We have eternally been gobsmacked, or, if you prefer, “discombobulated,” by the bizarre, irrational existence of reductive aversion toward innocent victims of discrimination, of every stripe. It has long been our assumption that the thematic characterological infirmity is initially acquired by means of the perverse persuasion of parents or influential associates, whose contextual antipathy infects the psyche of those socially vulnerable. We find it notable that, despite the ubiquitous nature and variety of bias and prejudice, certain common characteristics are observable. Illustrative examples of such thematic odium are briefly referenced below, together with an attempt at relevant rational explanation.
[Gay and gender prejudice]
Individuals born with systemic variation from the classic arrangement of chromosomes and hormones are as a consequence, consigned to the social categories of “gay,” “bisexual,” or “homosexual.” Sadly, the media reports virtually quotidian instances of physical abuse and ubiquitous discrimination practiced against said hapless class of citizens. Some ignorant reductionists harbor the dystopic belief that homosexuality, the physiological result of a chance variation in inherited genes, can be transmitted to the young, persuadable, bisexual population by pernicious influence or teaching. This ignorant assumption has engendered a great deal of unnecessary strife and personal injustice.
It is our presumption that this general category of bigotry is founded upon a conglomeration of reductive ignorance and, conceivably, a neurotically based, felt insecurity concerning personal feelings of insecure sexual orientation.
[Color, racial prejudice]
History attests to the eternal, pernicious, existence of unjustified, preconceived beliefs and opinions about individuals and groups, solely based upon their “race.” The latter noun, “Race,” is a tacticallconvenient, unscientific, and often arbitrary construct resulting in perverse utility to errant individuals or groups ascribing superiority and inferiority to identifiable groups of people, to buttress their perceived and presumptuous superior status ( see: early blog on the subject of race, “The Dirtiest Word”).
The human variant of skin color, analogous to that of chance hormonal and chromosomal arrangement, is a singular, inheritable feature of childbirth and inarguably unrelated to persona or capability. The judgmental or discriminatory utilization of such biological phenomenon for judgmental purposes is logically and empirically irrational and demonstratively indicative of a desire for comparative superiority, or a personal need for group acceptability. What rational mind can relate the relative percentage of melanin in an individual’s skin to his intelligence, capability, or character?
Yet, human history attests to a long history of judging an individual by his skin color rather than by his character, the obverse of the rational and empirical formulation of Martin Luther King, and the ultimate goal of the U.S. Constitution. A metaphysically incisive analysis of the psychological basis for racial prejudice, if ubiquitously possible, might ameliorate the universally toxic malady.
[Xenophobia, immigration]
It is an unjust and bizarre feature of a Nation, populated essentially by immigrants and their progeny, to empirically evince the extant, roiling immigration dispute. The contextual noun connotes simply the desire for permanent change of citizenship and has no rational relevance to characterological or moral attribution. The illogical and unjust prejudgment of immigrants as miscreants or as undesirables are illustratative of a factually reductive and markedly selfish “xenophobic” inclination. The change of citizenship for the opportunity of an improved way of life, as publicly invited by the prominently displayed Statue of Liberty, was the motivation for historical American immigrants and those longing to enter today. Their denial is selfish and personally unappreciative. A rethinking of this humanistic franchise is needed.
[Religious bias]
Despite the felt and expressed intention of the Founders that the Nation be administered by purely secular considerations of rectitude ( N.B., the Constitution does not contain any reference to a Deity), a vast portion of the American population is motivated by the unconstitutional, ethnocentric desire to make our multi- ethnic Republic, a “Christian Nation.
Perhaps, the most egregious aspect of religious evangelism is its reductively oriented desire to impose its religious beliefs upon others, religious and secular. The framers stated that, “If we put ‘God’ in the Constitution, we put Man out.” The cruel history of religious repression is an ugly blemish upon Man’s history and an atavistic feature of a people who avow liberty. It has been our disappointed observati that recently, the reductive belief in religion in government has metastasized as far as the Supreme Court.
Enlightenment and awareness of the Bill of Rights must be emphasized, consistent with the philosophical intent of our venerable Founders and moral freedom.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 