A Catholic Reply to the Charge of Bigotry
By James Kalb
"We are told that the male-only priesthood is sexist, the New Testament anti-Semitic, the hierarchy antidemocratic, the view of Islam as a false religion racist, the doctrine of marriage narrow, judgmental, and homophobic, andextra ecclesiam nulla salus, in however nuanced a form, fundamentalist, exclusionary, and incipiently terrorist."
Bigotry looms ever larger as a public concern today. Among the educated, articulate, and well-placed, it’s considered an intolerable moral flaw, a revolting psychological deformity, and a totally unnecessary pathology responsible for most of the world’s evils—war, crime, poverty, suicide—you name it.
As bigotry has grown in prominence as an issue, what counts as such has changed and become immeasurably broader. The word originally referred to intolerance in belief and opinion, and thus to political or religious antagonism. Now it mostly refers to intolerance for social groups, which is defined extremely broadly to include the view that distinctions among groups matter enough to be worth noticing and sometimes acting on.
Everyone respectable agrees it has to be stamped out. Schools and other institutions believe it necessary to ensure a sensitive environment through indoctrination, speech codes, and an expansion of the definition of harassment. Many of those measures are thought required by the civil rights laws, and in most of the West some of them are extended to the whole of society through the criminal law. Even ordinary people feel called upon to join the campaign, calling out violators with the aid of social media and bringing down sanctions on them.
The idea seems to be that distinctions universally made have no legitimate function, so that giving them any weight at all is vicious. The distinctions now ruled out are primarily those relevant to identity but irrelevant to the methods and concerns of commercial and bureaucratic institutions that base their claim to authority on neutral expertise and rational efficiency in responding to the needs and choices of individuals. So it’s considered wrong to make distinctions based on ethnicity, sex, cultural heritage, claimed sexual identity, or religious affiliation. That view is comprehensive, enough so to lead Gonzaga University, a Jesuit institution, to deny the Knights of Columbus recognition as a student organization because—like the Jesuits themselves—they offer membership only to Catholic men. (Under fire, the university later reversed its position.)
In contrast, it’s OK to make distinctions based on who you know, how progressive you are, which school you went to, what your formal qualifications are, how much money you have, how you score on tests, how charming you are, and what organizational position you hold. Those distinctions are not only considered legitimate but now go very far: an age that has declared war on distinctions it does not like has greatly increased the effect of those it does. And you can also make distinctions on grounds that are normally forbidden, for example race and sex, as long as the effect is to disrupt the social effect of such distinctions in general. That is the meaning of “affirmative action.”
Concerns about bigotry are far from groundless. Whether relating to opinion or group membership, it can lead to horrendous consequences when it goes to extremes. The Nazis enslaved and exterminated Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and others, and the uncomprehending hatred of progressives for non-progressives, that on some accountings has led to most of the violent deaths of the last hundred years, has never been squarely recognized and is still very much alive.
Nonetheless, there’s something odd about the movement as it stands. It’s considered a result of increased moral insight and concern for others in a maturing civilization, but the judgment seems doubtful, considering the growing stupidity of public life and the general indifference to the sometimes astonishing bigotry of the left.
Also, it’s odd that rejection of distinctions like sex that have been basic to all societies should line up so neatly with the interests of technocratic commercial and bureaucratic institutions that would like to do away with distinctions that support the functioning of competing institutions, such as the family. And at a more theoretical level, it’s odd that such distinctions should have human importance sufficient to determine identity but no rational social or practical significance at all. Have people universally identified themselves all these years by reference to characteristics that are invented or absolutely trivial?
Such issues should concern Catholics. We should favor reason and the public good, which require public deliberation that is largely free and rational, and discussion of these issues is becoming less and less so. More pointedly, much of our religion is now classified as bigotry and its exercise has begun to run into various forms of legal and social suppression. We are told, for example, that the male-only priesthood is sexist, the New Testament anti-Semitic, the hierarchy antidemocratic, the view of Islam as a false religion racist, the doctrine of marriage narrow, judgmental, and homophobic, andextra ecclesiam nulla salus, in however nuanced a form, fundamentalist, exclusionary, and incipiently terrorist.
The result is that we shouldn’t simply absorb the dogmas that surround us but need to understand our own.
Read more: www.crisismagazine.com
......
Bigotry looms ever larger as a public concern today. Among the educated, articulate, and well-placed, it’s considered an intolerable moral flaw, a revolting psychological deformity, and a totally unnecessary pathology responsible for most of the world’s evils—war, crime, poverty, suicide—you name it.
As bigotry has grown in prominence as an issue, what counts as such has changed and become immeasurably broader. The word originally referred to intolerance in belief and opinion, and thus to political or religious antagonism. Now it mostly refers to intolerance for social groups, which is defined extremely broadly to include the view that distinctions among groups matter enough to be worth noticing and sometimes acting on.
Everyone respectable agrees it has to be stamped out. Schools and other institutions believe it necessary to ensure a sensitive environment through indoctrination, speech codes, and an expansion of the definition of harassment. Many of those measures are thought required by the civil rights laws, and in most of the West some of them are extended to the whole of society through the criminal law. Even ordinary people feel called upon to join the campaign, calling out violators with the aid of social media and bringing down sanctions on them.
The idea seems to be that distinctions universally made have no legitimate function, so that giving them any weight at all is vicious. The distinctions now ruled out are primarily those relevant to identity but irrelevant to the methods and concerns of commercial and bureaucratic institutions that base their claim to authority on neutral expertise and rational efficiency in responding to the needs and choices of individuals. So it’s considered wrong to make distinctions based on ethnicity, sex, cultural heritage, claimed sexual identity, or religious affiliation. That view is comprehensive, enough so to lead Gonzaga University, a Jesuit institution, to deny the Knights of Columbus recognition as a student organization because—like the Jesuits themselves—they offer membership only to Catholic men. (Under fire, the university later reversed its position.)
In contrast, it’s OK to make distinctions based on who you know, how progressive you are, which school you went to, what your formal qualifications are, how much money you have, how you score on tests, how charming you are, and what organizational position you hold. Those distinctions are not only considered legitimate but now go very far: an age that has declared war on distinctions it does not like has greatly increased the effect of those it does. And you can also make distinctions on grounds that are normally forbidden, for example race and sex, as long as the effect is to disrupt the social effect of such distinctions in general. That is the meaning of “affirmative action.”
Concerns about bigotry are far from groundless. Whether relating to opinion or group membership, it can lead to horrendous consequences when it goes to extremes. The Nazis enslaved and exterminated Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and others, and the uncomprehending hatred of progressives for non-progressives, that on some accountings has led to most of the violent deaths of the last hundred years, has never been squarely recognized and is still very much alive.
Nonetheless, there’s something odd about the movement as it stands. It’s considered a result of increased moral insight and concern for others in a maturing civilization, but the judgment seems doubtful, considering the growing stupidity of public life and the general indifference to the sometimes astonishing bigotry of the left.
Also, it’s odd that rejection of distinctions like sex that have been basic to all societies should line up so neatly with the interests of technocratic commercial and bureaucratic institutions that would like to do away with distinctions that support the functioning of competing institutions, such as the family. And at a more theoretical level, it’s odd that such distinctions should have human importance sufficient to determine identity but no rational social or practical significance at all. Have people universally identified themselves all these years by reference to characteristics that are invented or absolutely trivial?
Such issues should concern Catholics. We should favor reason and the public good, which require public deliberation that is largely free and rational, and discussion of these issues is becoming less and less so. More pointedly, much of our religion is now classified as bigotry and its exercise has begun to run into various forms of legal and social suppression. We are told, for example, that the male-only priesthood is sexist, the New Testament anti-Semitic, the hierarchy antidemocratic, the view of Islam as a false religion racist, the doctrine of marriage narrow, judgmental, and homophobic, andextra ecclesiam nulla salus, in however nuanced a form, fundamentalist, exclusionary, and incipiently terrorist.
The result is that we shouldn’t simply absorb the dogmas that surround us but need to understand our own.
Read more: www.crisismagazine.com
......
Also by James Kalb:
Diversity. Inclusiveness. Equality.--ubiquitous words in 21st-century political and social life.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario