Tuesday, April 07, 2015
Contradictions
I had supposed that I had dodged the plethora of hacking coughs, pneumonias, and similar complaints that my students have been suffering all semester, after all, they seem to have died out. But I am out sick today with bronchitis. Ironically, me being taken out means Unforeseen Contingencies is back in action.
How is it that human thinking can suffer what appear to be complete disconnects, apparently with zero cognitive dissonance? Two cases in point:
Indiana has just passed a law that prevents a Christian baker from being subject to criminal proceedings, civil lawsuits, and loss of her business license should she refuse to bake a homosexuality-themed cake, given the teachings of Leviticus 20:13 or Romans 1:26-28. AppleTM CEO Tim Cook is outraged, as is the entire left. How can this be? Would they really say that a baker or pizza shop owner should lose their livelihood if they refuse to participate in something that is, for them, a mortal sin? What of a minister or church if faced with a demand to perform a same-sex wedding, when such is utterly contrary to their religion? Apparently so. But Cook and similar hypocrites can drum up no similar outrage when it comes to, say, Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by sentences up to and including beheading. I'm hardly the first to observe this disconnect, of course. And of course, this hypocritical disconnect may not be such a disconnect after all, when one considers it is ginned-up knee-jerk pseudo-outrage in the service of lefty politics, or, for that matter, AppleTM marketing. Keep in mind that I donated $200 to the "Defeat Proposition 8" campaign in California, and support the right of same sex couples to marry. But I similarly support the right of Christians and others to refuse to participate in any way, and to not be persecuted for it.
Here's another: Obama's deal with Iran over nuclear development, should it come to pass, is supposed to leave the Iranian regime with only the capability of developing nuclear reactors for power. Oh, great. Never mind whether such a deal would be enforceable, why would it be considered desirable that nuclear reactors be built in a seismically unstable region of the world by a regime that is not particularly responsible in a country that is not particularly developed. Why doesn't this "solution" itself strike observers as a formula for disaster? I'm not opposed to nuclear power, but I'm skeptical of the ability of third world theocrats in earthquake zones not to make a disaster of it. I believe the Iranians are dead set on developing nuclear weapons and that Obama's proposed deal would make this easier for them, but even if we accept Obama's description of the matter at face value, it seems mad.
How is it that human thinking can suffer what appear to be complete disconnects, apparently with zero cognitive dissonance? Two cases in point:
Indiana has just passed a law that prevents a Christian baker from being subject to criminal proceedings, civil lawsuits, and loss of her business license should she refuse to bake a homosexuality-themed cake, given the teachings of Leviticus 20:13 or Romans 1:26-28. AppleTM CEO Tim Cook is outraged, as is the entire left. How can this be? Would they really say that a baker or pizza shop owner should lose their livelihood if they refuse to participate in something that is, for them, a mortal sin? What of a minister or church if faced with a demand to perform a same-sex wedding, when such is utterly contrary to their religion? Apparently so. But Cook and similar hypocrites can drum up no similar outrage when it comes to, say, Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by sentences up to and including beheading. I'm hardly the first to observe this disconnect, of course. And of course, this hypocritical disconnect may not be such a disconnect after all, when one considers it is ginned-up knee-jerk pseudo-outrage in the service of lefty politics, or, for that matter, AppleTM marketing. Keep in mind that I donated $200 to the "Defeat Proposition 8" campaign in California, and support the right of same sex couples to marry. But I similarly support the right of Christians and others to refuse to participate in any way, and to not be persecuted for it.
Here's another: Obama's deal with Iran over nuclear development, should it come to pass, is supposed to leave the Iranian regime with only the capability of developing nuclear reactors for power. Oh, great. Never mind whether such a deal would be enforceable, why would it be considered desirable that nuclear reactors be built in a seismically unstable region of the world by a regime that is not particularly responsible in a country that is not particularly developed. Why doesn't this "solution" itself strike observers as a formula for disaster? I'm not opposed to nuclear power, but I'm skeptical of the ability of third world theocrats in earthquake zones not to make a disaster of it. I believe the Iranians are dead set on developing nuclear weapons and that Obama's proposed deal would make this easier for them, but even if we accept Obama's description of the matter at face value, it seems mad.
