Which morality? Whose hypocrisy?
July 16, 2011
One of the things the non-Christian world does so relentlessly, and often rather accurately, is mock the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the church. Of course, the Bible does the same, as anyone who has read Judges or any of the prophets will know. The church at its best makes no bones about the fact that it is never more than something of a mess.
Still, it is good to know that the secular world is just as ridiculous; and, with its repudiation of a doctrine of original sin, has much less excuse.
Now, I am not known to be fan of Rupert Murdoch. For me, Fox News is comedy and The Sun is soft porn. But there is an irony that he has been forced to publish an apology in the British newspaper, The Guardian, for his companies' phone hacking activities.
Strange that. I thought the The Grauniad (sic) thought that illegal hacking and publishing private and confidential documents was absolutely vital to free society. After all, Julian Assange, of wikileaks fame, is Hero Numero Uno in The Guardian Hall of Martyrs. This is the man who made his name hacking other people's computers, writing a book to tell others how to do it, and growing famous on precisely the kind of behaviour for which Murdoch is now pilloried (and for which he probably has no personal responsibility).
Why the difference in response? Well, it cannot be racism because (a) this is The Guardian and (b) Murdoch and Assange are both Australian. Could it perchance be that Murdoch is old, rich and selectively conservative (depending on the market) while Assange is young-ish, a bit weird and allegedly `sticking it to the man'? Aesthetics, anyone?
The church may be ridiculous, hypocritical and self-righteous; but it has no monopoly on that. And as with alcoholism, acknowledging the problem is the first step to solving the problem. Full page apologies from Murdoch in The Guardian don't give much hope.... for The Guardian and its ilk. The secular world might want to put is own house in order before it expends too much time trashing the hypocrisies of those whose very creed acknowledges their hypocrisy at the outset.
Still, it is good to know that the secular world is just as ridiculous; and, with its repudiation of a doctrine of original sin, has much less excuse.
Now, I am not known to be fan of Rupert Murdoch. For me, Fox News is comedy and The Sun is soft porn. But there is an irony that he has been forced to publish an apology in the British newspaper, The Guardian, for his companies' phone hacking activities.
Strange that. I thought the The Grauniad (sic) thought that illegal hacking and publishing private and confidential documents was absolutely vital to free society. After all, Julian Assange, of wikileaks fame, is Hero Numero Uno in The Guardian Hall of Martyrs. This is the man who made his name hacking other people's computers, writing a book to tell others how to do it, and growing famous on precisely the kind of behaviour for which Murdoch is now pilloried (and for which he probably has no personal responsibility).
Why the difference in response? Well, it cannot be racism because (a) this is The Guardian and (b) Murdoch and Assange are both Australian. Could it perchance be that Murdoch is old, rich and selectively conservative (depending on the market) while Assange is young-ish, a bit weird and allegedly `sticking it to the man'? Aesthetics, anyone?
The church may be ridiculous, hypocritical and self-righteous; but it has no monopoly on that. And as with alcoholism, acknowledging the problem is the first step to solving the problem. Full page apologies from Murdoch in The Guardian don't give much hope.... for The Guardian and its ilk. The secular world might want to put is own house in order before it expends too much time trashing the hypocrisies of those whose very creed acknowledges their hypocrisy at the outset.
