What to do with Henrik van der Breggen? It’s simple. Fire him.
“Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge.” -Paul Gauguin
Paula Deen’s golden days seem, more or less, to be over. That’s exactly as it should be. We’re just not very tolerant of people who get found out as racists.
I wish the same were true of homophobes like Henrik van der Breggen. He’s a professor — a doctor, even — at some insignificant Canadian Christian college. He published an outrageous little compilation of recycled misinformation entitled “Is Promoting Same-Sex Sex Wise?,” in a Manitoba newspaper.
Honestly, van der Breggen is a little below my weight class, and under normal circumstances I wouldn’t bother with him. But three things are true. First of all, he’s started tangling with Aaron Hildebrandt, who I consider a friend. Second, he constantly repeats the claim that he’s “deeply interested in the truth,” and if there’s one thing I really can’t stand, it’s a faux-Socrates.
Third, and most importantly, he’s the sort of person who discredits academia in general, and the humanities in particular. Yes, he has the right to voice his opinions. He also has the right to suffer the consequences, just like Paula Deen. If we are to take doctoral degrees seriously, then we have to admit that what he’s done is akin to a modern doctor writing a column claiming that tuberculosis results from demonic possession. In other words, his methods are simply not compatible with our profession. He’s not just homophobic — he’s so driven by hate that he’s incapable of basic logical reasoning.
He shouldn’t retain his teaching position. He needs to be fired. Everyone like him also needs to be fired. It’s really that simple.
***
Hildebrandt has done a great job discrediting van der Breggen (here), but out of courtesy, he (i.e. Hildebrandt) perhaps says a little too much. He invites too much quibbling, which is, naturally, exactly how van der Breggen responds here.
Van der Breggen’s preferred form of logical fallacy is the false analogy. He implicitly likens himself to Socrates. He compares gay sex to smoking tobacco. He draws an analogy between contemporary bits of homophobic misinformation and Galileo’s revolutionary scientific theories.
Very quickly:
- Nobody should take van der Breggen’s claims about “respecting” gay people seriously. He’s trying to scare them and validate homophobic discrimination against them.
- Furthermore, the fact that van der Breggen’s “respect” for gay people comes from his belief that all people created in God’s image deserve respect belies his claim to be interested in “truth” above all. I could not care less what he believes. Belief is not truth.
- Celebrating one’s choices publicly does not amount to promoting them. I can attend an Oktoberfest event without believing that everyone should drink alcohol.
- The analogy between Galileo and homophobic pseudo-science is ridiculous. Galileo’s ideas were revolutionary. Anti-homosexual views have been around for thousands of years. They are not iconoclastic.
- “Further investigation” into the supposed dangers of gay sex is not warranted, and van der Breggen is not arguing in good faith. People like him try to establish “scientific controversies” where none exist, like people who don’t “believe” in global warming or evolution. They see this as a first step towards making the more definitive claims they always, already, intend to make. (Techically, this is known as an “inflation of conflict” fallacy.)
- Everything van der Breggen says about gay sex could be said about straight sex. I mean, OK, if the definition of “straight sex” is limited to vaginal intercourse, then it probably doesn’t lead to increased risks of anal cancer. On the other hand, gay sex does not lead to pregnancy, and pregnancy can cause all sorts of health problems, up to and including death. (More common side effects include the feeling that one is being “kicked” in the stomach or that one is “eating for two,” feeling unwell during the morning, baby showers, and a long period of physical duress commonly known as “labor.”)
- The analogy to pregnancy is not only meant as a joke. Pregnancy is a perfect example of a behaviour that does carry undeniable health risks, and yet can still be worthwhile. To question gay sex on the grounds that it poses health risks amounts to a naturalistic fallacy, namely inferring an “ought” from a fact that has no inherent moral consequent.
Now let’s take things a little more slowly.
For the sake of clarity, I think that the Bible teaches that it is sin/immoral to engage in sexual relations outside of a one-man-one-woman marriage relationship.
