Wednesday, 5 August 2009

Liberal Two-Faced Hypocrisy

Among the resolutions passed at the recent Episcopal General Convention, some were dangerous, some completely apostate and some downright silly. Resolution D035, proposed by one Dr. John Chaffee, was one of the latter. It calls on Queen Elizabeth II to apologize for the “Doctrine of Discovery.” (From Here via Here.)
This doctrine, which originated with Henry VII in 1496, held that Christian sovereigns and their representative explorers could assert dominion and title over non-Christian lands with the full blessing and sanction of the Church.

First of all, it seems to me that there is this certain self-righteous, judgmental attitude in (mostly) liberal circles that sees what it considers evil in others while assuming that they themselves have got it all together. To paraphrase the popular '70's book, I'm OK, you're not OK. This atitude manifests itself in these kinds of calls for apologies, usually by others, usually for those no longer here, for acts allegedly committed sometime in history, by someone today who had nothing to do with the alleged "atrocities." I see it as a log in one's own eye kind of thing. They find it so easy to see what today we consider an injustice and project judgment back through time on people of another era.

It reveals a certain anachronistic arrogance that says, "Oh, if I were there I would have done differently." How do these people know how they would have felt, or how they would have acted, for instance, when slavery was culturally acceptable. I wouldn't be at all surprised that, if they could be transplanted to a period of time two or three hundred years ago, to a position of plantation owner, a great many would have behaved exactly as other plantation owners of the time did.

Now, what should they do? I assume that the proponents of this type of resolution believe that lands were taken unjustly from aboriginal residents of various continents. If they truly believe this, what is the proper thing to do? They must agree that many churches and properties of the Episcopal church are on or among those lands improperly taken. They must then agree, if they are to be consistent, that they are in possession of stolen property. What should one do if one knows one possesses such property, accuses one's ancestors of having stolen it, and knows who the rightful owner is? One should return it, shouldn't one? But will they?

Of course not. They are as much as saying, "We are sorry your property was stolen. We believe our forefathers stole it when they first came to this continent, but we have it now and we're not giving it back."

Their magnanimity stops at demanding meaningless apologies from others who have nothing to do with anything.

Take Care

No comments: