Saturday, April 22, 2017

Six False Assumptions Common to Homosexualism


"All passions are dishonorable, for the soul is even more prejudiced and degraded by sin than is the body by disease; but the worst of all passions is lust between men. ...There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity."
-St. John Chrysostom

Being unkind or unmerciful is one thing, but approving of or turning a blind eye to a morally permissive philosophy of life is another. The passions create a madness in the mind, a narrowing and blindness of the intelligence. Homosexualism is extremely perverse, and one reason is because it acts like a gateway to the most perverse philosophy of life: Morality as determined by feelings. Without this leg to stand on, there is no meaningful justification of homosexualism. Heterosexuality is not itself rooted in feelings, but in being in principle reproductive, even if particular acts do not result in child-bearing. Homosexuality is in principle anti-reproductive. Dividing sex from reproduction, as is done via a philosophy of homosexuality, and also of contraception, gives the false impression that sex is not fundamentally about being reproductive, but about giving and receiving pleasure.

What are some core assumptions of LGBTQ advocacy?


1. That feelings dictate what ought to be so.
For example, one can hear it said that they have homosexual desires, and that these desires mean they ought to both have and act on them, and that others should agree that they should have and act upon them.


2. That feelings (especially sexual feelings) are in a certain sense sacrosanct, and thus should not be challenged.
For example, one can hear it said that gay people are "born" that way, and that to challenge their feelings is to challenge their personhood and even their very existence.


3. That feelings (especially sexual feelings) dictate "who" a person is, that the presence of a desire implies what is “authentic” to a person.
In other words, sexuality and sex acts are not chosen, but are ontologically compelled or determined via the presence of desire, or that the desire itself is the direct manifestation of one’s unique, authentic personhood. This sentiment is expressed in statements such as, "I am gay," or "I am straight." The presence of certain attractions and desires is taken to mean that one "is" the ontological expression of that desire; that a person is what they are attracted to; that attractions determine or reveal identity.


4. That sexual passions are morally neutral.
For example, one can hear that what a person does in private is not anyone's business. Or, that one is free to do what they want (always with the proviso: as long as it doesn't hurt anyone). Like walking down the street, playing guitar, or joining a gym, sex acts have no intrinsic morality attached to them.


5. That an extreme negative response to a challenged feeling paradoxically amounts to a justification of the feeling.
For example, one can hear such statements as these: Kids with homosexual desires get depressed because they are told their feelings are wrong, are sometimes bullied, and sometimes even kill themselves, therefore it is wrong to maintain that their behavior is wrong. Or, kids with homosexual desires get depressed and lack self-esteem when they are told their desires are wrong, therefore homosexuality is authentic to them.


6. Lastly (though not exhaustively), that people ought to be free to "love" whoever they want.
In other words, love and sex are of such a nature that if one cannot have sex with that person, then they cannot love them.


Rather, in contradiction to the above, we are made in God's image, and, born fallen, we find ourselves immersed in the madness of all types of passions which distort the clarity of our vision. In the Name of Christ we are called to crucify all of our passions, all the lusts of the flesh, including same sex lust.


What we can observe generally from the enumerated items above is how interdependent and flimsy they are. Each carries certain basic false assumptions. These false assumptions need repeatedly to have light shined on them so that the cockroaches of error can be forced to scatter. Getting those who are deluded by these assumptions to acknowledge them is almost impossible. Having no accountability to truth they willfully persist in the idea through the force of emotion. They get angry, they accuse, they have breakdowns, but they rarely think the issue through from first principles because the commitment to this belief is sub-rational and ideological. It is not born of moral reasoning. Taking them in turn:


1. That feelings dictate what ought to be so; not even they agree with this. If personal feelings dictated what ought to be so, then logically the feeling that they are wrong would be equally valid. Since it is not so, one can understand that this is not moral relativism. It is their feelings, and the personal feelings of those they agree with, which are considered valid and binding for society. This ends in a sort of feeling-to-power mentality which pits the might of their right feelings against their opponent's wrong feelings. It is true simply because they want it to be so. What ought to be clear, however, is that none of this amounts to a rational justification for homosexuality. Are all feelings of anger, attraction for another's property, or laziness equally treated as oughts simply because the feelings are present? No. If all feelings do not get an automatic free pass, then clearly in their case sexual feelings are given special, preferential treatment.


