Thursday, April 25, 2019

Another jerkoff dishonestly attacks the Equality Act

I never heard of this guy before nut he is spectacularly dishonest. The viewpoint doesn't bother me nearly as much as the BS.
Alfred Kentigern Siewers
Alfred Kentigern Siewers | via Bucknell University
Writing at Witherspoon Institute's pseudo-intellectual blog is a pseudo-intellectual post: The Orwellian Dangers of the “Equality Act.” The author of this lovely treatise is Alfred Kentigern Siewers and according to Witherspoon he “is Associate Professor of English at Bucknell University … Visiting Fellow … in the James Madison Program, Princeton University. He is a member of the lesser clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.”

The subtitle of what turns out to be a diatribe reads:
By establishing a national anthropology based on an ideology of self rather than embodied sex, the Equality Act would deepen cultural divisions and chill reasoned debate on complex bioethical issues. Those who do not accept the legislation’s totalitarian twisting of language would be open targets for a modern American parallel to Orwell’s “two-minutes hate.”
The Two Minutes of Hate was a compulsory view of film depicted in Orwell's Nineteen-Eighty-Four. The subjects were the enemies of the state. But that is less important that Siewers' belief that human sexuality is a doctrine or an “ideology” (how profoundly original). Siewers is an ostensibly smart fellow. The source of his confusion is likely to be religious dogma which is an ideology.
More Orwell:
The Equality Act, which was recently re-proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives, really should be re-named the “George Orwell Told You So” Act. If passed, it will prove once again that “all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
That's another way of saying the hackneyed nonsense about “special rights.” In point of fact, LGBT Americans are less equal than other groups. Race, religion and national origin are protected from discrimination by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. LGBT persons are not protected which means that we do not enjoy 14th Amendment Equal Protection.

I am quoting from disjointed sections of this thing. It is rather long-winded:
Those seeking to express or research other traditions of sex, love, and family would be at risk of illegal sex-stereotyping. This law would censor and penalize anyone who does not agree with the secular American ideology of sex that it codifies.
Baseless hyperbole. Speech is protected under the First Amendment. There is no legal peril for doing research and for publishing the findings of such research — no matter how idiotic or offensive that research might be. Simply stated, the Equality Act modifies existing civil rights laws to include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This would apply primarily to employment, housing and service in public accommodations.

Whatever legal problems there might be, already exist in different forms. For example, current law does not “censor and penalize” someone for calling me a Kike. Nor, for that matter, for doing research and publishing a manuscript accusing Jews of controlling the Federal Reserve or the world's banks or Hollywood.
More nonsensical hyperbole:
The act would require adherence to its new view of sex and gender (characterized by self-defined “orientation” and “expression”) in public accommodations. This would certainly include educational institutions receiving federal student loans, and could potentially include all other public services and programs as well, if the statute is broadly interpreted—as it most certainly will be by left-leaning administrations and the judges they appoint.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are clearly understood concepts. Were that not the case then people would be unable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. It would not affect institutions participating in Title IV federal student aid (Title VII waivers — distasteful as they are — are currently available).

Religious extremists attempt to portray the Equality Act as something far more complicated than it really is. As a society we clearly recognize discrimination based on membership in a group. When a maitre d' refuses to seat an African-American couple he doesn't have to shout the N word for us to know what's going on. The same is true for gay people and transgender people.
Some intellectual dishonesty on top:
Those not accepting the transgenderism that the legislation promotes would be open targets for a modern American parallel to Orwell’s “two-minutes hate.” Today, our hate sessions take place online, as outrage mobs emote against dissidents, ending careers and ruining lives.
The legislation doesn't “promote” anything. Not “accepting” transgender people is just another way of saying not approving of. It is irrelevant. They, transgender people, neither seek nor require anyone's approval. They expect to be served just like anyone else and that is true with or without the Equality Act. The Klansman who happens to own a restaurant must currently serve the blacks and Jews that he disapproves of. That is called a civil society.
Indeed, the Equality Act would officially erase the rights of members of traditional faith communities to publicly make life choices based on anthropologies that do not accept same-sex marriage and transgenderism.
Anthropology is the study of the origins of human beings. I do not think that is has a plural. In other words, what the hell is he trying to say? That the ability to discriminate is a cherished right? That abridgement already exists in the sense that a member of the Christian Identity Church who owns a public accommodation cannot discriminate against Jews and blacks in his establishment. There is no religious requirement to discriminate against anyone. The notion that it is a religious duty exists because of the utterly false notion that service equals approval.
In terms of science, the legislation would surely chill scientific debate and constrain medical professionals to speak and act only from an official but contestable point of view.
It surely would not. Viewpoint and discrimination are two unrelated things.
Scientific dissenters would be professional martyrs in the medical profession, and the quality of health care would suffer from imposed official views on debated issues.
That's not true either. Nondiscrimination has no bearing on views or debate.
Forced silence, recantation, or re-education already accompany this legislative movement. The postmodern American version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution seeks to eliminate dissidents …
And that's not true. Expression remains a protected right. I'll recite one of the examples (the first) that he provides:
A young member of our small non-Western, religious-minority congregation told me recently that he can no longer discuss issues of sexual difference with peers, who label him a hateful bigot due to his Russian Orthodox beliefs about men, women, sex, and marriage.
He is undermining his own argument because the opprobrium exists without the Equality Act being enacted. With or without the Equality Act society is not terribly accepting of homophobes and transphobes. I think acceptance of marriage equality is now about 75%. Bigotry directed at sexual minorities is no more acceptable than racism, anti-Semitism or Islamophobia. However, with or without the Equality Act that congregant has a right to express his views no matter how unsavory or unpopular they might be.
These examples are all logical extensions of the rhetorical strategy that medicalizes sexual dissent as “homophobia” and “transphobia.” The terms imply that traditional religious and cultural understandings of sex are mental illnesses requiring quarantine and erasure.
That is irrelevant. So now there is something wrong with calling out prejudice. It's not a strategy. It is self-defense.
The whole legislative movement strikingly echoes Marxist-Leninist approaches to eradicating religion in the Soviet Union and Red China, among other nations.
Hyperbolic gibberish. Free Exercise of religion is protected by the First Amendment. No one is attempting to eradicate religion. The fact that young students are exposed to this guy scares the crap out of me. Not for his views but for his bullshit. He is markedly dishonest!
In today’s United States, the Equality Act likewise seeks to erase cultural anthropologies other than that of a secular state system. It would marshal police power against sexual dissent and leave minority nonconformists and their children isolated and unprotected against attacks on their livelihoods, communities, and opportunities.
Willful confusion. Dissent is defined as the expression or holding of opinions at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially held. People are free to dissent all they want. They can protest, write their elected representative, purchase billboards if they want. Dissent and discrimination are not the same thing. Again, this spectacularly dishonest. None of this drivel has anything to do with the Equality Act. I need to skip paragraphs of repetitive, verbose BS and get to the conclusion:
Such a new, official anthropology of sex, that would violate fundamental rights of religious freedom and encourage a view of physical reality as subject to human will, would indeed codify Orwell’s terrifying satire. The Equality Act should remind us of its historical roots in anti-religious bias and in the type of disembodied gnostic idealism that, as Eric Voegelin warned, feeds a technocratic totalitarianism. We would do well to remember that such utopian projects, in which, as Orwell said, “Freedom is Slavery,” did not end well.
We can have an honest debate about the effect of the Equality Act on religious freedom. I am quite confident in my argument. The rest of that paragraph is just under-cooked bullshit served over over-cooked noodles. Banning discrimination is a net positive for society. Alfred Kentigern Siewers' arguments bear a very strong resemblance to the arguments made by Strom Thurmond in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which the Equality Act seeks to amend.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.