Monday, September 08, 2008

How to construct an "emerging consensus"

Mike S. Adams in gives a nifty snapshot of how activists produce the soothing, peaceful sound of blessed "consensus".
Last Thursday, at 1:58 p.m. EST, I received an email message from a bi-sexual reverend from West Virginia. In the text following the subject, “You're a con man,” the queer preacher had this to say:

Your recent "Fat Lesbians on Crack" piece is an example of grossly irresponsible rhetoric that serves ideology, not mental health. It is appalling to me that someone with your lack of intelligence and indifference to professional consensus is actively employed in a teaching role.

I am always delighted when I get moral advice – especially on human sexual relationships - from people who reside in West Virginia. As a native of Mississippi, I find it best to climb up the moral latter one rung at a time. If I move up too quickly my fear of heights could be enough to make me forget all about my fear of queer preachers from West Virginia.

(Author’s Note: When I called the bi-sexual reverend from West Virginia, he said he was not gay but “queer” – specifically a bi-sexual who rejects “essentialist notions of gayness.”)

And I’m also glad whenever I’m lectured about “professional consensus” by queer preachers from West Virginia. Those who actually read my “Fat Lesbians on Crack” piece remember that it was about a counselor who was fired from her job because of her objections to homosexuality. That is exactly how this “consensus” that homosexuality is not a mental illness is emerging in the counseling profession. Radical homosexual activists are simply having all the people who hold a contrary view fired.

This was very much the approach taken by Adams's correspondent. In Canada, he'd have a Human Rights Commission to do the dirty work for him, and all for the cost of a postage stamp. But as he lives in the U.S., Mr. Stewart had to exert himself to get Adams silenced and reduced to penury:
Of course, the queer preacher from West Virginia was not going to confine himself to just writing me one nasty little missive. He had to write all of the professors in my department as well as everyone in the Office of the Dean of Arts and Sciences to suggest that I should be fired from UNCW. Here’s the full text of his email – written under the subject line “Mike Adams’ hate speech insults UNC”:

I trust you are aware of the egregiously misinformed hate speech of Mike S. Adams, a UNC faculty member in Criminology. Is this the sort of university representative you take pride in? I hope this dinosaur hasn't got tenure--it's a shame he's teaching at all.

Christopher B. Stewart, PhD

Indeed, the "enemies list" grows longer and longer.
Read the next line of the queer preacher’s email for a good example:

A counselor who objects to homosexuality per se is an unqualified counselor, one dominated by irrational biases and certain to cause greater harm.

So, what did the queer preacher mean when he said it is “appalling” that one with such “indifference to professional consensus” is “actively employed in a teaching role”? He meant that after the gays fire all of the counselors who do not agree with homosexuality they should commence to fire all the teachers who do not recognize as legitimate the “consensus” they created by firing people.

I noticed the same urge to make a wasteland and call it peace in regards to the recent drive to force Ontario doctors to "stand and deliver" controversial services (i.e. abortion) even if it violates their conscience. A letter from the president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario blandly reassures us that "the College does not expect physicians to provide medical services that are against their moral or religious beliefs." The average dozy Ontarian is probably happy to accept this statement at face value and turn the page, contented that good will has prevailed and everyone is a winner. But not so fast. In the event of conflict, Dr. Zuliani trails off into rather vague territory:
If physicians feel they cannot provide a service for these reasons, the draft policy does expect physicians to communicate clearly, treat patients with respect and provide information about accessing care.

Let's set aside the irrelevant smokescreen thrown up: the problem isn't with doctors stammering, blushing and running out of the room if something they find morally wrong comes up ("communicate clearly"). Nor is it a question of good manners ("treat patients with respect"). It's that if they feel outraged at the idea of aborting a baby or disfiguring a patient, or any other objectionable practice, they can't decide for themselves to have nothing to do with it. They must be forced to pimp for those doctors who WILL play ball and do those things, and effectively escort the patient to the abortion mill. Anything less will leave the patient demanding the service possibly feeling slighted, or her decisions disrespected, and we can't have that.

Behind this pretence at reasonableness is a steely, silent determination to obliterate any defiance - doctors who won't go along to get along will be stripped of their license to practice medicine. And so, Dr. Zuliani's reassurance will come true: doctors won't be providing services that go against their conscience, because those with inconvenient consciences will be erased from the workforce. Voilà! No man, no problem.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home