An Inconvenient truth

The local paper for right thinking people; The Age, frequently berates outer suburban types for living in high energy consuming McMansions in the outer suburbs. It’s quite funny then that the paper ran an article in its Sunday edition which showed some “surprising results’. It would appear that our affluent inner city environmental types leave the largest eco-footprint in the country. Those berating the community about their inconsiderate use of water and fossil fuels tend are its worst offenders. Reminds me a bit about Al Gore’s energy Bills. Who would have ever thought the Left a bunch of hypocrites?

Yours truly lives in an area that is quite conservative and also has a very low eco footprint. Right wing and environmentally sensitive; now there’s an inconvenient truth. Anyway you can see how much damage you’re doing-in Australia at least-by clicking here.

The Damned.

One of the blogs I like to visit is David Apatoff's, Illustration art. His latest posting deals with Mr James Montgomery Flagg, the illustrator who painted this famous poster.


The fellow's story is tragic; Mr Flagg you see loved beauty, but for the wrong reason. To him the beautiful was something that was valued because of the pleasure it gave to Mr Flagg, but not of the object it represented. The consequences were predictable. Read on.
(Caution, some risque art)

The Verdict.

I've been waiting for my "higher authority" to get back to me, they haven't officially as yet, but Annoymous of 5.58 pm sent me a very interesting post which I think settles the matter.

"I don't know if a Jesuit qualifies as "higher authority" but he's probably more likely to be right than a bunch of guys yakking on the web. One of the instances Father Hardon gives below (in his Pocket Catholic Dictionary), is almost exactly analogous to the discussion at WWWtW...

(Father Hardon then goes on to discuss the principle of double effect and gives the following example)

...the commander of a submarine in wartime who torpedoes an armed merchant vessel of the enemy., although he foresees that several innocent children on board will be killed.

(Father Hardon then states that the action is licit if) All four conditions are fulfilled :

• he intends to merely lessen the power of the enemy by destroying an armed merchant ship. He does not wish to kill the innocent children;
  

• his action of torpedoing the ship is not evil in itself;
  

• the evil effect (the death of the children) is not the cause of the good effect (the lessening of the enemy's strength);
  

• there is sufficient reason for permitting the evil effect to follow, and this reason is administering a damaging blow to those who are unjustly attacking his country.
  

You were right, at least according to Father Hardon, S.J...

Oh, and who was Father Hardon S.J. ?

Click here


The defence rests.


We praise God and not our strength for it.

Btw, Annonymous; good wine shall be drunk in your honour.

Legal terminolgy.

Janet E Smith, of conservative orthodox Roman Catholic fame, gives a little run down on moral terminology. Some people may find it helpful. It can be found here.

The right call

I’ve been away for a while, posting on other blogs. Apparently I can get into trouble anywhere I go so I guess in order to keep the peace, I am staying at home.

Recently I was involved in a rather engaging struggle over at the What’s Wrong with the World site. The site is definitely worth a visit and the topics raised there are treated intelligently and with conviction.

The matter under contention was titled The Right Call? The thread can be found here:

The moral question in essence was: Is it morally permissible to shoot down an civilian aircraft, commandeered by terrorists in flight and intending to use the aircraft as a weapon? Essentially a moral judgment was to be made on Dick Cheney’s decision to shoot down Flight 89 during the September 11 attacks.

Yours truly, took up position as counsel for the defence; arguing that the act was morally permissible under the principle of double effect for the following reasons.

1) The intention was to defend the United States.
2) Shooting down the aircraft was a morally legitimate form of defence.
3) The shooting down of the aircraft would have a double effect:
a. Stopping the attack. (good)
b. Death of the innocent civilian passengers(Evil)
4) Death of the civilians was not wished/intended.
5) A proportionate analysis of the double effect weighed heavily on the side of good.

The action of the Vice President conformed to the principle of double effect and hence was morally licit.

The prosecution argued that the VP’s actions were morally illicit. It was agreed that:

1) The intention was to defend the United States
2) The Vice President did not wish the civilians any harm
3) A proportionate analysis favoured the action but;

4) The action of shooting down the aircraft was morally impermissible since innocent civilians were going to be killed. It was argued that as the death of the innocent civilians was foreseen, and hence must have been intended. As deliberately causing the death of innocent civilians is intrinsically evil, the action was morally forbidden.
5) The principle of double effect is negated if evil means are chosen for good ends.

The Prosecution argued that the defence were proportionalists, justifying any evil act provided good could come of it. The Prosecution argued that the killing of the innocent was always and everywhere a deliberate evil and any other such act in which a deliberate evil was chosen was always and everywhere wrong.

The Defence argued that firstly, the Prosecution's understanding of intention was deficient; just actions could have deliberately foreseen evil consequences which were unintended. What defined the goodness or badness of an act depended on its moral object. The Prosecution argued that a deliberately chosen behaviour which resulted in intrinsic evil was always a sign of an evil moral object, the Defence rejected this proposition. Furthermore the Defence argued that the Prosecution's understand of double effect was flawed, since apparently some intrinsic evils were permissible and others were not. Cutting the flesh is intrinsically evil, yet is permitted for surgery. The Prosecution agreed that surgery was permitted but because cutting the flesh was not intrinsically evil.

At stake for the Defence was more than the question under consideration: At stake was everything.

If the Prosecution’s line of reasoning was correct, then any action in which an intrinsic evil was deliberately bought about would be not permitted. Killing one’s self is an intrinsic evil. One can step in front of fast moving train and afterwards claim that the train killed him, but one cannot say that he did not foresee his death. The Prosecution's line of reasoning would lead to the conclusion that the death was suicide; their early argument illustrated this position. The Defence insisted that why a person did what they did was vitally important. If stepping in front of a train to push a young child off the tracks resulted in the foreseen death of the rescuer, then the act was self sacrifice; not suicide: the highest of motives, as our Master taught.

Indeed; the Defence feels that the line of reasoning pursued is a most evil attack on Christianity, veiled as a defence. It was mentioned in opening argument, that had the passengers of flight 89 deliberately crashed the aircraft to save other Americans on the ground, it would have been collective suicide. Yet; our master would have taught that no greater love man hath, and would have such men supp with him in paradise. Indeed in choosing to have himself killed, Christ would have, by the prosecutions reasoning: committed suicide: The Son of God becomes the Devil himself. It is this foreseen consequence of the Prosecution’s reasoning, that drove the Defence’s vigorous crusade, but as usual argument drew to a stalemate.

The Defence as such has deferred the matter to higher authority and will publish the findings of this authority when it becomes available.

It remains to be seen whether the Prosecution or the Defence made the right call.

Eating your greenies makes you healthier.

I love nuclear power and this article in the Australian is priceless.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21495572-23289,00.html

Doublethink

Orwell was right; Many on the left have a remarkable capacity for doublethink. For those of you who don’t know what doublethink is a definition is in order: Doublethink is the capacity to hold two mutually contradictory thoughts in ones head and not notice the contradiction. It’s almost a prerequisite capacity in order to belong to the Left.
The latest cloning bill bought before the Victorian Parliament would support genetic manipulation of the embryo. But here’s the rub, why are they against genetically modified crops but for genetically modified humans? Beats me.

A McDonalds culture.

I personally don’t mind McDonalds. No body forces you to go there. The food is appropriate if you’re on the run, ravenous and need something to eat. It’s cheap and the kids love it. It’s a bit like chocolate, fine as a treat but unhealthy eaten all the time. One of the things I don’t like about McDonalds is its ubiquity. I am not very traveled. But in New Zealand they are everywhere as they are in Europe. I don’t have a problem with McDonalds chasing economic opportunity rather it’s the cultural damage that it brings with it that bothers me

The last thing I wanted to do in Europe was to eat at a McDonalds, because I can eat at one at home. The whole point of traveling is to experience other cultures; not to relive what is at home. But that was the problem, to my mind Europe was too much like home. Standing in Vienna, it struck me that the faces were the same, the scenery was a bit different: I had traveled around the world to experience another backdrop. The injury that a business like McDonalds does to a country such as France is that it makes the place a bit less French and bit more American. Is it such a great idea that France becomes less French when multinationals set their businesses there?

Now most of my friends on the Left would agree that it’s a bad thing. However I feel that they are being hypocritical, for why is the destruction of economic diversity so much worse than the destruction of cultural diversity? Yet my friends on the left have no problems with multiculturalism. In my mind economic multi-nationalism is just as bad as demographic multi-nationalism; in other words multi-culturalism. Our friends on the left are very keen on keeping biological diversity; they are not so keen on cultural diversity. When cultural diversity becomes universal it simultaneously becomes extinct. Japan is the nature it is because it is full of Japanese. If we were to put large minorities of Europeans, Indians and Africans in Japan it would cease to be Japanese, it would become multicultural.

And that’s the problem, traveling will become pointless because of the world will be the same. It will be one big melting pot; its individual flavours indistinguishable from each other.

Greenies

“The Earth has a skin and that skin has diseases, one of its diseases is called man.”
Friedrich Nietzsche

My mother ran a spotless house and I suppose I have inherited a legacy of enmity towards dirt and mess: I like things clean. I grew up in an industrial part of town and I can still remember as a child, my disgust at dirty walls, industrial rubbish, polluted creeks and smelly air. I always thought that the men who allowed this to happen were somehow deficient in manners. I always imagined their homes as being grubby, with piles of dishes and washing lying around. Little did I realize that the men who owned these factories, left them, to go to nice tree lined streets, in areas zoned to prevent industrial activities when the evening came.

I think it was Chesterton who once remarked that every movement starts with some disputed truth and invariably ends in error. The environmental movement is one such movement.

I have much sympathy to the environmental movement. The way that many of our ancestors treated the environment was simply abysmal. They poured pollutants down the rivers which we drank from, poisoned the air we breathed and generally left their trash out of site. Many of the great capitalists in the past would think nothing of cutting down a whole forest, fouling a river or wiping out a species in the ever relentless pursuit of greater profit. Afterwards retiring to great estates that would maintain nature in its most pristine if not sometimes contrived forms. Hence it was right that this total disregard of our common environment should have been opposed. But what started out as a noble cause has morphed into an ignoble philosophy.

What irks me with regard to the environmental movement is its quasi religious overtone. Walking on elevated bridges through forest canopy is meant to inspire the same religious awe that the relics of the saints were meant to arouse: A trip to Amazon, equivalent to a pilgrimage to Mecca. Somehow, any disturbance of the way things are is the equivalent of sin. Indeed it is this undertone; that mans presence is sacrilegious to the environment, that rubs me the wrong man. In Christianity man was cast out of the Garden of Eden when he ate from the tree of knowledge. In the environmental movement, paradise was lost when God created man. I suppose Nietzsche could be considered a proto-Greenie.

I take the biblical view that man was put in the Garden of Eden to tend it, not worship it. This means that we have a responsibility towards it and not veneration. We are free to use the resources of nature, provided we do so with good husbandry; for we are the stewards of this Earth and not its owners.

Starting out.

The Sunday Age is always good for a laugh. The story that got me thinking, dealt with the tribulations of a young couple who were having difficulty purchasing a first home. Our aspirant homeowners were having difficulty finding a affordable property in their first choice suburbs of East Melbourne and Richmond. Now for those of you who don’t know Melbourne, East Melbourne is one of the most affluent and expensive inner city suburbs. Richmond has its dingy bits, but it too has quite a bit of very expensive housing and amongst our inner city types carries a bit of prestige.

Now in days of Yore, a young couple would scrimp and save and move into a modest home in a modest suburb and slowly move up. But not our young couple; they were starting at the top.

What got me down about this article was the way these young people felt that there was some sense of injustice in their not being able to afford luxury immediately. This sentiment is not isolated and seems to be a growing contagion, especially amongst the younger generation. I was bought up old school: if you wanted luxuries you saved up till you had enough to purchase them, not the current generation though: Luxury and prestige are a “right” and their inability to afford them a “problem”.

Likewise, there has been much talk of rapidly rising rents. I have quite a few real estate agents as patients; they’re finding it difficult to fill vacancies in rental properties. However the suburbs that I serve don’t carry high status. The “problem” our “progressive paper” harps on about is the high expense of high status housing: Big deal.

There is plenty of cheap housing if one is prepared to accept compromises; the problem is that most of our trendy, eco-friendly inner city types are not. With champagne tastes and beer budgets, the bastards are complaining about the price of caviar. Excuse me for not being sympathetic.

The value of tradition

I am at variance with the mainstream conservative movement when it comes to tradition. Most conservatives seem to have a soft spot for tradition. Many conservatives see it as part of the “continuity of life” or a link with their ancestors. American and British conservatives tend to think of the conservative mission as a project to preserve the “old ideas”: The conservative movement as a sort of intellectual ossuary.
I am convinced that there are others though, who are conservative for aesthetic reasons. Fussiness, traditional modes of conduct, titles and formality give them much pleasure. Recently there was an interesting debate on Right Reason on this very matter;

http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/01/objectlevel_and.html

I value tradition simply because the dead sometimes have quite intelligent things to say. The men and women who lived before us were not all stupid. Their circumstances may have been different, but in their dealings with human nature, things have not changed. So when it comes to issues on how we should live I am quite prepared to give a respectful ear to the opinions of my forefathers. I recognize that they were men and prone to the failings of men: They were not infallible. However where I differ from a significant portion of my conservative colleagues is that where as I give them a respectful ear, they worship them; and Idolatry is a sin.
This worshiping of the old I think has done the conservative cause a lot of damage. The old world was full of problems, the modernist approach was to try to fix them up—usually the wrong way—while the conservative approach was either not fix them up at all or to turn the clock back. Traditionalism is the process of allowing dead people to do your thinking for you, hence I believe that it was justified that the conservatives were called the stupid mans party.

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_02_12/cover.html

For what it’s worth, my conservatism is rooted in a metaphysical view that was until quite recently, common opinion: That there is a right and wrong which is quite independent of my perception of them. My imperative as a conservative is to live the right way, not the old way. The fact that my forefathers were right on so many issues means that I give them a respectful ear, not a bended knee.

Why not pay the protestors to beat the police up?

Several years ago I had the unfortunate experience of treating an ambulance officer who was injured at the S20 protests approximately 7 years ago. The poor fellow had metal objects—nuts and ball bearings—and had urine thrown at him which had splashed him in the eye. He came in anxious with regard to risk of catching certain diseases. The risk was small I explained but still there. While organising his tests we chatted about the days protests and in no uncertain terms he convinced me that the rioters were at fault and the police remarkably restrained.
Several hours later to my surprise one of the rioters came in, wanting me to document his injuries, which consisted of some minor bruising. He regaled me at length of how the police had attacked the innocent rioters, later on that night when I got home and saw the TV news, the pictures on television seemed to support the paramedics’ view.
Today this in the paper;

http://www.news.com.au/sundayheraldsun/story/0,21985,21322057-661,00.html.

Why do the police bother?

Poverty 101

A lot of my professional career has been spent in dealing with the problems of poor people. Indeed for most of my life prior to graduating from university, I shared a practical solidarity with the poor by being one of them. My parents were working class people, who migrated to this country because quite simply, there was nothing for them to eat at home. So when I speak of poverty I feel that I can make statements safely and with some authority, I therefore propose a taxonomy of poverty.

Firstly: the nature of poverty.

There is absolute poverty; this is quite simply not having enough to eat or drink, lacking a roof over your head, clothes to cover yourself with and the like. This is the nature of poverty in third world countries.

Relative poverty; this is quite simply not having as much as the man next door. It used to be called by the old name of envy, though in these politically correct times it could mean living in a society with a high Gini coefficient. This forms the bulk of poverty in modern western countries.

The causes of poverty.

Resource deprivation: This is when one has lack of access to resources to alleviate their predicament. This can happen through theft, denial of work,lack of capital or income. Poverty of this kind is alleviated by directing resources to the deprived. Most kind hearted people feel that the way to fix poverty is through resource access.

This however poses problems, because by and far in Western countries the biggest cause of poverty is:

Resource misallocation: This is where resources are available but are used in ways that maintain relative deprivation. Charity directed towards the poor of this type, tends to buy them little luxuries, which once used, leave the individual in the same state that they were in before. Poverty of this kind is only temporarily ameliorated, it is never cured at all.

It is this-- resource misallocation—type of poverty, that forms the bulk of the Western World's poor. It is indeed the most fascinating type of poverty. I have as one of my patients, a person who won more than $600,000 in the local lottery, and who after two years, and orgy of consumption, is back on social security. Indeed, it seems to be a reasonably common phenomenon. Approximately one third of lottery winners are in the same predicament as my patient. Now if a one off gratuity of $600,000 cannot relieve poverty, how much will?

Rude behaviour

Over coffee this morning, my wife asked if people interrupt their consultations with me when their mobile phone rings. She had been reading an article in the paper about the general level of rudeness in society. She was quite aghast when I replied that it happens all of the time. Most people excuse themselves before answering the phone, however a significant bulk don’t, expecting me to stop the consultation so that they can carry on with their personal life: In a nutshell they are rude.

The point of the newspaper article was that there is a growing problem of rudeness in society, a point which I totally agree with. Rudeness if considered is really a lack of consideration to others. Whereas tolerance aims to put up with disagreeable behaviors, courtesy aims to make one tolerable. In other words, courtesy is an effort to please society.

However pleasing society otherwise known as social conformity has been under cultural attack in the West for most of the last century. Amongst our “creative types” the escape from social conformity has been the hallmark of personal maturity and growth in authenticity of the person. Hollywood and most contemporary literature idolises the rebel and scorns the conformist.

So is it any surprise then that people who have been conditioned to do their own thing without regard to others, do. Also as we keep being reminded standards are arbitrary and who are we to impose standards on others? Good modern multicultural man is tolerant.

In our current society we have reached a situation where we have a synergy between broad tolerance and self assertion which I believe is contributing to the expansion of boorish and rude behaviour. Whereas previously this behaviour was confined to the lower classes--with the better behaved affluent, insulating themselves by postcode and employment type-- now, through the rising level of affluence, these people are increasingly coming in contact with each other.

What this means for the genteel is that their interaction with society is less pleasant. While I do not think that there will be a “war” between the classes on this matter life will become rather less pleasant. The rude and the obnoxious abound.

The coming peril

I live in a leafy part of what is otherwise aesthetically depressing side of town. Property prices around here tend to be more expensive than in the other surrounding areas. In fact the area seems to be a bit aspirational. Why is it then, that when new people move into the area, the first thing they seem to do is wreck it.
Now I am not against development; but I am mystified at change that totally negates the reason for it in the first place. Why move into a leafy area only to chop down all the trees? As far as I can tell, the area I live in has a degree of social status and people are moving in for that reason.
It’s the old problem: boorish but wealthy people think that they can buy class.
In other words these boorish people would spend a fortune to live in a slum if they felt that I would confer on it social status. They are insensitive to the amenity and lack the aesthetic sense to preserve it. Unfortunately they tend to bring their aesthetic choices with them. The car parked out on the lawn, chopping down age old trees while forgetting to mow the grass, the boat in the driveway and the motorbike hooning down the street.
Now before anyone thinks that I am a snob, I would like to reply that I am a snob; but a democratic snob. My exclusive club is open to all who satisfy my moral and aesthetic code: Money or race is irrelevant.
I feel we need to re introduce a certain degree of snobbery back into society if only to reign in those aspirational types without any aesthetic sense. A boor with a chainsaw can totally wreck a suburb. A cultivated man may improve it. However the cultural norms of our society severely punish those who judge by higher aesthetic or moral code. Till we change our societal values our attractive suburbs will be at the mercy of those with cash and not necessarily taste. Several “For Sale” signs have sprung up on My street.
I have a sense of foreboding.

Ivan the terrible.

Ivan the terrible.


