Listening to liberals on abortion or other components of their leftist agenda can leave our head spinning. Trying to reason with them often proves difficult, if not impossible.
When confronted with the inconsistency of their position, they like to change the topic on you. As a general term, we can call this tactic diversion. Don’t fall for it.
They try to compensate for their unnatural sexual lifestyles by convincing us environmental activism is much more important.
You may point out that over 3,500 babies die a day to abortion here in the USA. You can show them people wounded from a culture that celebrates porn use and promiscuity. They ignore these truths by attempting to divert your attention to something they pretend to be so much more urgent. In most cases, they turn to environmentalism.
Why is that?
Polar bears are going to lose their ice caps! The sea levels are going to rise and flood our world. Soon we won’t have any oxygen to breathe, given the ozone layer changing. They want you to pay attention to the global warming “crisis.” And on and on it goes.
The goal of the environmental extremists is NOT to convince you of these supposed emergencies. No, they all flock to these alleged catastrophes because they are trying to convince themselves of their realities.
Ever met a tree hugger? Ever been petitioned to help save the rain forest?
Has anyone ever tried to make you feel guilty about wearing leather? Do you have a relative who refuses to eat any animal products? Do they claim it is because they care so much about the poor little animals? Are you made to be a monster because your love for cows is consummated when grilling a steak?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH SUCH ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM?
Preserving the environment in itself is not problematic. Being a vegetarian is not inherently immoral either. The problem comes from a misplaced passion, namely for life preservation.
Who must be called out are those who care more about the fate of endangered species than the death of unborn human babies. Those environmental extremists who contracept, but then claim no one should eat GMO’s are being hypocritical.
The other problem is that they continue to beat their drums louder and louder. Western society, having already chosen to ignore right reason, complies and follows along.
The goal of the environmental extremists is NOT to convince you of these supposed emergencies. No, they all flock to these alleged catastrophes because they are trying to convince themselves of their realities.
Environmental activism serves two purposes for them. First, it functions as a diversion for their minds. Second, it gives them something to point to as compensation for supporting unnatural vice.
Let us turn to two philosophers to explain what I mean.
A DIVERSION FOR THEIR MINDS
“Being unable to cure death, wretchedness and ignorance, men have decided, in order to be happy, not to think about such things,” writes Catholic philosopher, Blaise Pascal in his popular work, Pensees
He adds later, “[People] have a secret instinct driving them to seek external diversion and occupation. This is the result of their constant sense of wretchedness” (2).
He makes the astute observation that people are most unhappy because they do not know how to sit quietly in their own homes (3).
He goes on, “The only good thing for men therefore is to be diverted from thinking of what they are, either by some occupation which takes their mind off it, or by some novel and agreeable passion which keeps them busy, like gambling, hunting, [or] some absorbing show…” (4).
Or, in this case, instead of gambling, hunting, or a show, we might say drinking alcohol, doing drugs, or getting fighting mad about oil spills. People are looking for diversions.
Think about it. The Culture of Death and substance abuse go hand in hand. The booze and the weed help to take people’s minds off their wretchedness, to apply Pascal’s reasoning.
The reason they seek out the diversion is precisely because they know their lifestyles are unnatural. People are not made to practice vice and be happy doing so. Whether it is promiscuity, contraceptive sex, homosexuality, or something else, these lifestyles lead to personal ruin.
People feel guilty. So they drink. They feel bad about themselves, so they take their mind off things by getting absorbed into television shows or movies. Without a diversion from their obvious sinful state, they would despair.
A DIVERSION FROM YOUR INQUIRIES
But that is not the only unholy purpose for a diversion.
Diversions can take the form of activism. The activism is intended to distract you from knowing the truth about the activist.
She may be a morally loose cannon when it comes to her sexuality, but she remains a good person, since she stumps against animal testing of beauty care products. At least, that’s what she hopes you will think, as she tries to convince herself.
She will never rest until all rabbits stop being squirted in the eyes with hair spray. She just keeps going, like the Energizer Bunny. Activity in itself becomes the goal, because by it she does not have to confront herself.
If you inquire about her contradictory stance, she gets defensive. You may point out she should know better than to advocate for the death of unborn babies. She has no defense for that, so instead she points out her heroism in making waves against animal testing. Again, this is her proof to you and to herself that she is a good person.
Environmental activism serves two purposes for them. First, it functions as a diversion for their minds. Second, it gives them something to point to as compensation for supporting unnatural vice.
Author, J. Budziszewski likens setting up a diversion to this:
“Because I refuse to give my real transgressions, I invest other things with inflated significance and give up those things instead. Perhaps I have pressured three girlfriends into abortion, but I oppose war and capital punishment, I don’t wear fur, and I beat my chest with shame whenever I slip and eat red meat. Easier to face invented guilt than the thing itself” (5).
IN CLOSING
I realize not everyone who opposes animal testing or deforestation subscribes to the creed of the Culture of Death. I admit I am painting with a broad brush, to some degree.
The point is, those who rail against the supposed destruction of Mother Earth often are doing so merely as compensation for NOT caring about the dignity of human life or the institution of marriage, for instance.
The denial needs to end for liberals on abortion and other sinful behaviors.
In reality, every person has an innate desire, by way of the Natural Law, to sacrifice for something greater than himself. Every person has a need to love and to be loved. Sacrificing babies in the name of preserving one’s lifestyle is not love. Using others for cheap sex is not love either. The Culture of Death, thus, can never satisfy the innate desires of the soul.
No amount of hand wringing over poaching or global warming will fix that.
I would love to hear the thoughts of my dear readers on this one.
Do you follow what I am saying? Do you see Blaise Pascal and J. Budziewski’s point about diversions?
Please share your insights below.
1. Pascal, Blaise. Pensees
2. Ibid., pg 40, #136.
3. Ibid., pg 37, #136.
4. Ibid., pg 38, #136.
5. Budziszewski, J. What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide
