriages or polyamorous relationships? Why should the age of consent be 18 instead of 15 or even 11? After all, we can point to a time in the past when such things were seen as acceptable? Of course we can also point to times when slavery and torture and other things we condemn today were considered acceptable, so maybe it's not always such a good idea to point to the morals of the past indiscriminately… it opens up the doors to the reductio ad absurdum.
You can see the problem which those who would change morality tend to avoid. People don't want to permit things they believe are wrong, but they want to justify their own wrong by making themselves the "victim," claiming that the people who say their own vice is wrong are "judgmental" and "hate-filled" people. But then they can't explain why others can't take their same principles and demand to have them applied in a way that goes even further than they want to go.
It's quite clear. Without a rational basis for why a limit should be drawn (a basis Christian moral teaching does possess), one is forced to choose between hypocrisy and the lowest common denominator.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
How Modern Morality Leads to Tyranny (Part 1 of 2)
Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church.
—GK Chesterton
As we see our civil rights in America eroded, some people have speculated on the cause. Things like "Obama is a secret Muslim" or "Obama is a secret Communist" for example. We hear similar things about media conspiracies. The basic premise is that the reason our freedoms are declining because of some special efforts by some groups to bring down the country.
I think these things are distractions. We don't need to bring conspiracies into the equation at all. What we actually seem to have is that a certain influential group of the American population tend to think in a similar way and, when they receive political power, approach lawmaking in the same way they approach moral obligations.
In other words, we don't have a secret cabal of People against Goodness and Normality. We have people who have bought into certain errors as a way of thinking and are making that thinking into the law of the land. It has six steps. Three which are concerned with individual morality and three in which the individual steps are made law.
Looking at the First Three Steps
These first three steps are the framework, reflecting on how certain individuals view morality and how such individuals view challenges to their moral views. Such persons reject the idea that there are moral absolutes that may not ever be transgressed when it comes to such rules requiring them to restrict their behavior.
The First Step: Reducing Morality to Not Harming Others
The basic form of this modern morality is the concept that anything that does not harm others is permissible. Thus drug use that is not harming others is permissible. Fornication is permissible. Also, the emphasis on harming others is important. Under this view, we can be self-destructive so long as this destruction does not harm others.
We can see the roots for this kind of thinking in Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill describes the basic view as:
the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison.
If it causes happiness, it is good. If it causes unhappiness it is not good. However, we do see a early warning sign here. The standards of distinguishing good and harm is arbitrary, and as society has moved forward in time have become more individualistic. The individual is expected to decide for himself or herself what amount of pain is acceptable in the pursuit of pleasure. The "habits of self-consciousness and self-observation" are replaced by the slogan, "If it feels good, do it."
The problem with this view of morality is it is too short sighted. It focuses on the pleasure of the moment and ignores how long term effects of these behaviors can be harmful.
For example, the loose sexual morality requires contraception to avoid pregnancies. However, the laws of averages means eventually there will be unexpected pregnancies, and the demand for abortions. Therefore abortion becomes classified under the category of "anything that does not harm others is permissible." It's considered a minor inconvenience which should be legalized to remove consequences from sexual behavior as a pleasure.
But abortion does harm. The obvious harm to another comes from the fact that the unborn child is a person. Prior to Roe v. Wade, this was pretty much accepted as fact. Only after the Supreme Court ruling do we see medical textbooks stop talking about this. Moreover, in modern times, it is recognized that abortions cause mental and emotional harm to the mother who has an abortion. But since this harm challenges the basic premise of modern morality, it has to be somehow removed from consideration. This brings us to our second step
The Second Step: Denying the Harm Exists and Explaining It Away
The response of the modern morality is to either deny the harm exists or explain it away as less than the action defended. Often it tries to argue both, leading one to ask, "Well, which is it?" Either the harm exists or it does not. If it does, it has to be acknowledged and dealt with. If it doesn't, then why try to explain it away?
So we see people facing an unexpected pregnancy, denying the unborn child is a person; denying that such mental harm to the mother exists or explaining the harm away in the name of "a woman's right to choose." But if the unborn child is a person, then the "woman's right to choose" is causing harm to others and cannot be permitted under modern morality. So they have to deny that the unborn child is a person while also saying that whether or not the unborn child is a person, it doesn't outrank the "freedom of choice."
The danger is, this modern view of morality focuses on what the individual thinks, as opposed to what is true. So if the person decides they should not worry about the harm caused to another, they are deciding for themselves whether the harm done to another has any meaning. As we will see later, when people with this mindset receive political power, their self-focused determination on whether those harmed have value or not will impact the laws they pass.
The Third Step: Shooting the Messenger
In a reasoned discussion, people would attempt to objectively consider the issues and attempt to discover the reality. Behavior would then be changed in order to live in accordance to what is true. Unfortunately, in modern times we do not see this. It is one of the greatest ironies that people who claim that beliefs in objective morality and absolute truth are labeled "irrational" and "illogical" when the response to people who challenge modern morality is to verbally attack them and make no attempt at refutation.
The denial and explaining away can be (and often is) challenged by rational argument, but people don't like to be shown to be in the wrong, and this leads to the third step: Hostility to those who point out the modern morality is causing harm to people.
When it is pointed out that certain behaviors are NOT morally permissible and DO cause harm, there are no attempts at a reasoned refutation. What we have instead is a lashing out at those who point out the behavior is harmful.
It works this way: People standing up for absolute morality creates a challenge that puts the follower of modern morality into a dilemma. If what challengers say is true then it indicts the act as wrong and the person who performs the act must choose between renouncing the act or continue the act, knowing it is wrong.
Very few people deliberately want to be evil-doers in the sense of the character Aaron in the Shakespeare play Titus Andronicus who dies regretting he had not done more evil. Rather, many people are inordinately attached to certain behaviors and are unwilling to give them up. They also don't want to be in the wrong in not giving them up.
So the defense mechanism begins. But since the justification for modern morality is the individual decides that the act doesn't harm anyone in a way the individual considers important, they cannot defend their position as being right. So what often happens is to avoid being wrong, they seek to denigrate their challengers, trying to portray them as being in the wrong.
This is why we see so many ad hominem attacks: "War on women." "Homophobic." "Judgmental." These attacks make no legitimate claim against the truth of the defender of absolute morality. It merely attacks the person who challenges this form of thinking. It is as if they think if they can discredit the messenger, they can justify ignoring the message.
It's a sort of begging the question.
- If they were good people they would agree with [X]
- They don't agree with [X]
- Therefore they're not good people
- Why does not agreeing with [X] make them bad people?
- Because [X] is good.
[X] is the issue being disputed whether it is good or not, so to argue that people are not good if they do not agree with [X] merely assumes what has to be proven.
Once we get to the point where a person being good or not depends on whether he accepts the position of modern morality, it becomes easier to label the person who challenges modern morality as people who don't matter. Once that label is bestowed, it will have relevance in a society which adapts the modern morality to law.
Conclusion
Now the first three steps are individually focused, but when numbers of individuals who share the same view group together, we can see political influence grow from them. Voters who hold these views are going to tend towards supporting candidates that share their views ,or at least favor leniency towards the behaviors. Members of the media who share these views are going to report things in terms of promoting the modern morality and denigrating the concept of moral absolutes. Politicians who hold these views are going to pass laws which reflect these views of morality.
The next article will take a look at how we go from this individualistic view of morality to what happens when we elect people who hold to this view of morality.
How Modern Morality Leads to Tyranny (Part 1 of 2)
Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church.
—GK Chesterton
As we see our civil rights in America eroded, some people have speculated on the cause. Things like "Obama is a secret Muslim" or "Obama is a secret Communist" for example. We hear similar things about media conspiracies. The basic premise is that the reason our freedoms are declining because of some special efforts by some groups to bring down the country.
I think these things are distractions. We don't need to bring conspiracies into the equation at all. What we actually seem to have is that a certain influential group of the American population tend to think in a similar way and, when they receive political power, approach lawmaking in the same way they approach moral obligations.
In other words, we don't have a secret cabal of People against Goodness and Normality. We have people who have bought into certain errors as a way of thinking and are making that thinking into the law of the land. It has six steps. Three which are concerned with individual morality and three in which the individual steps are made law.
Looking at the First Three Steps
These first three steps are the framework, reflecting on how certain individuals view morality and how such individuals view challenges to their moral views. Such persons reject the idea that there are moral absolutes that may not ever be transgressed when it comes to such rules requiring them to restrict their behavior.
The First Step: Reducing Morality to Not Harming Others
The basic form of this modern morality is the concept that anything that does not harm others is permissible. Thus drug use that is not harming others is permissible. Fornication is permissible. Also, the emphasis on harming others is important. Under this view, we can be self-destructive so long as this destruction does not harm others.
We can see the roots for this kind of thinking in Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill describes the basic view as:
the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it against quantity, being the preference felt by those who, in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best furnished with the means of comparison.
If it causes happiness, it is good. If it causes unhappiness it is not good. However, we do see a early warning sign here. The standards of distinguishing good and harm is arbitrary, and as society has moved forward in time have become more individualistic. The individual is expected to decide for himself or herself what amount of pain is acceptable in the pursuit of pleasure. The "habits of self-consciousness and self-observation" are replaced by the slogan, "If it feels good, do it."
The problem with this view of morality is it is too short sighted. It focuses on the pleasure of the moment and ignores how long term effects of these behaviors can be harmful.
For example, the loose sexual morality requires contraception to avoid pregnancies. However, the laws of averages means eventually there will be unexpected pregnancies, and the demand for abortions. Therefore abortion becomes classified under the category of "anything that does not harm others is permissible." It's considered a minor inconvenience which should be legalized to remove consequences from sexual behavior as a pleasure.
But abortion does harm. The obvious harm to another comes from the fact that the unborn child is a person. Prior to Roe v. Wade, this was pretty much accepted as fact. Only after the Supreme Court ruling do we see medical textbooks stop talking about this. Moreover, in modern times, it is recognized that abortions cause mental and emotional harm to the mother who has an abortion. But since this harm challenges the basic premise of modern morality, it has to be somehow removed from consideration. This brings us to our second step
The Second Step: Denying the Harm Exists and Explaining It Away
The response of the modern morality is to either deny the harm exists or explain it away as less than the action defended. Often it tries to argue both, leading one to ask, "Well, which is it?" Either the harm exists or it does not. If it does, it has to be acknowledged and dealt with. If it doesn't, then why try to explain it away?
So we see people facing an unexpected pregnancy, denying the unborn child is a person; denying that such mental harm to the mother exists or explaining the harm away in the name of "a woman's right to choose." But if the unborn child is a person, then the "woman's right to choose" is causing harm to others and cannot be permitted under modern morality. So they have to deny that the unborn child is a person while also saying that whether or not the unborn child is a person, it doesn't outrank the "freedom of choice."
The danger is, this modern view of morality focuses on what the individual thinks, as opposed to what is true. So if the person decides they should not worry about the harm caused to another, they are deciding for themselves whether the harm done to another has any meaning. As we will see later, when people with this mindset receive political power, their self-focused determination on whether those harmed have value or not will impact the laws they pass.
The Third Step: Shooting the Messenger
In a reasoned discussion, people would attempt to objectively consider the issues and attempt to discover the reality. Behavior would then be changed in order to live in accordance to what is true. Unfortunately, in modern times we do not see this. It is one of the greatest ironies that people who claim that beliefs in objective morality and absolute truth are labeled "irrational" and "illogical" when the response to people who challenge modern morality is to verbally attack them and make no attempt at refutation.
The denial and explaining away can be (and often is) challenged by rational argument, but people don't like to be shown to be in the wrong, and this leads to the third step: Hostility to those who point out the modern morality is causing harm to people.