2. That feelings are sacrosanct and shouldn't be challenged is another assumption, a cousin to the previous. It treats the challenging of a feeling as a type of violence against the person. It is a double standard, for the feeling that something is right or wrong is exactly what they both promote and resist. They say not to challenge their feeling and yet they challenge the feeling of others. They say don't say their feelings are wrong while saying their opponents feelings are wrong. It is a simple case of hypocrisy. If they are permitted to offer challenge, then they themselves ought to welcome challenge. It also confuses feelings with personal being, that to reject the legitimacy of a person's feelings is to reject the person's existence. This is a basic confusion which is persistent in this community, and it is the source of much accusation against their opponents, that their opponents are hateful, bigoted, prejudiced, etc., because by confusing personal feeling with personal being they hear all criticism as personal threat, and via their temper tantrums they seek to make themselves immune from further criticism. There is, however, nothing rational about arguing from feelings.


3. That feelings dictate who a person is is an ontological problem. Since feelings are not willed or chosen, by reducing personhood to feelings they strip mankind of fundamental intelligence and free will. If feelings dictate personhood, then one ought to be an alcoholic if one keeps feeling like drinking, or a glutton if one keeps feeling like eating, or an aggressor if one keeps feeling like fighting, for if feelings dictate personhood then logically whatever the predominant or abiding feeling is, then that is what ought to be done. Persistent feeling reveals authentic personhood, and authenticity to oneself means permission to act on feelings, and authenticity is the only certain virtue. That this is absurd ought to be clear, but what is important to note is the special pleading and blindness homosexualists have for their pet feeling. If it is a predominant and abiding feeling that they are wrong, then, if they are consistent, that they are wrong is equally as true as their abiding and predominant feeling that they are right. The policing of emotion is exactly what they decry, and yet that is exactly what they do. And yet, none of this amounts to an actual rational justification of homosexualism. The justification of attitudes and behavior is not merely based on the presence of feelings, therefore the fact that some people feel homosexual attraction is in no way a justification for them.


4. That sexual passions are morally neutral is another blatant contradiction, for if they were neutral, then they couldn't argue for their rightness. They couldn't say it is right to do it, only morally neutral, but if it is morally neutral, then even the presence of feelings wouldn't make it right, only right to obey the feeling. The rightness is shifted to obeying feelings, where the sexuality becomes incidental. But obeying feelings is a type of slavery, and is a confusion of human ontology and a denial of free will. Since feelings are not determined, they themselves do the determining. At this point there is no more argument for homosexuality in and of itself, just that feelings are the all-deciding factor. What is more, not all sexual passions are equally valid in their minds, only the ones they approve of. But in this philosophy nothing could trump obedience to feelings, and so they have destroyed the possibility of morality. At the same time, they assert that they are right, but the rightness is determined solely by feelings, where feelings opposed to them are treated as wrong. It is clear that every person agrees that people ought to control their feelings, and yet in this case they absurdly treat the presence of the feeling as right and good simply because it is there.


5. That a negative response to a feeling amounts to a rationale for that feeling, this is also ludicrous. If they believed that a person's committing suicide was determined by disapproval, then they would never disapprove of anything! They have made critique impossible. Are you sad that you can't have that candy? Well, according to this view that's the very reason you should have it, for otherwise you might kill yourself. A free-will act performed in response to being denied a persistent and abiding desire, to not have what one wants, is not justification for a moral.


6. That people ought to love whoever they want is a confusion between love and sex. Erotic love does not exhaust love, and sex founded on a passion is an objectification and demeaning of that person for the sake of the satisfaction of that passion. Parents love children, siblings love each other, friends love each other, coworkers love each other, and yet sex is not presupposed in these. Even husband and wife love each other when sex is not possible. Sex is simply not the same as love, and sex can and often does happen without love. Therefore, to say one ought to love whoever they want is true, but that in no way implies they should have sex with whoever they want.

As was said at the opening, none of the above is excuse to be unkind or unmerciful with those who have succumbed to the passion of homosexuality or advocate some ideology of homosexualism or queerism. At the same time, we must remain unwavering and unyielding in our commitment to moral truth. To pretend that homosexualism is okay is actually to abandon mercy. Passions darken the mind, and thus philosophies and ideologies which found themselves on a passion, or confuse passion with virtue, are philosophies of darkness, and they condemn their adherents to darkness. Thus kindness and honesty must go hand in hand, tempering each other.

Monday, May 16, 2016

Dismantling Transgenderism


Following and building upon the thought of the previous article, there is a persistent confusion regarding transgenderism that is, oddly, invisible to many advocates of transgenderism. The confusion is that transgenderism in any way makes sense, that it is not simply the product of deeply held confusion.


In an attempt at making this simple: If a person has a penis, and having a penis doesn’t make this person a man, then having a vagina can’t make him a woman, and having a vagina is not what makes a woman a woman. Having a penis doesn't make a man any less a woman, and having a vagina doesn't make a woman any less a man.


That's the confusion. One need not read any further. According to transgenderism, no man or woman could ever even be identified as existing, either in the past, the present, or the future. All the properties of gender identification have been removed, and since none could ever be found, the ideas of man and woman are rendered empty sets.


In other words, if a biological male says his male biology doesn't determine his gender, then appropriating the female sex parts (or identifying with those who have them) won't and can’t help because the intrinsic connection is denied, according to their position, between sex and gender.


If femaleness doesn't come from female biology, then saying one is a woman can no longer mean anything. The word is totally emptied of content.


On the other hand, if one affirms the gender binary, then not even a sex change can address the problem. Clearly, sex change only changes the outer appearance, not the DNA. The sex organ is rendered no more than a tattoo, and just as a tattoo of a dragon on one's arm doesn't make one's arm a dragon, neither does surgically affixing/removing something to/from one's body make their whole person that something.


If having a penis doesn't make someone a man, then acquiring a vagina can't make him a woman, because the sex organ has been treated as non-determining. If the sex organ is determining, then the genetically produced organ that one is born with has already determined the case, and change is in principle impossible.


But if the sex organ is non-determining, then no amount of changing it will make the man into a woman.


What is more, if vaginas don’t make a woman a woman, then dresses don’t make a woman, either, nor does lipstick, sexy lingerie, nor does a lisp, nor any kind of vocal affectation, nor does anything. The notion of being a woman according to transgender ideology so empties the term of content that the very idea of a woman cannot even in principle point to anything. There is therefore according to this ideology zero justification for claiming that one “really is” some gender, some “other” gender, or any gender.


Further, it is the transgender person's own position which works against him in this case. It is the transgender who operates with the gender binary, who upholds and confirms the gender binary he seeks to deny. He needs the gender binary in order to make his claim, but this in the end shows how completely self-contradictory his position is.


The transgender man says he “really” is a woman. That's the gender binary at work. He is affirming that there is some reality called “woman.”


Now, at the same time, they're saying their sex doesn't determine their gender, but if their sex doesn't determine their gender, then not only are they reinforcing the gender binary, they are showing that changing to having female organs could in principle never make them females.


Once the cake is eaten, it can no longer be had, and so they cannot both have their cake and eat it, too.


