Unfriending the Indefensible
I "unfriended" someone on Facebook today. Yes, I know you don't care. What I want to talk about is why.
This particular person is an acquaintance who I met through a couple of different avenues that have on relevance. He is also enrolled in the Catholic Seminary, training to become a priest. And he has several unsavoury opinions about morals and politics.
He has said that Julia Gillard is unsuitable as Prime Minister because she helped to legalise abortion in Victoria. He doesn't have to support abortion but to question Gillard's credentials because he doesn't agree with her politics? And by the way, what right does he have, as a celibate priest in training, to an opinion on what a woman does with her body? What life experience qualifies him to make this judgement? Does he have children? Has he counseled a woman before, during or after an abortion? Has he ever had a relationship with a woman that enabled him to understand in any way the connection a woman has to her body, the medical indignities women are expected to undergo? I could go on, but I must move on.
He also said, and in some ways this is worse, that Gillard was unsuitable as Prime Minister because Plato stated that a nation should be led by a philosopher, and Gillard is an atheist. Forget, for the moment, the questionable wisdom of dogmatically following the wisdom of Plato in the governance of Australia, and ask the far more relevant question. Why the hell can an atheist not be a philosopher? I believe there are many atheist philosophers in the world. I know one in fact, I went to school with him and now he is a professor of philosophy an American University.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
What he means of course, is that Gillard is unsuitable because she doesn't ascribe to his philosophy.
The third comment was that Tony Abbot should "get rid of the gays". I can only hope that the neo-nazi overtones and images of the holocaust that sprang into my mind were totally unintended. So what is the solution? Criminalize homosexuality ( again)? That didn't work. Institutionalise gay people? Wait, no, we tried that too. They're still gay. What about don't ask don't tell? Hmm. It doesn't really solve the problem, does it? It just hides it and ignores it. Oh well, the gas chambers it is.
I know that this comes off as a rant against this young man. It's not really. What I am railing against is the ignorance, bigotry and intolerance that comes out of his mouth, in the sincere belief that he is doing good. It is God's work. And he's not the only one.
It is not even his religion that I have issues with, although the Catholic church has plenty to answer for. It is the concept of belief, of faith. To believe so strongly, to have such certainty in an idea that has no evidence to support it. To know, know that you are right, because you have this book to back you up, and this book is God's word. It must be, everyone says so. It even says it in the book.
What a wonderful thing this faith. We romanticize it in our literature and our art. It's heroic, to stand against the ignorant masses, to stand up for what we believe in, no matter the cost. Faith refuses to be beaten down, even in the face of such paltry things as facts.
The problem is that the masses aren't always ignorant, and costs are important. Some things just aren't worth the cost. To me, tolerance, acceptance, and reasoned thinking are far too high a price to pay for a false sense of moral superiority.
This particular person is an acquaintance who I met through a couple of different avenues that have on relevance. He is also enrolled in the Catholic Seminary, training to become a priest. And he has several unsavoury opinions about morals and politics.
He has said that Julia Gillard is unsuitable as Prime Minister because she helped to legalise abortion in Victoria. He doesn't have to support abortion but to question Gillard's credentials because he doesn't agree with her politics? And by the way, what right does he have, as a celibate priest in training, to an opinion on what a woman does with her body? What life experience qualifies him to make this judgement? Does he have children? Has he counseled a woman before, during or after an abortion? Has he ever had a relationship with a woman that enabled him to understand in any way the connection a woman has to her body, the medical indignities women are expected to undergo? I could go on, but I must move on.
He also said, and in some ways this is worse, that Gillard was unsuitable as Prime Minister because Plato stated that a nation should be led by a philosopher, and Gillard is an atheist. Forget, for the moment, the questionable wisdom of dogmatically following the wisdom of Plato in the governance of Australia, and ask the far more relevant question. Why the hell can an atheist not be a philosopher? I believe there are many atheist philosophers in the world. I know one in fact, I went to school with him and now he is a professor of philosophy an American University.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
What he means of course, is that Gillard is unsuitable because she doesn't ascribe to his philosophy.
The third comment was that Tony Abbot should "get rid of the gays". I can only hope that the neo-nazi overtones and images of the holocaust that sprang into my mind were totally unintended. So what is the solution? Criminalize homosexuality ( again)? That didn't work. Institutionalise gay people? Wait, no, we tried that too. They're still gay. What about don't ask don't tell? Hmm. It doesn't really solve the problem, does it? It just hides it and ignores it. Oh well, the gas chambers it is.
I know that this comes off as a rant against this young man. It's not really. What I am railing against is the ignorance, bigotry and intolerance that comes out of his mouth, in the sincere belief that he is doing good. It is God's work. And he's not the only one.
It is not even his religion that I have issues with, although the Catholic church has plenty to answer for. It is the concept of belief, of faith. To believe so strongly, to have such certainty in an idea that has no evidence to support it. To know, know that you are right, because you have this book to back you up, and this book is God's word. It must be, everyone says so. It even says it in the book.
What a wonderful thing this faith. We romanticize it in our literature and our art. It's heroic, to stand against the ignorant masses, to stand up for what we believe in, no matter the cost. Faith refuses to be beaten down, even in the face of such paltry things as facts.
The problem is that the masses aren't always ignorant, and costs are important. Some things just aren't worth the cost. To me, tolerance, acceptance, and reasoned thinking are far too high a price to pay for a false sense of moral superiority.
posted by Brett at 7:26 pm
2 Comments:
A question for you (and no it is not intended to trap you into saying something - I really want to know). Do you think it is possible to have "faith" and not be an ignorant biggot?
Brig
I do, so long as there is also room for doubt. It is the certainty, and the unwillingness to engage with, accept or even tolerate anyone else's point of view that is the problem. The reason I unfriended this guy is because there is not point in engaging with someone like that. It is what he wants, so he can show you how right he is. Te best thing you can do with people like that is to deny them an audience. I don't care what people believe so long as they are willing to honestly engage in discussion.
Post a Comment
<< Home