When it is pointed out that certain behaviors are NOT morally permissible and DO cause harm, there are no attempts at a reasoned refutation. What we have instead is a lashing out at those who point out the behavior is harmful.
It works this way: People standing up for absolute morality creates a challenge that puts the follower of modern morality into a dilemma. If what challengers say is true then it indicts the act as wrong and the person who performs the act must choose between renouncing the act or continue the act, knowing it is wrong.
Very few people deliberately want to be evil-doers in the sense of the character Aaron in the Shakespeare play Titus Andronicus who dies regretting he had not done more evil. Rather, many people are inordinately attached to certain behaviors and are unwilling to give them up. They also don't want to be in the wrong in not giving them up.
So the defense mechanism begins. But since the justification for modern morality is the individual decides that the act doesn't harm anyone in a way the individual considers important, they cannot defend their position as being right. So what often happens is to avoid being wrong, they seek to denigrate their challengers, trying to portray them as being in the wrong.
This is why we see so many ad hominem attacks: "War on women." "Homophobic." "Judgmental." These attacks make no legitimate claim against the truth of the defender of absolute morality. It merely attacks the person who challenges this form of thinking. It is as if they think if they can discredit the messenger, they can justify ignoring the message.
It's a sort of begging the question.
- If they were good people they would agree with [X]
- They don't agree with [X]
- Therefore they're not good people
- Why does not agreeing with [X] make them bad people?
- Because [X] is good.
[X] is the issue being disputed whether it is good or not, so to argue that people are not good if they do not agree with [X] merely assumes what has to be proven.
Once we get to the point where a person being good or not depends on whether he accepts the position of modern morality, it becomes easier to label the person who challenges modern morality as people who don't matter. Once that label is bestowed, it will have relevance in a society which adapts the modern morality to law.
Conclusion
Now the first three steps are individually focused, but when numbers of individuals who share the same view group together, we can see political influence grow from them. Voters who hold these views are going to tend towards supporting candidates that share their views ,or at least favor leniency towards the behaviors. Members of the media who share these views are going to report things in terms of promoting the modern morality and denigrating the concept of moral absolutes. Politicians who hold these views are going to pass laws which reflect these views of morality.
The next article will take a look at how we go from this individualistic view of morality to what happens when we elect people who hold to this view of morality.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
TFTD: Bigotry By The 'Tolerant'
Anyone ever notice that the most intolerant people out there are the people who champion tolerance?
When it comes to dealing with views they dislike, they are perfectly willing to spew invective demonizing their opponents and seeking to prevent themselves from operating any sort of "public" ministry (such as hospitals and orphanages) because of their "intolerance," even though tolerate itself means:
1 allow the existence or occurrence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.
2 endure (someone or something unpleasant) with forbearance.
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
We have a denial that there are any sort of absolute moral right and wrong. Therefore opposition to certain acts are claimed to be arbitrary and imposing beliefs on others – which is seen as morally wrong….
Wait… what?
If there is no sort of moral absolute in terms of right or wrong, then there is nothing right about being tolerant and nothing wrong about being intolerant. Indeed, under the rhetoric of "tolerance," and protecting people from those who are "pushing their views on others," they are in fact intolerant and pushing their views on others.
America should wake up and realize that a major religion which has often praised America for the religious freedom which allowed her to practice her faith unhindered now feels she must prepare for a growing wave of religious intolerance in America. This growing wave is not from fundamentalist anti-Catholics, but from the policies of the United States government.
Archbishop Dolan writes:
The federal Department of Justice has ratcheted up its attack on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as an act of bigotry. As you know, in March, the Department stopped defending DOMA against constitutional challenges, and the Conference spoke out against that decision. But in July, the Department started filing briefs actively attacking DOMA’s constitutionality, claiming that supporters of the law could only have been motivated by bias and prejudice. If the label of ―bigot sticks to us—especially in court—because of our teaching on marriage, we’ll have church-state conflicts for years to come as a result.
