Cancel culture activists reveal their true nature
For all its posturing about taking the high moral ground and ridding society of intolerance and prejudice, every now and again cancel culture activists reveal their true nature. In the context of the recent Victorian debate about the legislation to ban gay conversion therapy the LGBTQ+ policy analyst Daniel Comensoli does just that.
When arguing in favour of the bill, one that makes prayer illegal in the context of conversion therapy, Comensoli argues public policy should never be influenced by “moral judgement” or “discrimination”.
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines ‘moral’ as: “of or pertaining to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil, in relation to actions, volitions, or character; ethical”. One of the defining distinctions between a civilised and uncivilised society is that the former strives to be inherently moral.
If society is to protect the life and liberty of each citizen and to ensure justice and fairness for all then moral judgement is essential.
If society is to protect the life and liberty of each citizen and to ensure justice and fairness for all then moral judgement is essential. The concept of natural law and the great religions of the world, including Christianity, are based on moral precepts and when asking what constitutes the good life and a just society an ethical framework is vital.
To suggest otherwise by arguing there is no place for morality is both contradictory, on what other basis can human rights be protected, and dangerous. One of the defining lessons from history is that totalitarian regimes are amoral; a situation that quickly leads to inequality, violence and terror as physical force and coercion are the only alternatives.
As argued by the Italian philosopher Augusto Del Noce in The Crisis of Modernity, revolutionary and totalitarian regimes like communism, in striving to create a worldly utopia, deny “the very idea of virtue in the traditional sense,” committing “ every violation of the moral order for the sake of (supposed) human happiness”.
Whether the rise of communism in the USSR and China or Pol Pot’s return to Year Zero, all such movements denying the central importance of morality create a world devoid of compassion, tolerance and a commitment to individual liberty and the common good.
While not suggesting today’s cultural-left activists are anywhere near as evil as Lenin, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot, the reality is that cancel culture and the political correctness movement share the same antecedents and have much in common.
Central to both is the belief that it is possible to create a worldly utopia were all exist in harmony and there is no injustice and inequality. Illustrated by Marx’s mantra “from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs” by overthrowing capitalism the workers’ paradise would arise.
Cultural-left gender theory promises the same results as argued by Roz Ward one of the designers of Safe Schools.
Ward argues that “Marxism offers both the hope and the strategy needed to create a world where human sexuality, gender and how we relate to our bodies can blossom in extraordinary new and amazing ways that we can only try to imagine today”.
Cultural-left ideologies also advocate what Karl Popper describes as historicism, defined as “the doctrine that history is controlled by specific historical or evolutionary laws whose discovery would enable us to prophesy the destiny of man”. Instead of human destiny determined by larger, uncontrollable forces, what eventuates can be foreseen and controlled.
Del Noce makes the point that revolutionary movements like communism are also opposed to religion; especially Christianity. As argued by Karl Marx, “religion is the opium of the masses” and one of the first steps under communist dictatorships is to silence the church and deny Christians their faith.
Again, while not as extreme, cultural-left activists are also dedicated to a world without religious faith where deciding public policy is void of any religious influence. In its submission to the commonwealth’s inquiry into religious freedom the Secular Party argues “religion is a private, individual matter and religion should not impact the public square”.
The Australian newspaper’s Peter Van Onselen argues it’s wrong to treat religious faith as a positive right as Australians are “living in a secular society”.
The Australian newspaper’s Peter Van Onselen argues it’s wrong to treat religious faith as a positive right as Australians are “living in a secular society”. Supporting his government’s draconian gay conversion therapy bill, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews also argues there is no room for religion as “Victoria is a secular state”.
Explicit in such arguments is what Sydney’s Archbishop Anthony Fisher OP describes as “absolutist secularism”.
Absolutist secularism is an ideology that “tries to minimise the role of religion in every person’s life, to exclude it altogether from the public square, and to remove religious institutions from having any influence over government, law, media, schools, universities, the arts, workplaces, social customs, civil discourse, even the civic calendar.”
- Burned out on call-out culture? Try fraternal correction
- The dictionary the politically correct don’t want you to read