And yet, it totally doesn’t. See, for example, The Book of Genesis, Chapter 19 (incidentally, it’s easy to find Genesis, since it’s the first book):
30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
There is evidence of considerable health risk associated with same-sex sexual behaviour.
See above. All sexual behaviour creates health risks. The least risky lifestyle is abstinence, a choice I would certainly recommend for van der Breggen.
Also, Hildebrandt has been guilty of earlier obfuscations over at Citizens Concerned About Manitoba Bill 18, a Facebook group from which Hildebrandt was banned. As a result of these obfuscations, I banned Hildebrandt from my blog. I suspect that this doesn’t sit well with Hildebrandt, so now he seems bent on continuing his “critique” of my work with further obfuscation coupled with an attempt to smear my academic and personal reputation.
This overuses the word “obfuscation.” The effect is obfuscatory. Thus it is guilty of the “obfuscation through obsession with obfuscation” fallacy, which is a well-known derivative of the argumentum verbosium.
Also, I wish to point out that my argument’s conclusion—that we should investigate further before we give same-sex sex our social stamp of approval—may actually be helpful to LGBTQ students, not damaging.
This is both shifting the burden of proof and an argument from probability.
Keep in mind that, contrary to what Hildebrandt’s misrepresentation would have the reader think, the goal of my argument is not to demonstrate a causal connection between homosexual behaviour and health issues; the goal of my argument is merely to point to an association between homosexual behaviour and health concerns and thus recommend further investigation.
I don’t know what part of this is slimier — the equivocation (i.e. the bad-faith distinction between deixis and demonstration), or the fallacious argument to moderation.
Keep in mind, too, that (as I mention in my column) my argument is a cumulative case argument. In a cumulative case argument the individual arguments needn’t be 100% demonstrative; they only need to carry some force, which accumulates. In the case at hand, the arguments only need to carry enough force to raise reasonable questions that will encourage further investigation.
Don’t be fooled by van der Breggen’s absurd reference to “cumulative case arguments.” This is sheer kettle logic — the belief that many fallacious arguments for the same untrue proposition demonstrate collectively something they do not demonstrate individually. “Carry some force” is a weasel phrase that conflates his appeals to homophobic prejudice with demonstrations of the truth.
Note: Contrary to what Hildebrandt seems to suggest, in my column I do not ignore the issue of depression due to social rejection/ social stigma. I write: “[W]e should be careful neither to underestimate nor to overestimate the effects of social stigma. Still, stigma or no stigma, the physical-medical health issues remain.”
I’m sort of amazed that van der Breggen would dare quote himself here, because he’s quoting a remarkably weak link in his own earlier set of arguments. If homophobia makes homosexuals prone to depression, then celebrations of homosexual love and sex have an obvious, positive, medical value. The only reason to withhold such a “social stamp of approval,” to use van der Breggen’s disgusting and entitled phrase, would be on the grounds that the medical risks posed by homosexual sex were greater than the damage caused by homophobia. But then, once again, van der Breggen would have to oppose any sexual act that posed equally serious medical risks, which he doesn’t.
***
Enough of this. I hope van der Breggen continues to write and publish. I hope he has lots of time to do just that — once he’s unemployed, I mean.
Until next time, this is Dr. Joseph Kugelmass, saying…
Wonderful post, Hendrick is little more than an animal with an extensive vocabulary. And unfortunately he’s doing everything in his power to give the school where I wasted four years getting a useless degree, an even worse name than it already had.
Although I severely disagree with your attitude, refutation, and opinions, I do not have the resources or education to properly argue in full. However, you have misused and abused Scripture.
I read the entire passage you used in Genesis and the surrounding contextual verses. First of all, I’m surprised that you referenced a passage that seems to carry no condemnation on an incestual act. Within the context of your argument, you seem to be implying that this is alright behavior. Even in modern secular circles, very few people agree that this is socially acceptable or medically wise. In addition, you failed to mention that Lot’s daughters gave birth to sons that was father the nations of the Moabites and Ammonites, both future enemies of Israel. While this, in and of itself, does not provide explicit condemnation, it certainly muddies your example.
Further examples of Scripture that condemns sexual relations outside of a one-man-one-woman marriage (all references from New Living Translation):
1 Corinthians 5:1-2 – I can hardly believe the report about the sexual immorality going on among you–something that even pagans don’t do. I am told that a man in your church is living in sin with his stepmother. You are so proud of yourselves, but you should be mourning in sorrow and shame. And you should remove this man from your fellowship.
Ezekiel 22:11-12;15 – Within your walls live men who commit adultery with their neighbors wives, who defile their daughters-in-law, or who rape their own sisters. There are hired murderers, loan racketeers, and extortioners everywhere. They never even think of me and my commands, says the Sovereign Lord. I will scatter you among the nations and purge you of your wickedness.
Romans 1:24-27 – That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
Leviticus 19:22 – Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
Matthew 19:4-5 – Haven’t you read the Scriptures? They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male and female.’ And he said, ‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’
In passing judgement on your comment in Apologia, I expected your refutation to be calm, logically sound, and at least trying to maintain the sense that you were genuinely trying to enlighten and correct someone you felt was gravely mistaken. I found your blog to be the exact opposite, and while you have the right to write your personal blog in whatever style you wish, I must remind you that everything you say reflects on your character. You came across as very mean-spirited and walked into your refutation with a sever bias from the start. It damages your reputation as an academic when you start a refutation by admitted you are on a quest for personal revenge. I pray that you may soothe the fire in your belly and in your fingers.
David I realize that I posted my as a reply to your comment. I did not intend it as such and it was intended as a reply directly to the author of this blog.
Dear Bergen,
First of all, the fact that the Bible says various things about sex — including some things with which Henrik van der Breggen, apparently, agrees — is neither here nor there, because the Bible contradicts itself on numerous topics, including sexual morality. The very fact that my citation struck you as a legitimization of incest illustrates the problem.
I don’t consider the Bible to be an authority on matters of sexual conduct, and therefore citing Genesis was not a way of making an argument about incest. I was merely illustrating a fact about the text — namely, that it is contradictory.
Van der Breggen’s argument, founded as it is (according to him) upon the scientific method and the findings of modern medicine, is not a Scriptural argument. The fact that he’s referencing the Bible at all is worrisome from a scientific point-of-view.
I am certainly not seeking personal revenge; that would be a very strange vendetta, indeed, since I have not been personally wronged. I was merely quoting Paul Gauguin on the felt response to injustice.
I am here to discredit Henrik van der Breggen, not to enlighten him. While the argument playing out here is important, he (and his personal attitude towards gay sex) is not. My arguments were completely logically sound. If I have been guilty of arguing passionately, even angrily, then perhaps that is because too many people have suffered depression, humilitation, disgrace, and even physical injury and death, thanks (in part) to the calm bigotry and arrogance of homophobes and their apologists.
I’m continually amazed at how much attitude both sides of this argument level at the other. Say what you will about his arguments (I happen to disagree with him myself, and have argued with him extensively on his blog), but Dr. V really isn’t trying to be an asshole – he really does care about people. I’m not sure the same can be said here. I appreciated the points you called him on, Dr. Kugelmass, but I find them difficult to follow when you mock and dismiss someone because THEY’RE supposedly hateful. There seems to be a few types of dissonance going on here. I know Dr. V personally, and know that he actually does care about the people he may be inadvertently hurting, but your post and the comment are full of hurtful things directed at a particular person and institution because…you see him as hateful? So you hate the hateful? What’s worse, misguided love or open arrogance?
And David – I’m sorry you feel that way. Perhaps a well-spoken alumnus or two could raise Prov’s profile in a positive way, and you could make the best of your degree.
Are you really “amazed” at how much “attitude” this argument inspires?
Well, then, I can only assume that is because you don’t realize how many people have had their lives ruined by homophobic discrimination of the sort that van der Breggen advocates.
I don’t hate Henrik van der Breggen. I hold him in contempt. He’s earned it, not through the emotional character of his rhetoric (although his constant shows of bad faith are pretty revolting) but through the content of his arguments.
If you think that van der Breggen “loves” homosexuals, then I feel sorry for you, because he’s really succeeded in deceiving you.