They could not know that females are their real gender because females are only known through their biological sex identity. That's why it doesn't make sense. If the female organs don't determine their identity, then females cannot in principle ever even be identified in the world. But if they can be identified in the world, then gender is simply an extension of sex, and since sex is fixed from birth, gender “identity” is fixed from birth.


A woman with a vagina could say she “really is” a man, but how can we know she is a man without pointing to genitalia? How can she identify a man in the world except by pointing to his genitalia? Now, if pointing to her female genitalia proves nothing, then pointing to a man’s genitalia proves nothing. Saying one really is a man means nothing in this case because one only points out a man through reference to biology.


If gender identity has nothing to do with biological sex, then it bears no connection with maleness, femaleness, redness, greenness, or anything in the real world, only the world of opinion and imagination.

Though this suffers from the tedium of repetition, it seems that people are still genuinely confused about this, and hopefully this will at least give voice to a clarity whether the clarity is heeded or not.

-------------------

Update May 17, 2016


The argument that gender is merely a social construct that has no relation to biology so utterly trivializes the notions of male and female that they cease being meaningful referents.

Therefore, not the imposition onto the transgenderists of an alien belief system, it bears being emphasized that the beliefs and actions of the transgenderists are of themselves self-contradictory and ultimately self-defeating. If a man believes that his genetic sex is non-determinative, then he has already made it impossible, according to the consequences of his own beliefs, to match his outside appearance with his inside feelings so as to appropriate the other gender. Why? Because he has already affirmed that his genetic sex does not determine his gender, therefore a vagina cannot make him a woman. Being a woman, according to his own belief, does not require a vagina. But if it does require biological femininity, then the fact that he is not biologically female seals the deal against him. Affirming the very thing he denies, that is why he is self-contradictory, and as such nothing is being ideologically imposed upon him except the consequence of his own ideas.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

An Analysis of Trangenderism: Its Logical Impossibility

If a biological male identifies as a woman, his association with womanhood must include the possibility that a biological female can equally identify as a male.


Therefore, since biological maleness is not indicative of male identity, the biologically female factors that are being sought are rendered no longer indicators of the female gender identity being identified with.

The sword cuts both ways.


Since according to this logic biological sex is not an indication of gender identity, then in no way could a biological male actually identify with the biologically female form in order to appropriate a female identity.


By disjointing sex and gender, it renders it impossible to identify sex with gender, and so a male identifying with a female form does nothing to appropriate female identity, because the female form is no longer the locus of the female identity.


But if the biological form is indicative or determinative of gender identity, then the form's biological fixedness would render the gender identity impossible to appropriate by someone not of that form.


By making one's own biological form non-indicative of one's gender identity, it renders the other form equally non-indicative.


Therefore, appropriation (e.g. through surgery or hormone treatments) of another biological form becomes intrinsically meaningless in terms of appropriating any corresponding gender identity, for according to this theory there is no gender corresponding to any biological form.


In attempting to liberate one’s identity from one's own form, one has simultaneously cut themselves off from meaningfully appropriating the other identity because that identity can no longer be linked to any corresponding form.

Since, according to this theory, the female form has no intrinsic female identity, then adopting the female form does not succeed in appropriating the female identity.

Thus the man who attempts to claim he is a female has become absurd, for if his form is not indicative of his identity, then the female form cannot be indicative of a female identity, and no one form can be claimed as indicative of any other identity.

In this way all notions of gender are rendered fundamentally meaningless, for if there is no biological component to gender, then the female and male genders have about as much meaning as the green and blue genders, the seven and twelve genders, and the funny, twirly, soft, and swift genders.

Changing to biological femaleness (a genetic impossibility) therefore does not succeed in appropriating the female identity, because the female identity is no longer intrinsically connected to the female form.

Transgenderism is therefore a logical impossibility which seeks to self-contradictingly determine an identity through a form while denying that form can determine identity. 

Either identity is linked to biology or it is not; if it is linked, then it is impossible to claim the identity of another form; if it is not linked, then no appropriation of the other form will suffice to actually appropriate the other identity.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Marriage Is Not The Solemnization of Attraction



Marriage is not the solemnization of attraction.

While a certain segment of the population cheered at the recent legal innovations, some even speechlessly joyous, they did not and do not realize that they were simply the victims of mass delusion.

Love did not win. Impressionism won. Desire won. For merely insisting that something is good does not make it good. Merely wanting something to be good does not make it good. Merely thinking something is good does not make it good.

Homosexualism is a denial of reason, and the homomania which has swept over this country is perhaps, along with abortionism, the two most major ideological wounds from which this nation will bleed to death.

Why is homosexualism a bad thing? First of all, it corrupts the very notion of selfhood. Self-identity is not derived from desires. Identity is derived from character and commitment. The presence of homosexual desire is therefore not a basis of the so-called homosexual identity. And without homosexual desire there is no question of having a homosexual identity. The only reason people commit to homosexuality is because of the presence of a desire for it. As discussed in the previous article, the entire edifice of this false belief is erected on the false assumption that desire is the ground of identity, but this is just not true.

Moreover, homosexualism, understood as a belief system, also treats heterosexuality as fundamentally a matter of heterosexual desires. This is also not true, as those who are aware that even the notion of "romantic love" unto marriage is itself a relatively modern innovation will attest. Heterosexuality is founded first of all on the complementarity of sex, on biological reproductivity unto family. How a person "feels" is not relevant at this level. Not feelings, the basic fact of reproductive complementarity is the ground of heteronormativity.

There is nothing ethical about slavishly letting feelings dictate identity, and what is worse is warping and wounding the nation's legal system to reflect and enforce this abandonment of reason. Love did not win; irrationality won. Changing laws to reflect this diminished view of mankind is thus not a source of joy, but of mourning. It is the legal alienation of people of reason from people of irrationalism, giving irrationalism control of the legal system. It is a schism.

Just because irrationality has won this major battle, however, does not mean it will win the war. Lies cannot win against the truth. For the sake of those who are deluded and for the sake of those who will be deluded, this untruth must be exposed and spoken against. People are being led to mass slavery to their base desires, hemmed in and controlled on all sides by their desires. No good can come from this.

The truth is that marriage is founded on a sexually reproductive heteronormativity. This is its principle foundation. Now some will cavil and point out that some people are infertile. However, personal fertility is not the principle of marriage, but sexual complementarity. This principle is illustrated biblically by Abraham and Sarah, who were only able to conceive at great age. It is complementarity that is the founding principle of marriage, and so if a couple is married and infertile, but are sexually complementary, then their marriage is founded on the right sexual principle. This preserves the proper notion of marriage, for it retains in principle the all-important factor of children and thus family, and thus societal continuity. Marriage is not primarily about the married couple per se, but is about family. Family is the foundation of society and civilization, and as such the sexually complementary married couple are at the root of this process.

This is why homosexualism is so destructive, for as an ideology it erodes the proper basis of identity, shifting it to feelings, and unravels the ideological foundation of marriage, and thus of family, and by consequence of society and civilization. By altering the notion of personhood, defining a person according to their desires, they initiate an ideological chain-reaction that functions as the societal equivalent of a time bomb. Society can only unravel in the presence of this ideology, and thus as long as this society embraces it, for as long as it has left, it is a period of mourning.

And though the homosexualist states that love has won, it should be abundantly clear that love has not won in this case, for love has been utterly misunderstood and has had nothing to do with this national and societal self-destruction. No one ever said two men or two women cannot or ought not love one another, but that they ought not be sexually active together. The issue is about sex, not love. May we return to love, real love, which is commitment to a person's true good and well-being.

To conclude with a word from saint Paisios: "And the worst thing is that today, that the sin has become so fashionable, if people see someone who does not go with the flow, avoids sin and is pious, they consider him old-fashioned and backward. For them not to sin is considered an insult and to sin is considered progress. And this is the worst thing of all that could happen. If today, all those who live in sin would only acknowledge their condition, God would have mercy on them. Instead, they justify the unjustifiable and they glorify sin. This is the greatest blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: they take sin to be progress and morality the status quo."

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Contra Homosexualism and... Heterosexualism?


In their blog entitled Under the Sun, heretics David Wagschal and Tim Clark (both former seminary professors) are on a crusade to justify homosexuality. Both of them have written articles explicitly defending it here and here. Since these authors are theologically trained and persuasive to a number of credulous Christians, it is important to begin to frame a counter to their false and destructive theology. What follows is a brief response. 

In one of Wagschal's articles, for example, about tradition he states (as if casually) that it is associated with "... destructive ideas about women, black people, human rights, [and] homosexuals." Though there are several possible aspects of this to respond to, what will be noticed here is that placing these on the same playing field is an enormous begging of the question. 

Homosexuality portrayed in this light shifts homosexuality from a behavior to an identity, and from a feeling-state to an ontology. Feelings, however, do not equate with identity or ontology. Tradition has absolutely nothing to do with this fact, and the utter consistency between the Scriptures and the Church throughout history and cultures is manifest testimony to this, not to mention that every major and enduring religion on the planet is not in support of homosexuality.

To reduce a human being's identity to the presence or absence of a feeling-state is to reduce humanity to slavery. Why? The principle ought to be clear: If "strong and persistent" feelings are given the status of being identity-defining, then the presence of any strong and persistent feeling-state will as a necessary and logical consequence become defining of identity. In other words, strong and persistent feelings to laziness will become identity-defining, as will strong and persistent feelings to fear, gluttony, anger, aggression, etc. 

Feelings, however, are not the basis of identity, and neither are they the basis of ethics. Without the presence of homosexual attraction, there is no question of whether there is a such thing as homosexual identity in the first place. Attraction is the only ground of the so-called homosexual identity, but the presence of an attraction cannot properly ground identity, and so homosexual identity is utterly groundless.

Another way to approach this is by asking: If a homosexual attraction is present, and a homosexualist states that it ought to be acted upon because the presence of that attraction is in and of itself a justification for its being affirmed and/or acted upon, on what basis would they then resist other attractions and desires, such as an attraction to laziness, or giving way to anger, or gluttony? What basis would remain for sanctification, if it no longer involves resisting attractions, urges, and desires? How would they discern what are inappropriate attractions if they forego such clear Scriptural and traditional norms?

Thus strong and persistent feelings of gluttony, anger, greed, laziness, lust, and basically the entire fallen condition, will become not only descriptively defining of human identity, but will become the prescribed identity. It would no longer be virtuous to resist the strong and persistent urge to gluttony, anger, greed, laziness, and lust, but genuine and virtuous to embrace them. Sanctification will be reduced to a progressive surrendering to one's urges and desires; asceticism will be baseless and impossible.

The truth, however, is that human identity is determined by commitment and character, not feelings. Ontology is determined by God, and God made males and females sexually complementary. To include the feeling-driven notion of homosexuality in a list that includes human rights, women, and race, is really to miss the truth about humanity in general, and homosexuality in particular. 

The foregoing also begs the question that heterosexual attraction per se is the basis of hetero-normativity, or that heterosexuality is fundamentally an issue of "strong and persistent" feelings toward the opposite sex. Christ's statement against lustful, covetous attraction towards a person other than one's opposite-sex spouse undercuts the idea that some vague and generic "heterosexuality" is in itself a right human condition. A man is only rightfully attracted "in that way" to his spouse, and any other attraction "in that way" is out of accord with God's Way.

Both notions, homosexuality and heterosexuality, are deeply flawed. I would highly recommend that the above article amend its statements to disclude homosexuality from being treated as a legitimate mode of being, and that Wagschal repent of his sin and return to the Church. All sinners need to be loved and affirmed in their basic being, but justifying sin under the guise of broad-mindedness is to lead people astray, to slavery to their feelings and estrangement from God.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

The Tyranny of Feelings: A Gateway to Slavery and to Evil


All arguments take a certain form. It is the nature of an argument to do so. What is key to understanding the form of an argument, any argument, is understanding that which “justifies” the argument, that which can be said to make the argument both logically persuasive and true, that which sets the argument in relief from mere opinion and bald assertion.


The argument for homosexuality thus takes a certain form, enshrines a certain form of thinking. It must, as all arguments must. It is therefore incumbent upon us to discover and expose what this form is, because its form, as we will find, is what lies at the root of a social revolution, a social revolution that because of this form will ultimately and necessarily unravel society itself.


What then is this form? In short, it is justification via feelings, where feelings are treated as self-authenticating avenues to rectitude. What a person feels is treated as having the force of righteousness, and therefore of (moral) law.


This form of argument will, as a consequence of the above, also invariably result in obedience to feelings, and as such it serves as a gateway to admitting the rectitude of all other issues which can be justified via feelings. This is precisely the problem, for once it is admitted that feelings are the legitimate basis for discerning, determining, and justifying right action, then issues such as pedophilia, transgenderism, bestiality, polygamy, and others, all of these, can therefore use the same form of argument and thus claim the same force of righteousness.


In this sense, since feelings become self-authenticating moral authorities, they also become a type of master principle. One must now, in a manner of speaking, obey feelings, and since in this theory feelings are beyond one’s control, and also de facto self-justifying, they must therefore trump self-determination. There is no longer any ground on which to question the legitimacy of any particular feeling, whether it be a strong and abiding feeling or a fleeting one. The argument form is therefore one which actually undermines human freedom by demanding that feelings ought to be seen as the legitimate source for deriving right action.

Now, since homosexuality gets admitted, it is only a matter of time that the same principle which rationalizes and pseudo-justifies homosexuality begins to work for the sake of these other issues. It is thus the form that the homosexual argument takes which is so dangerous, and why it is the gateway argument to greater evils. For even if homosexuals are otherwise often kind and warm-hearted people, and many of them are, their rationale for homosexuality is itself manifestly false and extremely dangerous.

Friday, October 24, 2014

The Myth and Self-Contradiction of Pluralism, Islamic and Otherwise



Pluralism is self-contradictory in reality. Why? Pluralism, which for the purposes of this article is being used synonymously with multiculturalism, is self-contradictory because as long as one group within a pluralistic community sees itself as the rightful inheritor of political power, it will always create imbalance within the system. Pluralism implies political equality, with no privileged groups (ultimately including even the wealthy), but this also means that each group must see itself as equal, must be able to see itself as equal, as having no greater claims to political power than any other group. Yet, if even a single group violates this, then it tips the whole system.


One cannot have a pluralistic society if that pluralism is “plurality-minus-one.” That is a contradiction in terms. Pluralism thus functions to itself create its own hegemony against all other hegemonies, and in that sense contradicts itself, for pluralism cannot be plural with itself. Even the notion of "influence" in a pluralistic society can be said to bleed into coercion, for not all people can be "equally" influenced as regards important policies.


Besides that, however, is the more tangible fact that not all groups or cultures within a pluralistic society are capable of living within said society and still not seek specifically political control (and not merely "influence"). A case in point is Islam. It is within the nature of Islam to seek political control, as the “prophecies” of their prophet indicate: “The Prophet Muhammad was asked: 'What city will be conquered first, Constantinople or Romiyya?' He answered: 'The city of Hirqil [i.e. the Byzantine emperor Heraclius] will be conquered first.'” Narrations of this type could be multiplied, and none of them are contested as being inauthentic, yet the theme is clear: Defeat and subjugation of the known civilized world is the prerogative of Islam.


Byzantium and Rome at the time were not just little cities or governments, but were symbols of the great Christian empires of the known civilized world. Islam saw itself prophetically as the rightful conquerors of this civilized world, and as such Islam as a whole was intrinsically motivated by its prophet to seek this. Call it Islamic "hegemonics." It is not a matter of money or of food, however, but is a matter of religious fulfillment, as shown in the “prophetic” quote above. It is also not a matter of individual Muslims who may not advocate this type of behavior.


There is what can be called the “two Islams theory.” The first (always the first in this type of rhetoric) is the peaceful group, the one that decries violence and conquering. They are wont to point out the many “positive” things Islamic culture has imposed on Eastern and Western cultures. The other Islam, the second Islam, is the violent Islam, the one the first group attempts to dissociate with, the one that seeks through force of arms to fulfill their prophet’s divine manifesto to win the world for Islam.


The problem with the first group is that they cannot actually dissociate themselves from the second group. Within Islam itself there is neither religious nor historical precedent for dissociating the two groups. The intentional and centuries long drive to conquer Byzantium was a thousand year effort beginning with Byzantine Alexandria only a few years after Muhammad’s death, in the era of the “rightly guided” caliphs, and continued all the way past the conquest of Constantinople in the 15th Century and finally ended, in a manner of speaking, at the gates of Vienna at the tail end of the 17th Century. That is over a thousand years of purposeful and religiously motivated aggressive expansionism. It therefore is a modern fiction for Muslims to maintain that there are two Islams, that these two groups are really different, that one is the true and the other the false, for this is not the case.


In sad fact, if one of the two groups is false, it is the first group, the peaceful group. Why? Because they are deviating from the clear prophetic command of Muhammad to “war for God” and to exercise non-pluralistic political control of the world. They are also deviating from the extramillenial effort to conquer the world in the name of their religion. This is another enormous problem with the “two Islams theory,” because the non-Muslims who love peace are tempted to believe the rhetoric of the peaceful Muslims, and thereby endanger themselves and others when the historic motive to political hegemony starts to arise from its slumber.


This is what is happening today. Entire communities of pseudo-moderate Muslims are living in pseudo-pluralistic cultures, and yet when the historic Muslims arrive, the moderates, the first group of Muslims, will be generally much safer as they make the transition into identifying with their storming Muslim brethren. In order to protect their families, they will abandon any real commitment to moderation and pluralism and side with the armed Muslims, more or less safely transitioning to the privileged Islamic class in the new Islamic hegemony. The reason is that, as Muslims, they cannot remove from themselves the "prophetic" claims of Muhammad to conquer and yet still call themselves Muslim.


This is why Islamic pluralism is self-contradictory. In its very nature and history it is motivated to acquire hegemonic political supremacy. Whether we like it or not, they do not have a doctrine to love and do good to their enemies, to bless and not curse, to pray for even their abusers. Whether we like it or not, they see it as “us and them,” and so whether we want it to be about this or not, they are pushing this agenda as an intrinsic expression of Islam, and cannot do otherwise if they be committed to their religion, a religion motivated to seek its political supremacy by any means necessary. This aggression is thus a patient one, one which on the strength of their “prophet’s” predictions was motivated to enact a nearly thousand year siege of Christian Byzantium. Pluralism for Islam is thus one of hegemonic political control over the cultures and groups which live under its thumb, or in other words, Islam is anti-pluralism.


Yet this is only a case in point regarding pluralism, of which Islam refutes even in principle. Pluralism itself is simply an unrealistic view of humanity and human nature. Pluralism cannot exist as long as humans have any sin in their heart. As long as people have different opinions, some group will be marginalized, its values trampled upon, its way of life privatized. A country cannot survive true pluralism, for pluralism will always ultimately collapse in on itself and implode, that is, if it is not defeated by external pressures prior to this. Unless a country is united in its vision, one which can and must include and be founded upon our God-given human rights, then its people will perish. God save us!