So let's cut to the chase here. If tolerance is the rule of the game, you'll tolerate us as we try to bring to the attention of the world the teachings of Christ making sober, reasoned appeals as to why our view is correct. If you believe we are morally wrong in our stance, then you are just as obligated to show the objective basis for your position as we are for ours.
The person who refuses to do either is certainly behaving hypocritically. The government which refuses to do either is behaving in a tyrannical manner.
TFTD: Bigotry By The 'Tolerant'
Anyone ever notice that the most intolerant people out there are the people who champion tolerance?
When it comes to dealing with views they dislike, they are perfectly willing to spew invective demonizing their opponents and seeking to prevent themselves from operating any sort of "public" ministry (such as hospitals and orphanages) because of their "intolerance," even though tolerate itself means:
1 allow the existence or occurrence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.
2 endure (someone or something unpleasant) with forbearance.
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
We have a denial that there are any sort of absolute moral right and wrong. Therefore opposition to certain acts are claimed to be arbitrary and imposing beliefs on others – which is seen as morally wrong….
Wait… what?
If there is no sort of moral absolute in terms of right or wrong, then there is nothing right about being tolerant and nothing wrong about being intolerant. Indeed, under the rhetoric of "tolerance," and protecting people from those who are "pushing their views on others," they are in fact intolerant and pushing their views on others.
America should wake up and realize that a major religion which has often praised America for the religious freedom which allowed her to practice her faith unhindered now feels she must prepare for a growing wave of religious intolerance in America. This growing wave is not from fundamentalist anti-Catholics, but from the policies of the United States government.
Archbishop Dolan writes:
The federal Department of Justice has ratcheted up its attack on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as an act of bigotry. As you know, in March, the Department stopped defending DOMA against constitutional challenges, and the Conference spoke out against that decision. But in July, the Department started filing briefs actively attacking DOMA’s constitutionality, claiming that supporters of the law could only have been motivated by bias and prejudice. If the label of ―bigot sticks to us—especially in court—because of our teaching on marriage, we’ll have church-state conflicts for years to come as a result.
So let's cut to the chase here. If tolerance is the rule of the game, you'll tolerate us as we try to bring to the attention of the world the teachings of Christ making sober, reasoned appeals as to why our view is correct. If you believe we are morally wrong in our stance, then you are just as obligated to show the objective basis for your position as we are for ours.
The person who refuses to do either is certainly behaving hypocritically. The government which refuses to do either is behaving in a tyrannical manner.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The Intolerant Tolerance
Introduction
Recently, in the news, there have been reports of certain politicians seeking to ban “discrimination” against homosexuals by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. One effect of such a law would be to force Christian institutions out of running adoption agencies, unless they go against what they believe to be right and commanded by God.
The interesting thing about it is this sort of action is done in the name of Tolerance. To oppose allowing people to do certain things on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation is called Intolerance and those groups practicing what is labeled “intolerance” is to be opposed and the groups who practice it are not to be… tolerated.
What it Means to Tolerate – or to be Intolerant
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
—Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
Let's start with the actual definition of the term. Tolerate is defined as:
tolerate
■ v.
1 allow the existence or occurrence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.
2 endure (someone or something unpleasant) with forbearance.
(Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.)
It's a significant point. One tolerates something which they do not like and allows it to exist without interference. The contrary would then be Intolerance:
intolerant
■ adj. (often intolerant of) not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own.
(Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.)
So from a strict definition, anyone who refuses to allow the views, beliefs or behavior different from one’s own to exist without interference is intolerant.
Catch-22
They [La Prensa] accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it.
— PJ O'Rourke, Holidays in Hell (quoting a Sandinista Official [Nelba Blandón]).
The irony shows up when one considers the opposition to groups labeled as Intolerant. Such groups are to be opposed in their beliefs and laws are proposed or passed which seek to force such “intolerant” groups to either change their views or cease to function in a certain sphere of influence.
Such opposition cannot be considered to be allowing the existence without interference, and in fact seeks to reduce their ability to operate in public while practicing their views.
This is of course the definition of Intolerance however. If Tolerance is to be an absolute value, then those who champion tolerance are in fact intolerant and must be opposed.