It is not arrogance to be in possession of the truth, particularly when one knows, as I do, that it is a truth others have fought for, and others have died for, and that others understand equally well.
If either of you — jwheels, or Bergen — think that somehow what I’ve done is un-Christian because I have not shown van der Breggen enough “love,” then all I can say is that you are allowing a very poor interpretation of the Gospels to guide you.
Thanks for your response Joseph.
What I’m amazed by is how much scorn both sides tend to heap on each other, while at the same time claiming to be the more loving. We can point fingers all day long and not make any real headway (casting contempt on the other party only gains the applause of your own side, and further entrenches the other side in their position by making them feel persecuted for holding it); progress will come when we stop saying that we love and they hate, and when we start proving that we love regardless of what they do.
Dr. V is very good at polite dialogue, and it goes a long way, but not far enough. In my opinion, he doesn’t always realize that he can be polite to someone without being respectful toward them, but this is his flaw, not his programme. What he says may be hateful in the sense that it may inspire hate, but I’m sure he would be shocked and disgusted if his words were taken in that way. He’s completely unbending in his position (often to a frustrating degree), even when he’s made to feel personally uncomfortable with the implications of that position, because he believes it to be true. He holds to positions that are uncomfortable, inconvenient, and extremely unpopular, because he believes them to be true. He puts himself on the line by writing on unpopular subjects in the newspaper because he believes the truth should be spoken even when it’s unpopular. He believes it’s ultimately less kind to let someone believe a comfortable half-truth than a traumatic truth, so when he says that he believes that same-sex sex is unhealthy, he does it because he actually cares about people who engage in it. He and I disagree strongly on this issue, and we’re able to talk about it without resorting to character assassination; that he did so to Aaron Hildebrandt struck me as being out of character for him, and I was quite disappointed by it, but it’s not fair to call him “hateful.”
I’m quite aware of the damage that’s caused by this belief, and it’s why I bother to speak openly about it, here and elsewhere. I’ve seen friends from Bible college have their ministerial credentials taken away, get kicked out of churches, or leave to join other denominations. I know that people have taken their own lives in despair, or walked away from all religion because of it, and I feel like it’s extremely damaging to our witness of Christ’s love. I live in an area that gets really fired up about gay rights, talking about them as if they’re the cue for the antichrist to take over the world, and it makes me very sad. It also makes me sad that the people whose stance I agree with assume that I’m ignorant of all of this just because I try to promote respectful dialogue that can get past the anger and (hopefully) to the heart of the matter.
That’s what I perceived as arrogance: as far as I can tell, you don’t know Hendrik personally. You have no idea what his intentions are, and directly disregard them when he writes about them. Communication is very complex, and human beings are very prone to cognitive dissonance, both in how we express ourselves and how we perceive what others express. If you’ve formed your opinion about Hendrik from his column and his responses to Mr. Hildebrandt, then you seem to be relying on some presuppositions related to his stance (e.g., that anyone who holds an anti-gay position is hateful) rather than any knowledge of his character or intentions. Also, you were quite derisive about Providence, which has many professors who have also disagreed with Hendrik in print and in public on this issue. You were also seemingly condemning his credentials, while inflating your own (last I checked, an English student (your bio says graduate student, but you go by Doctor – are you on a post-doc?) arguing with a Philosophy professor wasn’t considered boxing below your weightclass).
I want to apologize for the sass in my first comment; I’m a hypocrite when it comes to keeping my cool sometimes. I just so wanted to see someone win this argument from higher ground! I appreciated the points you made (though, as has been pointed out, your biblical argument was off base, and as you’ve pointed out, was facetious), but laying contempt on people and institutions that are genuinely trying to help and have an honest discussion about the issue isn’t helping. I appreciate that you’re angry – I am too! Funnel that into something constructive, and maybe we’ll get somewhere.
Cheers,
Jeff
Jeff — great comment. I’m really glad you took the time to write it.
