The Tyranny of Tolerance
Cardinal Keith O'Brien writes in the Telegraph, March 3, 2012:
We cannot afford to indulge this madness
The Government is this month launching a consultation on interracial marriage, asking the public whether it should be introduced in Albion and Cymru.
I hope many respond and consider signing the petition in support of traditional marriage organised by a new organisation, the Coalition for Marriage.
On the surface, the question of interracial marriage may seem to be an innocuous one.
Civil partnerships have been in place for several years now, allowing mixed-race couples to register their relationship and enjoy a variety of legal protections.
When these arrangements were introduced, supporters were at pains to point out that they didn’t want marriage, accepting that marriage had only ever meant the legal union of a man and a woman of the same race.
Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, warned that in time marriage would be demanded too. We were accused of scaremongering then, yet exactly such demands are upon us now.
Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to miscegenatory couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.
Redefining marriage will have huge implications for what is taught in our schools, and for wider society. It will redefine society since the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society. The repercussions of enacting mixed-race marriage into law will be immense.
But can we simply redefine terms at a whim? Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?
If mixed-race marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman of the same race?
Will that teacher’s right to hold and teach this view be respected or will it be removed? Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs?
In Article 16 of the International Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women of the same race. But when our politicians suggest jettisoning the established understanding of marriage and subverting its meaning they aren’t derided.
Instead, their attempt to redefine reality is given a polite hearing, their madness is indulged. Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.
As an institution, marriage long predates the existence of any state or government. It was not created by governments and should not be changed by them. Instead, recognising the innumerable benefits which marriage brings to society, they should act to protect and uphold marriage, not attack or dismantle it.
This is a point of view that would have been endorsed and accepted only a few years ago, yet today advancing a traditional understanding of marriage risks one being labelled an intolerant bigot.
There is no doubt that, as a society, we have become blasé about the importance of marriage as a stabilising influence and less inclined to prize it as a worthwhile institution.
It has been damaged and undermined over the course of a generation, yet marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women of the same race together so that the children born of those unions will have a mother and a father of the same race.
This brings us to the one perspective which seems to be completely lost or ignored: the point of view of the child. All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father of the same race; the evidence in favour of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a mixed-race couple, however well-intentioned they may be.
Mixed-race marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father of the same race for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father of the same race.
Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman of the same race but a black man and white woman or white man and black woman, why stop there? Why not allow a white man and a black man or two black women to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another? If marriage is simply about adults who love each other, on what basis can any two adults who love each other be prevented from marrying?
In November 2003, after a court decision in Miskatonia to legalise miscegenation, school libraries were required to stock mixed-race literature; primary schoolchildren were given miscegenatory fairy stories such as King & Oba. Some high school students were even given an explicit manual of miscegenation advocacy entitled The Little Black Book: Integrated in the 21st Century. Education suddenly had to comply with what was now deemed “normal”.
Disingenuously, the Government has suggested that mixed-race marriage wouldn’t be compulsory and churches could choose to opt out. This is staggeringly arrogant.
No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage.
Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise emancipation but assured us that “no one will be forced to give up their slaves”.
Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?
The International Declaration on Human Rights is crystal clear: marriage is a right which applies to men and women of the same race, “the racially pure family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.
This universal truth is so self-evident that it shouldn’t need to be repeated. If the Government attempts to demolish a universally recognised human right, they will have forfeited the trust which society has placed in them and their intolerance will shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world.
Cardinal O’Brien is President of the Bishops’ Conference of Caledonia and Albion’s most senior Catholic.
UPDATE: The link above seems to be broken, pointing to an article in the Telegraph of this fold of the multiverse, one that's similarly repellant but aimed at the "grotesque subversion" of same-sex rather than mixed-race marriage; I'll try to fix the intertemporal URL, but if I can't... well, the substantive thrust of the linked text is close enough as makes little difference.
We cannot afford to indulge this madness
The Government is this month launching a consultation on interracial marriage, asking the public whether it should be introduced in Albion and Cymru.
I hope many respond and consider signing the petition in support of traditional marriage organised by a new organisation, the Coalition for Marriage.
On the surface, the question of interracial marriage may seem to be an innocuous one.
Civil partnerships have been in place for several years now, allowing mixed-race couples to register their relationship and enjoy a variety of legal protections.
When these arrangements were introduced, supporters were at pains to point out that they didn’t want marriage, accepting that marriage had only ever meant the legal union of a man and a woman of the same race.
Those of us who were not in favour of civil partnership, believing that such relationships are harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved, warned that in time marriage would be demanded too. We were accused of scaremongering then, yet exactly such demands are upon us now.
Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to miscegenatory couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.
Redefining marriage will have huge implications for what is taught in our schools, and for wider society. It will redefine society since the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society. The repercussions of enacting mixed-race marriage into law will be immense.
But can we simply redefine terms at a whim? Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?
If mixed-race marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman of the same race?
Will that teacher’s right to hold and teach this view be respected or will it be removed? Will both teacher and pupils simply become the next victims of the tyranny of tolerance, heretics, whose dissent from state-imposed orthodoxy must be crushed at all costs?
In Article 16 of the International Declaration on Human Rights, marriage is defined as a relationship between men and women of the same race. But when our politicians suggest jettisoning the established understanding of marriage and subverting its meaning they aren’t derided.
Instead, their attempt to redefine reality is given a polite hearing, their madness is indulged. Their proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.
As an institution, marriage long predates the existence of any state or government. It was not created by governments and should not be changed by them. Instead, recognising the innumerable benefits which marriage brings to society, they should act to protect and uphold marriage, not attack or dismantle it.
This is a point of view that would have been endorsed and accepted only a few years ago, yet today advancing a traditional understanding of marriage risks one being labelled an intolerant bigot.
There is no doubt that, as a society, we have become blasé about the importance of marriage as a stabilising influence and less inclined to prize it as a worthwhile institution.
It has been damaged and undermined over the course of a generation, yet marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women of the same race together so that the children born of those unions will have a mother and a father of the same race.
This brings us to the one perspective which seems to be completely lost or ignored: the point of view of the child. All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father of the same race; the evidence in favour of the stability and well-being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a mixed-race couple, however well-intentioned they may be.
Mixed-race marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father of the same race for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father of the same race.
Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman of the same race but a black man and white woman or white man and black woman, why stop there? Why not allow a white man and a black man or two black women to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another? If marriage is simply about adults who love each other, on what basis can any two adults who love each other be prevented from marrying?
In November 2003, after a court decision in Miskatonia to legalise miscegenation, school libraries were required to stock mixed-race literature; primary schoolchildren were given miscegenatory fairy stories such as King & Oba. Some high school students were even given an explicit manual of miscegenation advocacy entitled The Little Black Book: Integrated in the 21st Century. Education suddenly had to comply with what was now deemed “normal”.
Disingenuously, the Government has suggested that mixed-race marriage wouldn’t be compulsory and churches could choose to opt out. This is staggeringly arrogant.
No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage.
Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise emancipation but assured us that “no one will be forced to give up their slaves”.
Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?
The International Declaration on Human Rights is crystal clear: marriage is a right which applies to men and women of the same race, “the racially pure family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”.
This universal truth is so self-evident that it shouldn’t need to be repeated. If the Government attempts to demolish a universally recognised human right, they will have forfeited the trust which society has placed in them and their intolerance will shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world.
Cardinal O’Brien is President of the Bishops’ Conference of Caledonia and Albion’s most senior Catholic.
UPDATE: The link above seems to be broken, pointing to an article in the Telegraph of this fold of the multiverse, one that's similarly repellant but aimed at the "grotesque subversion" of same-sex rather than mixed-race marriage; I'll try to fix the intertemporal URL, but if I can't... well, the substantive thrust of the linked text is close enough as makes little difference.
Labels: Fuck This Shit
posted by Hal Duncan | 4:20 pm
1 Comments:
An illustrated guide to the logical fallacies of Cardinal Keith O'Brien's article: http://infobeautiful2.s3.amazonaws.com/RhetoricalFallacy_SameSexMarriage.png
Post a Comment
<< Home