Every so often I get a visit from Ivan. Ivan is one of my patients who has had a long and arduous life working as a labourer. Years of manual work have worn away at his hips and knees and now he is the proud recipient of three prosthetic joints. Unlike most of my “disabled” patients, Ivan likes the vigorous life. With his savings he bought himself a small farm, and now in his gentle and measured pace tends his cows, pigs and ducks.
Coming from Eastern European peasant stock he seemed the type that always looked out of place in the city; always more at home on the land
I would see Ivan on a regular basis: repeat scripts of his medications, blood pressure checks and the general medical concerns of a man of his age. During his visits, he would keep me informed of the circle of life on his farm. He would bring his grandchildren with him on the farm and they would have the honour of naming the piglets. He would get up at night on cold winters to make sure all the cows were properly housed and warm. He would fret over sick animals and always ensure that if required; the vet would be summoned. He tended his pastures so that his animals would be fat and happy
A few months ago he was late for his appointment and visibly distressed. One of his calves had wandered off. As he lived close to a rail line, he was concerned that it was a risk of being hit by a train. He searched over his farm without avail for hours till finally the sounds of the anguished beast drew him to a small gully. The animal had fallen down the crevice and was unable to get itself up. Foxes had torn pieces of flesh from its hindquarters and udder. Ivan scared off the foxes; distressed and seeing that the beast was beyond help, got his gun form the farmhouse, and taking great care to get a clean shot, put the animal out of its misery. You see, Ivan cared for his animals.
All his calves had names. One day I enquired of a certain “Daisy” of whom he had talked so fondly about.
“How’s Daisy?” I asked.
“I slaughtered her this morning for meat”, He replied.
“I thought you liked Daisy?”, I asked surprised.
“Yes, I did”
“I could never kill an animal I developed feelings for”, I said.
“Nonsense, that’s what they’re there for”
And with that he uttered a great metaphysical truth: The animals exist for the benefit of man.
Ivan was bought up “old school”. He believed that man stood at the apex of creation and that all other living things served him. However Ivan never took this to mean that it was a one way street. Ivan also believed that it was the obligation of man to look after the living things. Cruelty to his animals was as unimaginable as infanticide; one had the obligation to treat animals well. Unlike Peter Singer, Ivan did not believe that the animals had rights; rather Human beings had obligations. The concept of comparing animals with humans was ridiculous; Ivan’s grandchild was worth infinitely more than any piglet. Ivan wouldn’t have argued with Peter Singer, he would have punched him in the nose. Ivan hated animal rights activists not because they were pro-animal, but anti-human. Equating the animal with the human did not make the animal more human but provided a philosophical justification for the human behave like an animal.
Ivan felt that this was all some sort of intellectual sophistry; a denial of common sense. He felt that that the animal rights activists were “sick”, a diagnosis with which I whole heartedly agree. It seemed to me that one could get a better grasp on metaphysics working on the farm than in a prestigious university. Peter Singer please take note.

Subsidising Luxuries.

A patient came in the other day that was planning to go overseas on a six month holiday. As this was one of these New Age experiences, her journey was going to take her to the more inhospitable bits of the world. After working out what she was going to need we tallied up the cost of the vaccines and it came close to $180. She was indignant. Why did SHE HAVE TO PAY for the vaccines? She huffed. Wasn’t it covered by Medicare? When I explained that it wasn’t she replied with the typical mantra “the Government should pay for this”. When I asked her why should the Government subsidise her holiday with MY taxes, she looked at me totally dumbfounded.
You see, In Australia the overseas holiday seems to be a bit of a birthright. Anything which impairs that birthright is obviously a moral wrong. Flicking through our newspapers one see the story prolonged hospital waiting lists due to a shortage of funds juxtaposed to the soaring monetary value of building renovations. Obviously Australians are happier putting money into their granite kitchen benchtops than they are into the health system. More on this at a later post.

Is secularism a religion?

Secularism is a belief in the separation of the Church and the state. Most conservatives see no problem in this separation. However a more militant branch of secularism seeks to stop religion from making any input into the public debate. The argument being that as religion is not verifiable via the scientific method, it has no place in the discourse of society and in the formation of laws, government policy, etc This view is anchored in the empiricist philosophy which stresses the primacy of knowledge gained through the senses and reason, it dismisses any knowledge not gained by the aforesaid method as superstition or opinion.
Fair enough, but in my experience militant secularists take the next step in stating that as metaphysical truths are unverifiable they do not exist. Their line of reasoning goes along as such. As I cannot prove that metaphysical truths exist, therefore they do not exist. It’s a big call.
Suppose we take a silly example. I have never been to China nor do I read Chinese. Suppose a traveler tells me that there is a book in a library in Beijing that deals with ancient Chinese plumbing. Unless I learn Chinese and go to the library in Beijing there is no way I can verify this. Is it right for me then to dismiss the existence of this book just because I have never seen it? Or should I believe it, even knowing that my traveling friend occasionally makes up tall stories? The point is that the existence of this book is unverifiable by until I take the time an effort to go to the Chinese library.
However clearly the book either does or does not exist. One may be wrong either way but until the question is proved it's fair to have an opinion on the matter.
Clearly we have no way of verifying metaphysical truths via the scientific method, but why a secularist’s view of the metaphysical should take precedence over mine is beyond me. Indeed, a mans religion IS his belief about the metaphysical.
When I make a statement about the metaphysical, i.e. there is a God, I am being religious, when the secularist makes a statement about the metaphysical, i.e. there is no God, why is that not considered religous?
The fundamental difference between the militant secularists and religious is an opposing opinion on the existence of a metaphysical reality. The religious believes that the metaphysical exists while the secularist believes that it does not. The negation of belief in the metaphysical is just as much a statement of faith as an assertion.
So what’s the point of all this? Right now in the West we are in the throws of a good old religious war. Between the Secularists and the Religious, and at the moment the Secularists are winning.