This debate isn’t an opportunity for me to demonstrate my capacity for loving. That would be a total sidetrack. Anything that could have been accomplished by a calm, loving response could’ve been accomplished by Aaron, because he wrote an amazing and yet courteous critique. Dr. van der Breggen responded in a smug and dismissive fashion, and was offended anyway, even though he had no reason to be.
I don’t really think either “side” in this “debate” can get very far by playing nice. For homophobes, politeness doesn’t make a lot of sense, since what they advocate is harmful. I guess it’s better than nothing, but again I consider it basically a sidetrack.
For LGBTQ persons and their allies, treating this as a polite debate ignores the extent to which it encourages and participates in hate speech, which is a (legally recognized) form of violence.
A beautiful paragraph.
Then, at best, he’s the dupe of other people for whom this definitely is the program — namely, the pseudo-scientific research organizations “investigating” the “dangers” of gay sex.
This goes back to his constant proclamations about love for the truth. Here’s what I don’t understand: if van der Breggen really loves the truth so much, why is he so intellectually lazy? He’ll take a fact — such as the fact that lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer — and he’ll come to the laughable conclusion that they get cancer because of the kind of sex they’re having. In fact, they have higher diagnosed rates of breast cancer because A) they take fewer birth control pills, and B) they are more likely to pursue the kind of care that enables doctors to diagnose cancer when it appears.
He doesn’t trouble himself to find out what the truth actually is, even when very little effort is required. The second anyone calls him on his bullshit, however, he turns into The Last Rational Man In A Society Corrupted By Political Correctness.
Again, I think there’s a confusion here between truth and belief. If van der Breggen believes that Christ is the Messiah, that’s his right. If he believes that gay sex causes cancer, that’s a different story. It’s an objective question, and he can be objectively wrong — which he is.
Unfortunately, his actions — i.e. his writings — speak louder than his statements of intent. Why would somebody who has no real medical qualifications speak out, at length, about a basically medical issue? Why would he confuse truth and belief so often, and so casually? Why would he compare acts of love to smoking tobacco? By taking public positions, Dr. van der Breggen has made himself a public figure. I don’t know, or care, whether he’s a nice guy who helps his landlady take out her garbage. His writing, as it were, intends and believes for him. Within such a piece of writing, where he’s making a truth-claim that has nothing to do with intentions, his claims about intention become merely rhetorical moves.
I said it was insignificant. Objectively, in terms of Western academia, it is. Van der Breggen really pushes his credentials, which is ridiculous, because they’re not impressive. I have a Ph.D. from UC Irvine, and a B.A. from Stanford, but that’s not the reason he’s below my weight class. The reason is that his arguments and his logic are just… so… awful.
I don’t think he’s helping anyone, and I don’t think he’s arguing in good faith. Suppose someone did argue that tuberculosis is caused by demons. Who, exactly, would they be helping? Suppose, further, that they said “Look, I’m not saying that demons cause tuberculosis. I’m just saying that we should investigate further before giving antibiotics our social stamp of approval.” Would that make them a wiser, better person? Would they really be furthering the interests of global health? No, and the same goes for van der Breggen.
Thanks Joseph, I very much appreciate your reply!
I don’t disagree with a lot of your analysis of Dr. V’s arguments – he and I have disagreed on his blog and elsewhere on this subject – but more the tone of it, which was excellently modified in your response. Bad news and criticism travels fast (the angrier, the faster), and in this case, far, and I didn’t want to let it rest without at least making an attempt to moderate it with an insider’s perspective; it would be a shame for someone to base their view of Providence or Dr. V on this post alone, and I hope I’ve given an account of them that, while perhaps not excusing any of the things that have been argued on any side, at least fill in some of the background.
Cheers,
Jeff
Let me say as gently as I can (so as not to offend): I think all intelligent people need to learn the proper use of “homophobia.”
All 800+ “phobias” listed in the APA –DSM are mental dysfunctions focused on some irrational fear or hostility. Likely most critics of LGBTQ behaviors do not suffer from such irrational fears or aversions about people who prefer LGBTQ behaviors; we are not mentally ill. To suggest that we are, is at least a fallacy ad populem.
