Hypocrisy: Looking at the Modern Cultural Double Standard


 

Hypocrisy is a rather easy mistake to make. It is human to overstep our understanding with action, or with judgement of others’ actions. Our bias towards our own actions always finds new ways of hiding itself, burying itself beneath layers of good intentions and the inevitable self-righteousness that comes with an unchecked fervour.
 
What I find most interesting is when those who often brandish “hypocrisy” as the ultimate insult, have themselves taken up the yoke.

 
 
Do you believe that the Catholic church has the right to affirm that marriage is a sacrament, received from God, which is expressed between a man and a woman?
 
Do you believe that the Catholic church has the right denounce abortion as a destruction of human life?
 
Do you believe that the Catholic church has the right to exercise its choice to follow Christ’s example in only selecting men for the priesthood?
 
 

There is a mentality that is currently popular, one which I find is expressed in part by a post from a friend on Facebook:
 
“Why do we accept religion as an excuse for homophobia but not racism?”
 
If I pressed the issue it’s owner would probably waver and tell me that the Church can believe what it wants for fear of sounding like he was forcing his beliefs on someone else.
 
Then again, maybe he’d just do it, not seeing the double standard.
 
All the same, the message is clear: anyone who speaks out against “homosexual marriage” is clearly homophobic. As a result, it is understood that beliefs not accepting such a union are intrinsically bad, to be disregarded, and not valid. Not permitting “homosexual marriage” is apparently the equivalent to hating someone because of their racial background.
 
Regardless of their motivation, believers that marriage is uniquely between a man and a woman are either told that they are wrong, or that they should hold their belief in secret, in the home and never in public.
 
A similar story unfolds when discussing women in the priesthood or abortion and Pro-life related matters. The response comes back always the same: either you agree with us, you shut up, or you get out.
 
A friend of mine told me recently that she feels that she cannot be a feminist, because feminists will not allow her to express this desire. Her view of what is best for women is not the popular one, and her way of supporting women is rejected.
 
These agendas are being pushed everywhere in the public domain: the media, our politicians, by university professors, and by our school boards, to name a few.

 

Residential schools were rightly criticized on many accounts. One such criticism is that these schools tried to eradicate the indigenous’ peoples way of thinking, their beliefs, and their way of life.
 
Sound familiar?
 
At my local university anyone who proclaims any of the 3 positions I expressed at the start of this article, risks being verbally attacked, despised, and considered second rate. I have two close friends who manned a Pro-life booth on campus who were screamed at while they watched their property being destroyed by a pack of irate feminists.
 
Are we not free to live our culture in the way we see fit?
 
I recently heard a native women express that she wore her hair long because she believed that it made her more spiritual in a CBC radio interview. The other guests snickered, and belittled her belief.
 
Spiritual beliefs are silly and childlike, didn’t you know?
 
So called “cultural genocides” are not limited to residential schools. They are happening now, in our media and in our schools.

 

European colonialism’s great sin, we are told, was to force their ideals and way of life onto another culture.
 
Meanwhile, in one example, “twelve countries used [the UN’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR)] to pressure El Salvador to change its laws on abortion, removing protections from unborn children and expanding the grounds for legal abortion.”
 
Likewise, “a powerful and controversial UN population agency told the Nigerian government to change its position” on abortion.
 
International Planned Parenthood Foundation set up a center in Nepal following an earthquake in 2015. They experienced what their own website calls “myths, misconceptions and cultural resistance to contraception.” In other words, the Nepalese culture. This culture, clearly, must be eradicated for it is myths and misconceptions.
 
The resemblance to our colonial white europeans is striking, is it not?
 
Let me do a little translating: If only these morally corrupt natives weren’t so stupid and could just be more modern with like us! Bring on the abortions!
 
It may be said that beliefs about sexuality and birth are not culture, so much as food and social etiquette are. This is clearly not true. Culture instills beliefs and values, and what we believe about sexuality is just as much our culture as the nature of ethnic dishes or a particular style of clothing.
 
If colonialism does not come at the end of a barrel of a rifle, that doesn’t mean that it is not colonialism.
 
The truth is, so called inclusiveness and respect for culture only occurs when those cultures can be thoughtlessly defined within preset boundaries. If your culture happens to be outside those boundaries, you will suffer the consequences. Perhaps foreign troops will not come onto your land, but that will not stop these hypocrites from using political, personal, societal, and financial power to force their views onto others.
 

5 comments

  1. Do you feel you have the right to enforce legally your religious viewpoints on a pluralistic society? How would this be different from the Taliban enforcing Sharia law on all Canadians who don’t follow Islam?

    • Hey Jennifer, thanks for reading! I’m assuming this question is an aside, as I really didn’t talk about law in my article?

      I believe the purpose of law is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I do not believe law is a means of enforcing moral norms. So would I make abortion illegal? A thousand times yes. Because those infants cannot protect themselves. Same goes for euthanasia. One study found that 90 percent of people who asked for euthanasia, if treated for depression, no longer wanted it.

      Would I make gay “marriage” illegal? No, but I wouldn’t call it marriage either, for the word marriage itself has a meaning and a definition which comes from its religious context.

      In as much as Sharia law is unjust, I would do everything in my power to oppose it. That within it that is just, I would follow.

      • Hello ADAM,

        Well abortion has become politicized and the Christian Right has aligned with the likes of Donald Trump on this one issue, while looking the other way for protection of the environment….another innocent that cannot speak for itself. Also they look the other way for making the one percent richer and making sure the 99 percent have trouble getting basic healthcare and actually earn enough to meet their basic needs.

        I do believe in the sanctity of life. I do not believe this problem will be solved through legal means. There will always be people who seek abortion, unfortunately and may also choose end of life measures. Sanctify of life must be promoted from another stance. When the church aligns with the far right politically, it enters into the danger of selling its soul. I think Pope Francis is trying to address this issue.

        As far as gay marriage, you can find a different name for the union if it bothers your spiritually, Gay folks and relationships deserve the same rights financially and legally as common law relationships now enjoy.

        Always good to think about these things, 🙂

  2. Thanks Adam for your courage in an environment that preaches tolérance et is the last to practice it.
    God bless you!

Thanks!