Looking at the Real Issue
This is what happens when slogans and propaganda replace rational discourse however. Tolerance and Intolerance are in fact labels to promote one point of view and vilify another. What we need to do is to look behind the labels and see what is actually being championed.
Let's consider the following groups, for example (especially chosen for their repugnance):
- Pedophiles
- Terrorists
- Serial Killers
- Nazis
- Rapists
If it is true that All Intolerance is Wrong, then it follows that any attempt to interfere with the groups listed above is wrong.
However, I think any sane person however would reject the idea of the rights of the groups listed above to practice without restriction. Indeed, we would consider anyone who thinks their behavior right to be morally or mentally disordered.
That's where the problem lies. If there is something which is recognized as always wrong, not merely wrong in certain circumstances, then it follows that one ought never to tolerate that which is always wrong.
So the real issue which masquerades behind the label of tolerance is an assumption that a certain moral view is correct, and those who disagree with it are morally wrong in doing so. The person who labels another’s beliefs as intolerant is actually saying they think the person’s beliefs are morally wrong.
On Moral Rightness and Wrongness
To say an action is morally right, morally neutral or morally wrong is actually to appeal to some sort of absolute which transcends culture. Genocide was not morally right in Nazi Germany from 1933-1945 just because the society leaders accepted it. Ethnic Cleansing was not right when it was practiced in Bosnia after the breakup of Yugoslavia.
We condemn these actions, not because the Nazis or the Serbs were intolerant, but because they were doing something – targeting racial and religious minorities for persecution – which we condemn as always wrong.
So if accepting the activities of a group as being morally acceptable or morally neutral is required in some cases (such as ethnic or religious minorities), and not right in other circumstances (tolerating pedophiles) it means one group is doing something unobjectionable and another is doing something wrong.
This requires us to ask, what makes an act right? On what authority is one group to claim that [X] is an absolute good or evil?
Authority and Reason
To the Christian, the belief that there are acts which can never be justified and some acts which are good is obligatory. We believe that God has structured the universe where Good reflects His nature and evil contradicts it. Also, Good is beneficial to us while Evil harms us. We believe that good and evil can be known by all individuals and this knowledge is distinct from our passions and wants. Our knowledge of good and evil can be deadened by indulging our passions and ignoring our conscience.
The Christian stance on good and evil is not a mere “the Bible says so” stance. Saint Thomas Aquinas pointed out (Summa Contra Gentiles I: Chapter 2, #3) that it does no good to point to the Bible as an authority if someone does not accept the Bible as authoritative, and we must make use of natural reason to justify what we believe.
That of course cuts both ways. If someone says “I reject Christian teaching and believe we must do [X] instead,” then it is not enough for them to insist on it from their own say so (called ipse dixit – claiming the truth of something based solely on their own say-so). They must also make use of natural reason to justify their authority.
Practicing What is Preached
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
—GK Chesterton
Failure to understand why Christians believe as they do does not make Christians bigoted, but it does make those who use the labels bigoted by failing to consider why they feel they must act as they do.
I think this is important to stress here. If Christians are accused of imposing their views on others (as is done on issues such as abortion or Gay “marriage”) then it follows that those who would try to force their views on Christian institutions are guilty of the same – they are hypocritical if imposing values they disagree with is something to be considered wrong.
Thus the person who invokes the propaganda term of tolerance as a reason for opposing Christian values is not practicing what he preaches. To paraphrase Peter Kreeft, if they practice what they preach, they’ll stop preaching. However, if they think issues like abortion and homosexual acts are morally acceptable and those who disagree are morally in the wrong, they must recognize that moral absolutes do exist and they must offer their own defense as to why their values are correct.
They must let those arguments face the challenges of those who disagree instead of stooping to ad hominem attacks, calling those who disagree with them “racist,” “homophobe,” “intolerant,” and the like.
Otherwise such opposition to Christian beliefs can be justly called both hypocritical and intolerant – in the true sense of the word.