Thoughts on Lathams Diaries

One of the depressing things about the Latham diaries is the picture it paints of the Labor Party in Australia. Throughout the book Latham continually mentions the need for the Labor party to “re invent itself”. I always thought that a party was formed around a core of ideological principles which it aimed to put into practice once in government.  Bereft of an ideology, what exactly does Federal Labor stand for? Reading the diaries it becomes apparent that Labor would put any principle into practice provided it could re elected. Latham talks about the party being a party of “fairness, compassion, equality” without exactly stating how these ideals would be put into practice. The more I read of his book the more I came away with the feeling that it was the party of “nice feelings”.

Gay Marriage

The ethical foundations of Gay marriage begin with the foundation of the Church of England. Henry the VIII’s decision to break with the Catholic Church over its refusal to recognize his subsequent marriages laid the foundation for the current mess. In the West at least till “modern” times, marriage was conceived as a sacrament. In other words the union with man and woman involved a religious dimension which bound the parties together. The joining of the flesh was both physical and metaphysical. The Christian marriage was a Threesome, and God always stuck around. It followed then that the emotional condition of the parties or the social circumstances were irrelevant to the validity of marriage. If both parties fell out of “love” well then, tough. No matter how good the pressing imperative the union remained valid till one of them died. Marriage was not “just a piece of paper”.
With the acceptance of divorce by the Church of England the line of reasoning changed. Now a marriage could be broken if a reason was good enough, and good enough was the product of social consensus. The illusion of Divine blessing was acted out in the ceremony but the logical imperative of Gods participation was sophisted away. As one old wag said “Adultery may be bad morals but divorce was bad metaphysics”. What the King wanted is what the King got. “What God has joined let no man set asunder” was set asunder by the King and his compliant clergy. Marriage was changed from a sacrament to a governmentally recognized living arrangement. It was secularized.
Now clearly under the cultural momentum of The Medieval Church the old definition of a man and woman making up a marriage was not going to change, however as the Church lost its influence on society and other sophistries exerted their effect it was only a matter of time till even this concept was challenged. The Mormons tried by justifying polygamy till it was stamped out by sanction. But the men who challenged the Mormons were governed by the memory of ancient Christian Metaphysics. Secular Metaphysics hold sway now and were the Mormons to revert to the life of the harem I wonder if they could be stopped now.
Herein lays the whole problem of marriage, its theoretical conception. To a secularist marriage is a governmentally sanctioned living arrangement. It is irrelevant whether it is between two people of the opposite or the same sex or even different species. In fact whole communities could be “married” provided they satisfied the requirements of the State. There is no limit on whom or what could be “married”. In a representative democracy the limits will be set on social custom. If polygamy becomes the custom then the demand for it to be recognized as a legal marriage will be demanded.
The Christian response to this state of affairs was that marriage was a metaphysical union under certain conditions. One man, one woman till death do us part. Hence the objection is a metaphysical one. Two men or two women don’t satisfy the criteria. Just as calling your foot a hand does not make it a hand; to Christians legalizing gay marriage does not a marriage make. It doesn’t satisfy the metaphysical criteria.
As usual the social pathology of today is rooted in the metaphysical errors of yesterday. The demand for Gay marriage is really the result of secularization of our society. If we want to get tough with Gay marriage we have got to get tough with divorce and restore the original idea of marriage.