Blasphemy

a game anybody can play

My process varies from time to time. I've written very loose and creative posts, such as the allegory, The Rape of Ukrainia. Others were constrained by the topic, such as when I examined the relationship between thought reform techniques and communication styles around us. Much of what I do is just gathering things together for us to consider. Today's post is like that.

Cultures change, meaning the mores, styles, and values change. We sense that things are changing faster than ever, but that might be wrong. The world has been rocked many times before. The invention of the printing press changed the price of print and, therefore, changed who might have access to books and news. The industrial revolution changed the nature of work and moved people away from farms and into cities.

Is the rate of change faster than before? I don't think we know yet, since we're still in the middle of it. My interest is in seeing the trends, then trying to understand where they come from and where they might lead us. Here two of my readers seem to disagree with what, or how, I'm doing.

My son and I were discussing my desire for increased engagement among my readers. I wish I could recall his exact words because I don't want to misrepresent him, but I can't. I'm left with the sense of it. I think he told me that I present my arguments in a way that leaves little room for debate. Sort of take it or leave it.

From my side, that's not my intent. I want to frame things carefully, and it's always easier to be nuanced about your side of the argument. I make an effort to understand those who disagree with me and with whom, in kind, I differ. Perhaps this thoroughness makes it seem like I have already thought about the options and have arrived at a lofty TRUTH. Unfortunately, I haven't.

The other reader, a coworker, tells me that she thinks I end my posts one or two paragraphs too early, and I leave them dangling, I guess. She has struggled to articulate it more than that, and I value her opinion, too. I sense she wants me to put a finer point on some of my posts, to describe less and prescribe more.

This is what I see happening. As I've said many times, I'm a non-expert. However, I'm unwilling to surrender decisions and the responsibility for those decisions to others. I go to the doctor to hear his opinion, but the final treatment decision is mine. I can choose among the options I'm given, even if the only option is whether I want to be treated. This means my posts are often my diagnosis of the present and sometimes my prognosis of the future.

As such, I have only one true goal. I want each of you to think and, having thought, to act. I don't desire to tell you what to do or how to do it, but I do want your thinking to be different after each post.

So, after more than 500 words of preamble, what does this all have to do with blasphemy? I ended my last post promising to pick up that thread. It's a rather simple concept, after all. Many things people take for granted now couldn't have developed in a world with blasphemy laws.

 Even a hero of the Protestant reformation, such as John Calvin, was no liberal, having had heretic Michael Servetus put to death. Michael Servetus had views about the Trinity which were inconsistent with orthodox Christian theology. In a place with blasphemy laws, there is no room for error or honest disagreement. Calvin and other civic and religious leaders decided that Servetus was to be executed for his blasphemy. They used Leviticus 24:16 for support; "Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death."

The effect of blasphemy laws is to stifle discussion and development. New ideas are sometimes unwelcome. Would women be allowed to vote? Would slaves be freed? So many things we take for granted disappear in the presence of blasphemy. So much of the progress we enjoy could never have happened. People sometimes wonder why the Islamic world seems to be stuck in a medieval world when their science and mathematics were ahead of everyone else at one time. This is why. New ideas unsettle the old, and when you can punish the new, you do.

The new blasphemy laws come from a new religion. John McWhorter, an American linguist I've previously mentioned, calls Wokeism a new religion. He is clear that it isn't like a religion. It actually is one. Check out his book Woke Racism.

Like the worst of Christianity, its adherents think they are morally superior to outsiders. Like the Christians who have tried to establish a theocracy, such as Calvin and some 20^th-century Americans, Wokeism seeks to govern for our good in their image. The central tenets are Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Violate these things, and you are subject to discipline or punishment.

Jordan Peterson has been in the news again lately. This time the Ontario College of Psychologists has decided that Jordan Peterson needs to be re-educated. They don't like his Tweets or the things he says on podcasts. The complaints come from people who have never been his patients, even though they've falsely claimed to be. For a list of the offending statements, check out the CBC's article.

The College has decided that Peterson must complete a "specified continuing education or remedial program" because they consider his comments unprofessional. If he doesn't pay for it or complete it satisfactorily, it would be regarded as professional misconduct, which could lead to the suspension of his license to practice psychology. Peterson no longer has a clinical practice since it would be incompatible with his travel and public persona. Even so, he doesn't want to lose his clinical license.

"I deserve it. I earned it. I haven't done anything to justify suspending it, and I don't want to give the hyenas their bones." Jordan Peterson

I don't want you to think I'm judging the OCP unfairly or putting words into their mouths. In April 2021, the College's DEI Working Group reported, "An overarching goal is to ensure that everyone involved on the College Council, its Committees and staff consider equity, diversity and inclusion in every decision made." According the OCP's DEI group, a psychologist's skill in treating patients is less important than their views on DEI. It mandates that otherwise competent practitioners must, at minimum, stay silent. Remember, Peterson's sin wasn't to misrepresent psychology or to mistreat a patient. He differed on cultural and political issues. Unfortunately, he's not alone.

Amy Hamm has been a nurse in British Columbia for more than ten years and has two children. She has run afoul of the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives. Their complaint states, "Between approximately July 2018 and March 2021, you made discriminatory and derogatory statements regarding transgender people, while identifying yourself as a nurse or nurse educator." What horrible thing had she done? She was one of the sponsors of a billboard that said, "I (heart) JK Rowling." That was her blasphemy. There were two complaints, and one of them was anonymous.

It seems that Hamm's actual crime is that she believes in biology. She thinks that men are men and women are women. She doesn't disrespect trans people but disagrees with the notion that biological males should have access to female spaces such as changing rooms and rape crisis centres. Why is the BC nursing college trying to discipline Hamm for opinions which don't affect her job performance?

In 2018, the Law Society of Ontario required lawyers and paralegals to adopt a "Statement of Principles," which affirmed the requirement to promote equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in their personal and professional lives. 22 lawyers campaigned against it, and they won 22 of 53 seats on the Law Society's governing body. That was enough to get the requirement repealed. However, there are new elections this spring, and the progressive wing may be better prepared this time.

Do you see the trend? In the past, professional bodies were established to protect people from professional misconduct. Doctors shouldn't hurt people, lawyers shouldn't skim money out of trust funds, and dentists should actually know how to use a drill. Now such bodies are organized so that only one point of view is acceptable. If you don't share their perspective, you can't work here.

It's essential to keep in mind that I think it would be wrong to discipline someone if they didn't like Christians. Many artists intentionally try to offend Christians with their art. I don't want them to lose the ability to work or to display and sell their pieces. They have the freedom to work, and I have the freedom to be offended. I wouldn't want people to ban songs by the Rolling Stones. Just don't try to force me to have sympathy for the devil.

This isn't hyperbole. Here again, we are dealing with the twin issues of censorship and compelled speech. It isn't enough for DEI policymakers that you refrain from saying whatever things they might object to today. That alone is a moving target. You might not have said anything wrong yesterday, but it could be deviant by next week or next year. Reflect that it wasn't very long ago that everybody assumed that men and women were built differently. Now you can get hauled in front of a tribunal for saying it.

The compelled speech portion occurs when you are required to advocate for some cultural position, or you don't get to practice your profession. Why should someone's nonprofessional opinions be relevant? Do I care if my brain surgeon agrees with my politics? Do I care what his religion is? Or if he's straight or gay? Not a bit. I just want him to open my skull, muck about as little and as much as necessary, then put me back together better than he found me.

Jeremy Clarkson says it funnier than I do in his recent column in the Times of London. His point is that there's a war going on. Read him. Maybe he's right.

I've used Canadian examples throughout this post, but I could have included many from America and Britain. Why is it that the English-speaking world seems especially susceptible to this kind of destructive introspection, this deconstruction?

Here's the thing I really want you to get. Even if you agree with DEI goals, the process is terrifying. The fact is that eventually, a bad person will use these tools. Imagine a world where Donald Trump could unilaterally silence anyone he didn't like or force them to say things they didn't believe just to keep their jobs. When Hitler took power, he didn't have to pass censorship laws. The Weimar Republic had already done that when they censored Hitler, and he then turned their own laws against them.

Eventually, that position you support, the faith or philosophy that has long been accepted, will be rejected. If you are silent now, don't be surprised by the silence around you then.

As Barry reminded us in a past comment:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemoller

Finally, the housekeeping issues. If this is your first time visiting wyzguyy's corner, welcome. Feel free to look through the archive of previous posts. Hit the subscribe button. It's free.

For those who have followed me for a while, please consider recommending me to your friends. I'll try not to embarrass you. As always, I value your comments. If you have topics you think should be addressed or questions that you don't want to put in a comment, send me an email.

I don't know how many of you have decided to download the Substack app, which is available for both Apple and Android phones. If you do, you can access the Chat function. Think of it as a Twitter for friendly people. You only see chats from writers you choose to follow. Think of it as a tool that facilitates thoughtful dialogue. You might change your mind about something.

Thanks for sharing your time with me. It means more than you know. Until next time, value clarity.