‘Equality’ is a word that has gripped the political landscape, both in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, in recent years. It has been used as a pin up word for various causes and campaigns, but what does it really mean?
Is it a process, in which case it has a beginning and an ending, an ultimate trajectory – or is it a political/civic position that is continually evolving and taking on an ever broadening and widening meaning? When does it apply and when does it not apply? Can it be used by everyone to justify anything that makes them ‘feel happy’ or if not, then who is the judge of when equality applies and when it doesn’t?
If equality means that every person is equal, whether they are in a majority or a minority, then who appoints the judge of what falls under the banner of equality and what doesn’t, and what gives the appointee the right to select the judge, let alone the judge the right to judge?
The above paragraph lays bare the problem with equality. It has no boundaries, no parameters and ultimately it is a self-corrosive doctrine.
The banner of equality is usually adopted by a minority group seeking to change a law so as they can do what ‘makes them happy’. That is what equality is at its core. It is ensuring that anyone can do anything that makes them happy and not be treated any differently because of it.
Equality is a left wing phenomenon. It is a buzz word for the ‘Left’ and as such it attracts a wide range of people, especially young people, who latch onto various different causes for the crusading principle of equality. There is of course one problem – equality is a rampaging lion with no principles at its core because by its very nature it is the doctrine of eroding principles and morals, of breaking down society’s moral fibre. It has no base point from which to work – essentially it is a doctrine built on rapidly shifting moral sand. It is Godless communism by the back door.
The nature of equality demands that everyone tolerates everything, as long as it fits comfortably within the rapidly expanding notion of equality. If you take a stand on conscientious, religious or principled grounds then you are ‘phobic’ of whatever it is you oppose. Oppose gay marriage and you are automatically ‘homophobic.’ Oppose Islam and you are ‘Islamophobic.’ The list is as endless as it is illogical.
Equality demands that everyone conforms or else you are ‘phobic’ – agree or you are guilty of a ‘phobia’ – but what of those who take a conscientious stand for sincerely held principles or morals – are those who oppose those religious or moral ideals immune from being ‘phobic’. Those who support gay marriage and detest Christianity are never labelled ‘Christianphobic’, why not? If the doctrine of equality applies across the board then it must label everyone, who disagrees with anything, as ‘phobic’ of the subject upon which they hold a dissenting view.
Even the most elementary child could identify the illogical and self-defeating thread running throughout the core of that argument but sadly many seem to be blind to the illogical nature of this ‘equality agenda’, swept up in the tidal wave of sheepish public opinion, where conformity is demanded and dissent is isolated. In essence those who preach tolerance are so intolerant of differing views that they isolate and label dissenters from their own views as ‘phobic’.
The equality agenda is rampaging forward and crushing all in its path, picking up more varying and questionable causes along the way, but because of the very nature of equality it can exclude no one, so if anyone wants to do anything that they claim makes them happy, then they are welcome under the banner of equality. They are welcomed into the army of equality crusaders. At the moment the equality agenda is going after causes such as gay marriage an emotive subject and it is gaining traction, but what happens when the obvious and emotive causes have been won?
What happens when Christian principles have been crushed, when moral and traditional values have been trampled underfoot by the equality agenda? What happens then to the victorious equality army? It is simple, it will turn inwards because the only logic outcome is that it will self-corrode because eventually a minority group will seek to promote a cause under the name of equality and those who have been the champions of equality will question in their own conscience whether it is morally just to support such a cause, but what gives them the right to do this? Didn’t they argue all along that everyone is entitled to equality, but that’s an easy argument to make until such times as your own conscience is pricked, and then what happens?
Do the champions of equality, at that point, decide that in all conscience they cannot support a particular cause, but how could they, because by the very nature of equality the whims of any minority or individual must trump conscience or traditional and moral values.
At this point the revolution will begin to unravel and like hungry dogs all those who once stood shoulder to shoulder under the banner of equality will devour each other. The sand under their feet will slip and equality will become the equivalent of a group of school children with a machine gun.
My irony meter has just exploded, this chump bangs on about the corrosion of Christian morals, while living a life that could hardly be considered Christian. Still bound to be a nice little bump in the ratings for this website when people drop in to see what the idiot has said now.
Is Jamie blind to the hypocrisy of his words or just dumb as f…
Absolute drivel, demonstrative of an author who’s only experience with the left wing is what they might happen to shout back as he hurls obscenities at them over a peace wall. The main argument Mr Bryson presents is that because of the subjectivity of secular morality we can never feel safe about how far the banner of Equality will stretch and that presumably it will eventually encompass issues that we would see today as self evidently immoral. However, this is basically a form of the “slippery slope” fallacy which has been used by the right wing for quite some time now, for example you’ll find essays from those who were against interracial marriage using the exact same methods of obfuscation and fear mongering. The reason that the “slippery slope” argument is fallacious is that it assumes that once the law sets a specific point on a scale then eventually, regardless of how it affects society, the point will reach maximum and chaos will ensue. If this isn’t self evidently not what the law does, I’d refer you to drug laws or speed limits.
But I think there’s a bigger issue here and that’s the “faith” that Mr Bryson holds in his own “principles and morals.” He is the essential conservative because he readily defines society’s “moral fibre” as that which coincides with the values he’s been taught growing up, but fails to recognize the essential liberality of most of his views when compared to say, early 20th century Ulster conservatism. You would imagine, if the author is correct, that we as a society would be still feeling the backlash of the destruction of that society’s moral fibre, consisting greatly of racism and sectarianism. Not just this but he seems to imply that the essential subjectivity and evolution of secular morality renders it less valuable than his own religion-based morality. Of course this would only be the case if it was truly an objective god-given set of morals, today with the aid of science and rationalism we can dismiss this claim as absurd, and bring to light the reality that this is instead the work of ignorant nomadic desert tribes, the work of whom we could never compare to the heights of the enlightenment and the rationality of humanism.
Finally on your issue with being labeled a “phobe”, I would of thought the distinction was obvious, when you restrict the rights of a homosexual you are doing it from an irrational basis, as their pursuit of marriage will only lead to their own happiness and not affect you at all, therefore your fear is irrational, it is a phobia. On the contrary when my daughter wishes to marry her partner and hold the same rights as everyone else, her restriction to do so affects her and it affects me, thereby your Christianity has been the sole cause for my unhappiness, a rational fear, not a phobia.
A process doesn’t need an end point. Evolution is a process (that Jamie probably doesn’t believe in) with no end point. All belief systems are in always in flux, evolving this way or that, hey have no end point, unless they disappear. The irony is that Jamie sees Christianity as something called ‘Biblical Protestantism’ (as opposed to, say, Quranic Protestantism or Protestantism based on the Harry Potter novels). This Biblical Protestantism came into its final form, its Godhead, in 1912 with the signing of the Ulster Covenant and the treasonous UVF (says Jamie), an organisation he still holds true to, even in its modern form of gangs of racist sectarian purveyors of adulterated coke and random violence. If Northern Ireland doesn’t reject equality and return to the principles of the UVF of 1912, he thinks it’s doomed. This is a blasphemous and idolatrous position but correct. Northern Ireland, as Jamie would like it, is doomed. Let’s face it, it’s dead. And one more thing, Jamie, nobody likes a prater. If you’re going to preach something, then walk the walk.
Absolutely brilliant piece and it is something I have been saying for ages. The example being Islam. If you are critical of Islam and its teachings and its followers, you are deemed Islamophobic, as if it’s irrational to not agree with Islam and the liberty hating horrific death cult that it is.
Speak out against Muhammad and you get the Islamophobic tag again, the same man who thought it was a good idea to destroy Idol statues which didn’t fall into his way of thinking.
And yet we are told to respect this man by Muslims. Sic Semper Tyrannis!
That’s it Keith, never turn down the chance to get a dig at the brown people, good man.
Islam doesn’t have a colour, its an idea and a dreadful one.
Islam is no more a dreadful idea than Christianity. Extreme fundamentalists of any background will make their ideas seem terrible and, well, extreme. Fear of something you don’t understand is irrational and therefore a phobia.
Sam Harris has already blown that argument away. Things have levels in life. Islam is much worse than Christianity. Islam by its very nature is built on suppression and anti liberty.
The middle East which is dominated by Islam has the most oppressive states in the world. Authoritarian and despotic views on democracy and liberty.
Well I guess millions of people have never been killed in the name of Christianity.
Also, to what level is iIslam built on suppression and anti liberaty that is not also taught in the bible?
Aye kinda like Christianity, gave up believing in things I couldn’t see after I found out Santa was a figment of my parents imagination
You must have awful misgivings about Quantum Mechanics in that case.
Can’t quantum mechanics be proven?
You said “gave up believing in things I couldn’t see”. Just pulled your leg there.
Jamie says that equality is Godless communism by the back door.
But I thought Christ preached equality and said we were all equal in the sight of the Lord.
Are you not somewhat mixed up, Jamie?
The late Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels would have loved this guy. I hope to see him in the vanguard of the anti-equality campaign.
Is this a satirical piece? If it is then well done! I look forward to more of your work.
Eamonn, is there any way that I too may be able to get my intolerant, incoherent ramblings published on your blog in an attempt to gain a shred of credibility?