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.
 

Advertisements

One Like Myself

It should be natural to look in the eyes of a loved one and see one like myself.

 

Provided this gaze is authentic love, it permits a moral awareness of the dignity, the inviolability of the other.

 

Slavery, existing throughout human history, has been/is possible due to the human capacity to stop seeing the other as myself. The Europeans saw the Africans as a “sub-race”, as non-human, which permitted them to enslave the latter without losing their feeling of rectitude. In response, the Civil Rights Movement made repeatedly one principal claim: we are equal in dignity.

 

Once equality is truly achieved, no honest person can continue such horrible violence towards his brother or sister.

 

The degradation of human beings is seen worldwide: the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany, the attempted eradication of the Tutsi by the Hutu in Rwanda, the enslavement of millions of children in, as is done in India or various countries in Africa, or the use of child soldiers, as was seen during the Sierra Leone Civil War. Today, Islamic extremists, whether from Isis, Boko Haram, or various other groups, spread a wave of death, hatred, and enslavement across the middle east and other inspired acts of violence spanning several continents.

 

What shocks is that human beings are capable of doing such things to other human beings. All made possible by a lack of empathy, compassion, and love.

 

Sadly, we are not free from this very dehumanization.

 

Abortion is the ultimate act of dehumanizing another person.

 

The duration of a life lasts from its beginning until its end, from conception to natural death. To stop that process from continuing at any point is to end a life. Thus, to stop the beating heart of a eighty year old man is no different than to stop the beating heart of a baby in the womb.

 

A life has been ended.

 

Ending a life arbitrarily is an act of murder.

 

Today a baby in the womb, who doesn’t have the qualities that we recognise as being fully human, can be killed, not only without repercussion, but even with financial aid from the government.

 

Abortion is only viable if we continue to say that a developing child is not human.

 

baby-499976_1280

 

Consider if we replaced a “foetus” with a one hour old child. Would any of the Pro-choice arguments make any sense at all?

Does a woman have the right to end her one hour old child’s life because she gave birth to that child, and it’s her body? Even if that child causes her stress and financial problems? Should a one hour old child be killed because they came from the unfortunate circumstances of a rape? Should a one hour old child be euthanised because they were born into poverty? If a woman harms herself in trying to end the life of her one hour old child, should we create programs to do it for her?

 

The conclusion of these questions evoke disgust, who could possibly support them?

 

Yet the only difference between a baby who is still a foetus and a one hour old child is whether or not we attribute humanity to them.

 

Apparently, the foetus is too undeveloped to be human.

 

Apparently, the foetus doesn’t have enough sensation or intellectual processing to be human.

 

Today we look back at slavery and are astonished at how it was possible for one person to look at another and ignore completely their humanity and, as a result, treat them with brutality and indifference.

 

I pray for the day when we will be human enough to look back and say, “How could we have murdered our own children?”