A Sydney council is currently under fire for passing a motion to ban same-sex parenting books from the shelves of local libraries in an effort to protect children. The ban comes after several locals from the conservative area, consisting of many Chinese and Lebanese families, raised objections to the availability of the books for cultural, moral, and religious reasons.
Although Australia is supposedly celebrated as a “multicultural nation,” and its citizens are continually told to find their strength in their diversity – whatever that means – social Progressives are livid.
The New South Wales Government, which is now investigating the decision, even threatened to remove funding from the library if the council does not recant.
“Stock the books, bigot! Your inferior culture shall kneel to ours!”
Apparently, “colonisation” is an evil that the Western world must perpetually repent of, unless of course, the ideology that’s being imposed on our ethnic minorities is social progressivism. In that case, impose away – and that, with the full force of the law and a lynch mob whipped up by the mainstream media to boot.
It’s rank hypocrisy, and they know it. But more than that, it’s an unavoidable result of the doctrine of “multiculturalism” that’s being enforced on Australia. It’s a clash of cultures, and as such, a clash of religions.
R.J. Rushdoony rightly defined culture as “religion externalised.” So, multiculturalism, by definition, is going to be multi-religious. Consequently, there will be contradictory and competing moral systems at play in every “multicultural” nation. It’s inevitable, and it’s what we’re seeing here.
Both sides have differing moral standards. Both sides consider the other side “immoral.” Both sides draw a moral line somewhere. We all do, regardless of the religion, or lack of religion, we profess. That’s true, even when it comes to book bans. No sane adult objects to the fact that it is illegal for a child to purchase an adult magazine. Pornography is legal, but exposing children to it would be “immoral.” Hence, our moral judgement leads to a legislated prohibition. So, it’s not a question of whether we ban certain “immoral” books, but which “immoral” books we ban and to whom.
Even the most ardent free speech advocates don’t believe in absolute free speech. Plagiarise their words, slander their name, and you’ll quickly identify their limits.
The point is, we all draw a moral line in the sand somewhere. What matters is why we draw that line where we do. For some, that line is dictated by the moral standards taught in the Bible. For others, it’s determined by the ever-changing pop moral code of any society and culture. The latter is now the religious standard of our politicians and social progressives, neither of which considers the Bible the final authoritative voice on moral matters.
But what is their defining voice? If not the Bible, then what moral standard is left to appeal to? Morality is either defined by God, or concepts such as “right” and “wrong” are merely social constructs that emerge from either the collective majority or imposed by the powerful few.
Here’s the problem social progressives face: If morality is defined at a social level, then on what basis do they criticize the moral standards that emerge from other cultures? Unless morality transcends society and culture, there’s absolutely no basis for one culture criticizing another. By definition, there is no higher moral standard to appeal to.
To undermine, challenge or criticize another culture, the Progressive must first assume a moral standard of which that other culture falls short. They must assume a measure of “right” and “wrong” that the contrary culture is guilty of violating. But no such higher standard exists, not according to the Progressive. There can be no logical justification for criticism, not unless their moral relativism is rejected, and a transcendent moral standard is assumed – a standard to which one culture reflects better than another.
It’s no good at this point, to suggest that morality is democratically defined, or that “rights” are determined by the consensus of the majority. This would mean that Progressives could never condemn as “immoral” anything previous generations deemed morally acceptable.
Just a few decades ago, homosexuality was largely considered immoral in the Western world, so much so that it was illegal in many parts. In 1996, it was still illegal in Tasmania for two adults to privately engage in homosexual acts. These prohibitions against homosexuality did not emerge contrary to the will of the populace, but in accordance with the popular view of the time.
And yet, if the Progressive was consistent with the notion that morality emerges from society and culture, then they must concede that it was “immoral” to advocate homosexuality at a time when society deemed it a moral and a criminal offence.
The same can be said of the slave trade, which is today condemned from all sides, despite the fact that through all known history, virtually every civilisation accepted slavery, not only as a moral good, but as a necessary component of a functioning society.
Is anyone going to accuse William Wilberforce and the abolitionists of acting “immorally” by opposing what was once widely deemed morally acceptable? If morality is relative to the culture, then every act, even the most heinous, could potentially been deemed a moral good given the right social circumstances.
So, while in theory, Progressives may retreat to moral relativism, “the first refuge of the scoundrel,” as Scruton put it, few, if any, are able or willing to live consistently with it. Despite what they say, nobody really believes morality is merely a social construct. That’s why Progressives never hesitate to pronounce judgements on those who lived in different places at different times. So, let’s abandon the absurd notion that morality is merely a by-product of culture.
Unless the Progressive can identify a measure outside of the culture, a standard that transcends our societies, all they’re doing is playing the ideological tyrant by imposing their personal opinions on others. But what makes their personal opinions any more authoritative than the next person’s? When there’s an ethnic and cultural difference, it is merely another form of neo-colonisation, the kind the Progressive Left laments, only this time, without any meaningful measure to impose, or any consistent basis for imposing it.
In their effort to throw off Christian morals, the social Progressive has substituted God for a moral preference on par with choosing their favourite dessert at the local ice cream parlour. It makes no sense getting outraged, dying your hair blue, and rioting in the streets because some people don’t want your personal flavour of choice.
Some people prefer chocolate. Others like strawberry. Some libraries stock the books. Others don’t. In a multicultural nation, there are plenty of flavours of morality if morals are merely relative to each and every society and culture, unless, of course, they’re not. And if they’re not, then our outraged progressives have an entirely different Book to worry about.
