Politicians
and courts using the notion of ‘Equality’ to radically change society
are coming in for increasing criticism from the public who are beginning
to realise just how destructive the Equality agenda is.
“Equality with a capital e has become the public doctrine of our time,” wrote columnist Charles Moore in the Telegraph. “It is like a religion but, unlike actual religions in the West today, it is backed by the full force of law.”
Far from simply meaning that people should try to make life fairer for all, Equality has become “the all-conquering principle of social organisation and human life.”
Whether the issue is US women soldiers fighting on the frontline or same sex ‘marriage’, the governing rule is Equality.
As a result of this principle, in the UK for example, Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close down because they refused to give children for adoption to homosexual pairs.
Moore saw seven strands in the new Equality religion, echoes of the seven sacraments in the Catholic Church: race, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender, gender reassignment and religion or belief.
But, despite the mention of religion, it is possible that “a Christian, Jewish or Muslim teacher could be dismissed for refusing to teach that ‘marriage’ was what Equality said it was.”
The journalist listed three major harmful effects of Equality. Firstly, it undermines freedom.
“It specialises in attacking ways of living which people have developed for themselves, often using the law and even the police to do so,” he said.
Secondly, it undermines institutions, especially the family. Focusing on “atomised individuals”, it rides roughshod over families, schools, businesses, clubs, churches, charities, sports teams, all of them bulwarks of a free society.
Thirdly, Equality makes everyone (except lawyers and other activists) unhappy. People don’t know what law they might be breaking, without knowing it, or what “inappropriate” remark they might have made.
Even those who invoke Equality to gain what they want are far from being pleased with their achievements.
Rather, they are “in a semi-permanent state of rage about any remaining imperfection. They are trained to identify grievance so, naturally, they are aggrieved.”
Moore used the UK attempt to legalise homosexual “marriage” to illustrate the absurdity of making Equality the chief consideration in any situation.
Officials drafting the Bill have struggled to fulfil Equality’s aim of making a one-sex relationship identical to natural marriage.
“They have finally realised that, since there is no procreative act which defines homosexual behaviour, there can be no consummation, or non-consummation, and no adultery. These will not, therefore, be grounds for gay divorce.”
Indeed, nothing in the new UK law says that same-sex “marriages” must even be between homosexuals.
“If I were a bachelor, I could marry a straight male friend just to get whatever tax advantages, travel deals and insurance discounts might be going,” said Moore.
And although “marriage” between two brothers or between a mother and daughter remains barred, who knows how a case in the European Court of Human Rights might go?
Although religion is one strand in Equality, a hospital, according to Moore, “will probably be entitled to dismiss a chaplain because his ‘homophobic’ views about marriage break their ‘public sector equality duty’ which the Equality Act lays down.”
The columnist admitted that none of these outcomes is certain, “where would the legal fun be if it were?
But what is certain is that “such things will be legally contested, that they will be expensive, exhausting and dangerous.”
Given all this, for Moore “the doctrine of Equality is mad. Like extreme post-Reformation Protestantism, it perverts a good inclination and turns it into a lunatic theocracy.”
“Equality with a capital e has become the public doctrine of our time,” wrote columnist Charles Moore in the Telegraph. “It is like a religion but, unlike actual religions in the West today, it is backed by the full force of law.”
Far from simply meaning that people should try to make life fairer for all, Equality has become “the all-conquering principle of social organisation and human life.”
Whether the issue is US women soldiers fighting on the frontline or same sex ‘marriage’, the governing rule is Equality.
As a result of this principle, in the UK for example, Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close down because they refused to give children for adoption to homosexual pairs.
Moore saw seven strands in the new Equality religion, echoes of the seven sacraments in the Catholic Church: race, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender, gender reassignment and religion or belief.
But, despite the mention of religion, it is possible that “a Christian, Jewish or Muslim teacher could be dismissed for refusing to teach that ‘marriage’ was what Equality said it was.”
The journalist listed three major harmful effects of Equality. Firstly, it undermines freedom.
“It specialises in attacking ways of living which people have developed for themselves, often using the law and even the police to do so,” he said.
Secondly, it undermines institutions, especially the family. Focusing on “atomised individuals”, it rides roughshod over families, schools, businesses, clubs, churches, charities, sports teams, all of them bulwarks of a free society.
Thirdly, Equality makes everyone (except lawyers and other activists) unhappy. People don’t know what law they might be breaking, without knowing it, or what “inappropriate” remark they might have made.
Even those who invoke Equality to gain what they want are far from being pleased with their achievements.
Rather, they are “in a semi-permanent state of rage about any remaining imperfection. They are trained to identify grievance so, naturally, they are aggrieved.”
Moore used the UK attempt to legalise homosexual “marriage” to illustrate the absurdity of making Equality the chief consideration in any situation.
Officials drafting the Bill have struggled to fulfil Equality’s aim of making a one-sex relationship identical to natural marriage.
“They have finally realised that, since there is no procreative act which defines homosexual behaviour, there can be no consummation, or non-consummation, and no adultery. These will not, therefore, be grounds for gay divorce.”
Indeed, nothing in the new UK law says that same-sex “marriages” must even be between homosexuals.
“If I were a bachelor, I could marry a straight male friend just to get whatever tax advantages, travel deals and insurance discounts might be going,” said Moore.
And although “marriage” between two brothers or between a mother and daughter remains barred, who knows how a case in the European Court of Human Rights might go?
Although religion is one strand in Equality, a hospital, according to Moore, “will probably be entitled to dismiss a chaplain because his ‘homophobic’ views about marriage break their ‘public sector equality duty’ which the Equality Act lays down.”
The columnist admitted that none of these outcomes is certain, “where would the legal fun be if it were?
But what is certain is that “such things will be legally contested, that they will be expensive, exhausting and dangerous.”
Given all this, for Moore “the doctrine of Equality is mad. Like extreme post-Reformation Protestantism, it perverts a good inclination and turns it into a lunatic theocracy.”