Showing posts with label Egalitarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Egalitarianism. Show all posts

Sunday, 26 August 2012

Scottish Catholics and their campaign against gay equality



Cardinal Keith O'Brien, a man that believes he has the right to impose Catholic
 ideology on non-Catholics against the will of the majority of Scottish people.
In August 2012 the leaders of the Catholic church in Scotland took the extraordinary measure of sending letters to every parish, to be read out to the congregation during Sunday service. The letter outlined the Catholic opposition to the concept of gay marriage, criticised the Scottish National Party government for promising to legalise gay marriage and called upon their followers to continue to act against efforts to "redefine marriage".

The Scottish government have defended their right to introduce same-sex marriages and made clear their determination to bring in the legislation by 2015, despite the objections of the Catholic church. 

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Church in Scotland, a man who has described the concept of gay marriage as a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right" also used the letter to announce the launch of a new group called the National Commission for Marriage and the Family to co-ordinate a campaign against gay marriage.

This letter and the wider Catholic campaign against gay marriage can be seen as yet another example of Catholic bigotry. If they don't believe in Gay marriage, then they don't have to carry out the ceremonies, but their attempts to deny this right to non-Catholics is an absolutely clear demonstration of their determination to impose their own ideology on others. I can't see why any right thinking gay couple would want to be married in a Catholic church (other than perhaps to try and kick up a massive stink), so the Catholics actually have nothing to fear from this legislation.

The Catholic church likes to dress up their stance as an attempt to "support and sustain marriage" and "defend families", but it is quite clearly an expression of their homophobic bigotry and an attempt to impose their values on the rest of Scottish society.

In June 2012 an Ipsus Mori poll found that 64% of Scots agreed that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and 68% agreed that churches should have the freedom to wed same-sex couples if they choose. These results show that the majority of Scots are reasonable and tolerant people that believe that gay couples should be able to express their love and commitment for each other through marriage. The fact that the Catholic church have expressed their determination to undermine same-sex marriage legislation shows that they are a divisive influence acting against the will of the majority of Scottish people.

One particularly interesting fact about gay marriage is that many of the very first nations to have introduced gay marriage legislation have been traditionally Catholic countries (Spain, Argentina, Mexico and Portugal). Perhaps this is indicative of the fact that people in Catholic countries are becoming increasingly sick of Catholic attempts to interfere in secular affairs.

Once the newspapers began reporting the Catholic anti-gay letter, there were a lot of predictable comments from the usual band of atheist reactionaries and anti-theists claiming that this is yet another example of religious bigotry and using the homophobic stance of the Catholic church in order to have a go at religious people and religious organisations in general.

There is one piece of information that should shut up these obnoxious atheists, which is that the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) have been lobbying the government (and even the Queen) for years to recognise their gay marriage ceremonies as legal marriages. This is an absolutely clear demonstration that not all religious people and organisations are bigots and homophobes.

Anyone making generalised claims of bigotry against all religions and all religious organisations, should be considered bigots themselves. They are displaying their intolerance by lumping all religious people together and then defining them by the attributes of the worst members of the group, exactly the same kind of generalisation and stereotyping strategies used by religious extremists to demonise those that they deem to be "sinners", "heretics" or "apostates".

Sure, atheists and anti-theists should feel free to criticise the Catholic church for their homophobic stance, but they should quit using obvious double-standards to tar all religious people and organisations with the same brush, since some religious organisations are actually very progressive and have done a lot more to bring about gay equality than these reactionary atheists (that ignorantly condemn such religious progressives as bigots with their pathetic generalisations) have ever done.

The Catholic stance on gay marriage and their determination to impose their (warped) values on everyone else is revolting, however having a dig at religion in general isn't going to help. Progressive people; Quakers, deists, atheists, humanists, agnostics, spiritualists or whoever, should stand together in united opposition to Catholic bigotry and condemn their desire to impose Catholic values on many millions of non-Catholics.


See Also





Tuesday, 14 August 2012

The sentient concept fallacy



Hopefully you are aware that hasty generalisations make lazy and fallacious arguments. It doesn't matter what case is being argued, if it relies on an unsubstantiated generalisation it is invalidated. Generalisations are rife in the tribalistic political mentality, "the left" are often as bad as "the right" at positing arguments that rely on lazy generalisations and subsist of little more than empty political rhetoric.

As this is a blog about right-wing fallacies, I'll stick to providing right-wing examples. Here are a just few.
These are all lazy generalisations but the subject of this article is one of the most astonishingly poor generalisations I have ever come across. It was written by a guy called Gary Hull who is affiliated with the barkingly right-wing Ayn Rand Institute. It was published in an essay he wrote for Capitalism Magazine. It is such an appallingly poor argument I had to check that he hadn't been misquoted before I decided to write this critique. This is what he said.
"Egalitarianism, which claims only to want an 'equality' in end results, hates the exceptional man who, through his own mental effort, achieves that which others cannot."
The remarkable thing about this statement is that it ascribes an emotion to an abstract concept. If he had stated that Egalitarianists hate the exceptional man, then we could dismiss it as yet another lazy generalisation from the political right, but what he states is that the abstract concept of egalitarianism has capacity for hatred, which is so absurd it is an almost psychedelic argument. An argument which exists in a philosophical fantasy world where liberalism can trust, fascism can swim, abstinence can fear, tiredness can lust, hope can shout, honesty can laugh, the number seventy eight can dream, vaccination can dance and colourless green ideas can sleep furiously.

This claim that a concept has emotional capacity is so absurd it is surreal. It is an abuse of reason, logic and linguistics rolled into one appallingly vapid piece of rhetoric. Even if we skip past this philosophical incoherence and analyse the claim, this too is gibberish. There are many fields of egalitarian thought, one of which is gender egalitarianism. How on Earth does the egalitarian idea of "equal pay for equal work" hate the exceptional individual? The concept of equal pay for women (for the same amount of work) actually promotes the exceptional woman by ensuring she receives the same economic reward for her labour as the exceptional man. It is no surprise at all to see such a philosophically invalid and easily demolished statement coming out of the Ayn Rand institute, after all Ayn Rand is the undisputed queen of vapid pseudo-philosophy.

Ayn Rand's barmy greed-is-a-virtue mantra is inexplicably popular with the American public, her magnum opus "Atlas Shrugged" has persisted as an American best-seller for decades despite its appalling pseudo-philosophical agenda and its glaringly unrealistic hero characters. The Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman famously quipped "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

The scariest thing about Ayn Rand's barmy pseudo-philosophical ideas is that her "objectivist" acolytes have assumed hugely powerful roles in the World economy. Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve who led the global financial sector into a near total economic meltdown was an Ayn Rand groupie. One of the leading voices of neoliberal pseudo-economics (who died shortly before he could witness the neoliberal economic meltdown he helped to create with his deregulation mantra) Milton Friedman stated that Rand was "a person that did a great deal of good". The Republican candidate for Vice President in the 2012 elections Paul Ryan is another Rand fanatic who cites her as an inspiration and has spoken at another Rand cult called the Atlas Society.

The fact that so many highly influential politicians and economists have bought into Rand's fetishisation of elitism and self-interest is extremely concerning. Not just because of her fascist ideology of Übermenschen but because of the appalling lack of critical judgement that allows her devotees to spout such philosophical incoherence, without attracting criticism from their peers.

The popularity of Rand's incoherent pseudo-philosophy of Übermenschen and the glorification of pure self-interest was actually predicted by the 19th Century French economist Frederic Bastiat when he stated that "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it”.

The success of Rand's appalling pseudo-philosophy can be explained because it allows the powerful, greedy and self-interested to believe that their avarice is not actually a sin (as most ethical systems claim) but actually the highest virtue, with all other "virtues" being aberrations. Upon discovering a worldview that allows them to glorify their insatiable greed as a virtue, the sociopathically self-interested individual is likely to suspend critical analysis and simply embrace the idea because they so want it to be true.

The fact that proponents of Rand's ideology of "objectivism" are prepared to publish stunningly incoherent statements of semantic nonsense that ascribe sentience to abstract general concepts such as "egalitarianism" in order to underpin lazy and easily falsifiable generalisations is a clear demonstration that these people are deluding themselves with vapid pseudo-philosophy in order to justify their own greed. It is of grave concern that one of these loonies may well be occupying the office of Vice President of the most powerful economy in the World in just a few months time.
                
 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for  Another Angry Voice  is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.


More articles from
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE