Arbitrary discrimination

Health Minister Nicola Roxon attacks Opposition Leader Tony Abbott on abortion issue
FEDERAL Health Minister Nicola Roxon has launched an attack on Tony Abbott and his religion, accusing the opposition leader of letting his "personal beliefs" in Catholicism affect policy formulation...

"We want to provide help and information and choice to women, not give them a lecture," the health minister told parliament...

Opponents argued the groups selected to formulate the advice to be provided on the helpline were biased because they followed Catholic teaching and were openly pro-life.
Ms Roxon said Mr Abbott allowed his "personal beliefs to interfere and get in the way of providing completely accessible and non-judgmental public services".

"Mr Abbott doesn't live in the real world," she said.

We often hear such criticisms leveled against not simply Tony Abbott, but generally against those whose outlook is shaped by 'religion'. And as the federal election comes nearer, we will continue to hear this line of criticism. But what logical value does it have? Absolutely none. Moreover, it is self-refuting to those who try and press the point.

Now to briefly analyze. Certainly, in Abbott's case, his Catholicism helps "affect policy formation''. This is an obvious observation; for in firmly holding to a religion, his ideas will be profoundly shaped by it, and since politicians' ideas have impact on their politics, it follows that Abbott's politics is shaped by his religion. Likewise, for someone irreligious like Roxon, she also will have her own ''ideas'' which shape her politics, and such ideas obviously come from 'somewhere' (just not religion). So the bottom line is, all politicians will receive ideological inspiration from a variety of sources, and will project such ideas in their political outlook and vision for society.

However, this where Roxon emerges as the blatant hypocrite that she is. She says that because Abbott receives ideological inspiration from his religion, it follows he should not 'impose' this on his politics. However, she too receives ideological inspiration from her own sources, and for some arbitrary reason (in fact, she does not give a reason), it is perfectly okay in her case, but unacceptable in Abbott's case. It is a case of arbitrary discrimination. However, is not democracy meant to be about different politicians putting different ideas on the table? And since Catholicism is (statistically, at least) the majority religion in Australia, is it that inconceivable that Catholic ideas can help shape the political realm (meant to be representative of the people)? Roxon even is at odds with Rudd in some ways, who once said:

A [truly] Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed [not arbitrarily discounted], together with other arguments...^1

Her attempt to arbitrarily silence an opposing position is ironic for someone against ''lecturing''. She does that very thing to Abbott, and what is worse, she gives no reasons to back her lecturing. Additionally, she criticises the pregnancy helpline for being "pro-life'' and ''Catholic'' in its approach. Whereas, she claims her alternative involves "provid[ing]" impartial "non-judgmental" "help and information" to women. Inevitably, her alternative is not impartial, but is based on her ideology on the issue (that abortion is a right and is a morally acceptable option). Even on her supposedly impartial alternative, women will be ''lectured'' by being counseled in terms of her "pro-choice'' ideological framework. So once again, she is a hypocrite for criticising Abbott's approach on the grounds it is not impartial.

I'm not sure what world Abbott is in, but I doubt it can be a more illogical world than Roxon's.

^1 ^{a b} Rudd, Kevin (October 2006). "Faith in Politics". The Monthly: pp. 22–30 --- as cited on wikipedia

Tolerance... or talk no more?

'Tolerance' is a buzz word all have confronted. It is an all-pervasive notion that dominates all debate on meaningful questions. However, its domination tends not to aid the fruitfulness of meaningful discussion. To the contrary, it ever so often is the trump card that stifles truth from being seen and recognized.

"Shutup! Don't try and impose your views on everyone!"

"Look, that's just one perspective, but don't push it. Tolerate others!"

"Look you're not 'right' - because we all have different opinions!"

...We are all familiar with such attempts at justification. However, what is really going on is no justification. The call to 'tolerance' is simply a way of attempting to silence a contrary (and oftentimes more reasonable) position. And we can conclude the contrary position is often more reasonable precisely because there are appeals to reasons to back it up. Whereas, the side that resorts to the 'tolerance card' is displaying an inability to offer reasons - instead, there is the sly attempt to shut the discussion down. Deep down, it is none other than a refusal to be confronted with the truth. It is none other than an attempt to tighten the blindfold or push one's head deeper in the sand.

Even proponents of clearly recognisable heinous views - i.e.: it is okay to rape, or murder - could back up their case by appealing for 'tolerance' and 'respect' to their 'personal view'. And if 'tolerance' is sufficient for making an opinion worthy of respect, then such views also must be given respect. However, it is more reasonable to suppose that the reasons making such things wrong are what counts. Whereas the appeal to 'tolerance' is simply not relevant.

It is most often those taking a 'progressive' or 'liberal' stance on vital questions that use 'tolerance' as a 'trump card'. And so it seems, on the outset, that such stances tend to be plagued by falsehoods, and the consequent unwillingness to be confronted with truth.

However, the ultimate insanity of the 'tolerance card' is this. Such appeals to 'tolerance' are by their nature utterly intolerant. This is because they all involve a direct command (and so, the contrary of the command being intolerable in some sense) to act (or not act) in a certain way. That is, for the other side to refrain from highlighting (what is often) a more logical outlook on things. And so, the audacious appeal to 'tolerate', is based on intolerance for the actions (and views) of those putting forth (and sticking to) a more reasonable position.


The one trying to point out reality is intolerant towards destructive falsehoods. The one who puts their head in the sand is intolerant to reality. There is no such thing as 'pure tolerance'; because any assertion implies favouring that assertion (and consequently, not having equal tolerance to the other assertion). Therefore, no one can ever truly assert 'tolerance', because the very assertion implies its opposite (intolerance). And so the fact is: all will be 'intolerant' in their own way; the only question is whether the intolerance is in the service of sanity or not.

Friend or foe?

To be a friend, or to be an enemy, is it always easy to distinguish between the two? How obvious it seems to tell one apart from the other. After all, is not clear to see those who are our friends, as opposed to the other end of the spectrum, who are our enemies? Cannot hot be distinguished from cold, and light from darkness?

True friendship, above all, involves desiring the others utmost good. It does not entail acting in a way that is destructive to the others good. Those who act in such a way are either a) willfully malicious, for they know full well they are no true friend, but nevertheless, make the other think they are, all the while doing the opposite of what a true friend does. Or b) enslaved by ignorance, thinking they are a good friend, with the other thinking the same, whilst, in point of fact, their influence is destructive to the others' good.

If people become blind as to what their true good consists in, they will readily mistake enemies for friends, and friends for enemies.

They will consider as friends who are in fact taking advantage of them. Or else, they will consider as friends only those people who are 'yes men (or women!)'. That is, those who help prop up the facade of their fantasy world. Hence, hollow reassurance that they know what their true good consists it, when it fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Meanwhile, true friends, those truly concerned for what their true good is (and trying to point it out, as a result of such concern) will seem to be enemies. Those who say ''Wake up! Take your head out of the sand. Please, start to see things clearly, I'm here to help you! Please open your eyes and see me for who I am, one who cares more for your good than even for your perception of me!".

When a friend is mistaken for an enemy, the true test begins. Will he remain a friend, or give in and give hollow reassurance to what the other wants to hear (what is in fact destructive to their true good), for the sake of being perceived by them as a friend? Or will he stay the course of actually being a friend, despite false perceptions to the contrary? Of course, such true friends should not be discouraged even when their attempt at being a friend seems futile, due to the other being stubbornly non-receptive to what their true good consists in. The true friend should take heart that at least he has not become an enemy (in actively promoting the other's demise). He should take heart because he has done his part, and be at peace. For even in apparently hopeless situations, the other may well wake up to reality someday and recognise friend for friend, and foe for foe. To put it in terms of Lord of the Rings, the Riders of Rohan stood to true loyalty, and were expelled by their King for it; but miraculously he came to his senses eventually. Moreover, it was those unwavering friends who were then to play an indispensable part in helping secure his good and the good of his kingdom.

It is the battle between the counterfeit and the real. Ultimately, it comes down to the question of truth: friendship is friendship only if it is true. If it is not, then call it for what it is; hint: it is not friendship.