The new Associated Press stylebook directs all staff not to use the term “homophobia” in social and political contexts. IMHO intelligent people need to correct this misuse of “homophobia” as a political slur. Anyone can disagree with our readings of the best available relevant evidences on this current controversy without suggesting that we are mentally ill.
I count 7 uses of “homophobia” in Joseph Kugelmass’s short assessment of the dialogue between Aaron Scott Hildebrand and Hendrik van der Breggen. Some logicians also consider it a question-begging epithet in this context, also an ad hominem.
Some psychiatrists have treated some actual neurotics and psychotics who really do suffer from legitimate homophobia. Hendrik van der Breggen is not one of them in their judgement. Anyone is free to argue otherwise, if they marshal adequate supporting warrant. In respectful intelligent debate, use of such fallacies tends to discredit those who use them.
My PhD in philosophy is from NYU.
Your comment is fundamentally wrong, in terms of the semantics of “homophobia,” and your odd display of meaningless precision borders on insane.
Homophobia is a standard term for bigotry towards homosexual persons. Furthermore, and in particular, to claim that you are afraid of homosexual behavior does not imply any clinical psychiatric judgment about your person. Homophobia (as the term is commonly used) is not a mental illness, but a moral failing, which is of course much worse.
All this is patently obvious and easily verified. Your comment is akin to someone writing, “you call us rabid, and yet we are not ill with rabies, and are therefore not rabid.”
If the APA believes otherwise, that really is no concern of mine, any more than I’d consult the APA before calling myself “claustrophobic.”
Congrats on the doctorate!
“Likely most critics of LGBTQ behaviors do not suffer from such irrational fears or aversions about people who prefer LGBTQ behaviors”
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Your assertion that “Homophobia…is a moral failing” tells me a tiny snip about you, viz. that you hold this belief to be true. Can you offer some warrant in its support? Without that it carries no more weight philosophically, than any playground kid who demands: “Stop that! I don’t like that!”
Or are you promoting a language game that the Associated Press has rejected as inappropriate in the civilized world, not without careful reflection and good reason? Are you planning to correct their “error” too? If so, how? If not, why not?
@tomemos: I happen to know thousands of critics of LGBTQ behaviors that suffer no irrational fears or aversions about people who prefer LGBTQ behaviors. I repeatedly hear of millions more in that category, whom I don’t know personally. I take them all as evidence. If your circle of acquaintances is too narrow on this dimension, you have my sympathy.
I apologize to those who are interested in reading interesting opinions about the subject matter at hand. This comment is merely me addressing Dr. Kugelmass in regards to how he conducts himself on this platform.
Dr. Kugelmass, after having read your blog post and comments multiple times, this is what I have to say. I find your style to be irritating because you bring the wordsmithing skills of a writer and an English doctorate to a philosophical, political, and theological argument.
Of course, English and the crafting of words is an important part of any argument, no matter what the field, but you seem to craft your arguments in such a way that you often seem to build a semantic escape hatch i.e. You thought my words meant this when I really meant this because I was speaking figuratively.
While I myself do not have a prestigious doctorate, I do have a humanities undergraduate, so I do have a university level education in English. I understand the precision that language needs in order to communicate properly. Through some careful uses of Google, I understand that you are a very tough marker, so I try to pay careful attention to the construction of my comments. At the risk of crafting an analogy inferior to yours, let me present my opinion of you which has been formed by the text provided.
You are an English doctorate wrestling with philosophy. I see that to be akin to comparing World Wrestling Entertainment to Olympic wrestling. Respect for the sport is heaped onto the Olympic wrestler because he is seen as a peak athlete. It is not impossible for a WWE superstar to defeat a lesser sport wrestler. (Having said that, it was meant as a hypothetical. This is not a direct judgement on your critique of Dr. van der Breggen or your discussions in the comments.) At the end of the day, I am unable to take the WWE superstar seriously as a serious athlete because he conducts himself with such flair that you wonder how much of the supposed athletic spectacle is simply figurative smoke and mirrors, especially when compared to someone who has a mastery of the true, pure sport of wrestling.
I apologize that this comment is not directly related to the subject at hand as I know there are several people following this comment thread. I do not claim that Dr. van der Breggen is not guilty of the same over wordiness, nor am I, but since the conversation has consisted of a lot of academic chest-puffing, I would like you to know that your writing style and attitude has stripped away the prestige of high-level academia and your snobbery of a respectable institution has earned you disdain among myself and seemingly among others that would otherwise agree with your argument.
It seems we are all reluctant to change our beliefs on any issue of serious importance to us. Such a change never involves merely a rational argument of a single issue in isolation from all related beliefs. Usually our emotions are also involved, often also a complex of personal relationships. Let’s not over-simplify a very complex process.
When we urge others to change their beliefs on issues of importance to them, we therefore need appropriate patience with them such as expresses real agape love, while we urge that the truth is as we see it, and that others should embrace this on the basis of sound reason clearly articulated & supported by all the relevant facts.
Sadly too many people embrace beliefs more on the basis of slogans, political correctness, fashionable beliefs, emotion and personal relationships than on the basis of reason, logic and clear facts. Of course since we can never know these all, we need appropriate humility with appropriate conviction. Hopefully that will help win us a hearing with some of those who disagree with us, but there is no way to ensure that we convince them. Still we need to persistently speak the truth in love. Some will hear, some will not — each on the basis of their own decision-making.
Bergen, I’ve written a post responding to you. You may comment there on stylistic matters or to make meta-arguments. Anything further of this kind, in the comments to this post, is a thread hijack and will be deleted.
Dr. Kugelmass,
I was a student in a course taught by Dr. van der Breggen some years ago.
I remember critiquing the first quiz he administered in that course and finding him open to, what I intended as, constructive criticism (he even adjusted that particular quiz and how he had intended on distributing weight between questions). I remember, in my final paper, his disagreeing with the content of some of my argument and yet nonetheless treating the paper on its own merit and fairly assessing it. I remembering writing a response, on one of his now defunct blogs, critiquing an argument he made in a particular post, only to find, sometime later, a six page response to my comment (a response he had, clearly, taken some time to write).
At times, in class, I found his interests eccentric (he seemed taken by Intelligent Design at the time [something I do not take seriously]), and when Dr. V. writes about homosexuality I find him expressing views I do not share.
Nonetheless, my experience of him was that he sought to be fair and that he was an open-minded and dedicated teacher. While I cannot say for sure, I suspect I would still experience him in this way. When I was a student in one of his courses, I believed him to be an asset to Providence and, were I a student again, I would look for the opportunity to take other courses with him. He seemed to possess a number of qualities I believe good educators possess. One was his ability to engage respectfully with people whose opinions differed from his own. I leave critics of him to discern for themselves whether someone might say the same about their own quality of engagement.
Thank you for letting me share my experience and, by the way, I think people should keep calling him to account for the things he writes about GLBT concerns.
Sincerely,
KW.
Dr. Kugelmass,
As someone who has taken several class with Dr. van der Breggen, and as a graduate of Providence I must say that I am quite disappointed with your critique of Dr. V. I can appreciate your passion, and as someone whose schooling was not in the area of philosophy, nor as advanced as yours I cannot claim to be on the same level as you degree wise. I can however critique your blogpost and comments as one human to another. You have not contributed to this discussion in a positive or polite manner. You say you do not hate Dr. van der Breggen, but that you hold him in contempt. It doesn’t matter which way you cut it, that is a nasty thing to say about anyone who I am presuming you have not met.You have also said that you recommend abstinence for Dr. van der Breggen. I found this particular comment to be extraordinarily low-brow and hope you never say that to anyone again. Once again I am presuming you have not met Dr. van der Breggen, but to say such a thing about another person is quite frankly very rude. I can affirm that Dr. van der Breggen is one of the most wonderful people that I have the privilege to know, and I am extremely proud to have been his student. He has provided me with so much help during my time as his student and it is for this reason that your comments cut deep. Whether this comment has any impact on you is out of my hands, but I thought you should know that I in no way, shape or form appreciate that you would use such hurtful language to call someone else a hurtful person. I am sure that you weill be able to come up with a thought out rebuttal for this comment, but what I really would like is for you to pause and think about the language you are using. Dr. Kugelmass, I do not know you personally, nor do you know me, but I would like to think that neither of us would enjoy someone writing that we should be fired from our jobs. As I have previously stated I did not find you conducted yourself in a polite, positive, or to be honest professional manner. I was always taught to critique the argument, not the person presenting the argument, and I was taught that in Dr. van der Breggen’s classroom.
Evan,
I’m sure it was hurtful to Paula Deen to be punished for being racist, too. Saying someone is doing bad work may be necessary even if it is hurtful to them. I have put a lot of time and effort into explaining why Dr. van der Breggen’s work is bad. It’s simply not justifiable to argue that van der Breggen deserves to be protected from any consequences that might result from his decision to go about promoting harm.
As for my comment about abstinence — do you realize that telling other people how to conduct their own sex lives is EXACTLY what van der Breggen has been doing? If so, then you surely understand that my comment was designed to expose precisely how personal (for others) and overreaching his columns have become.
You claim to have been taught to focus on the arguments at hand, but you’ve done nothing of the sort. You’re merely defending van der Breggen on grounds irrelevant to this conversation, and then attacking my style.
Interesting collision of worldviews here, Joseph! But… (and this is a big etc)… are we invariably “not very tolerant of people who get found out as racists”? The culture itself is powerfully racist (ie, it draws race-based distinctions between people even when race is or should be irrelevant; when a “black” leading man and a “white” leading woman in a blockbuster go to second base on camera, it makes the news; Japanese leading men are “box office poison”, etc). Paula Deen got fired as a corporate precaution, not because she crossed a clear moral line; Harry Belafonte and Petula Clarke risked getting “fired”, not long ago, for being touchy-feely trans-racial anti-Deens on network TV… not because the sponsors gave a shit but because maybe too many customers would. It’s Standards and Practices vs Objective Morality. Standards and Practices tend to shift with the Zeitgeist. Will North American women be wearing some form of Burka in the year 2235? Impossible to tell. If they are, it will certainly *seem* to most of the populace to be an obvious evolution in objective morality.
While a pretty good case can be made for Thou Shalt Not Kill or Thou Shalt Not Rape (curiously, the latter makes a better Absolute than the former) as tenets of an Objective Morality, specific sexual practices (between consenting hominids) take us into the murky waters of the private, the idiosyncratic… the necessarily secret. Would I deserve specific civil-rights-protections as a man who gets off on plush toys (if I were to)? What we all deserve as sexual beings is an extra-judicial, sub-social space where we can’t and won’t be judged for doing whatever it is we like to do with our genitals (alone or with consenting hominids).
Various Het and Homo and Para sex activities will *all*, at some point, with much of the populace, feel “disgusting” or “weird” or “wrong”… one (wo)man’s fetish is another (wo)man’s Ipecac. What we need, essentially, is a “don’t ask don’t tell” for *every* gender… it’s none-of-your-foicken-business… it’s also neither “right” nor “wrong” and it’s ridiculous arguing that no sexual practice should generate queasiness or revulsion in others. They all do… even the mish poshish!
The mistake is to keep hammering the Queasy Many with a pseudo-moral imperative to accept or even embrace what is, for them, repugnant. What we need to establish is the fact that It’s None of Their Foicken Business, whatever their legitimate feelings are. How have sexual practices divided into a clumsy binary (“perv” and “vanilla”) for public Identification (considering the dozens, if not hundreds, of flavors) and political debate?
Is it really that easy to draw a line between Homo and Het? Why do we seem to think so? Probably because the Judeo-Christian texts underpinning the legal psyches of our various nations don’t really go into much nuanced detail when it comes to sex (unless, eg, tribal revenge-rapists get their own gender, or Noah’s thing for animals merits discussion)… the chief sexual preoccupations of the various bibles seem to be simply sodomy vs reproduction… which, in turn, warps/simplifies (or even infantilizes) our sense of the Right and Wrong of genital monkey business. Without Bibles/ Korans/ Torahs to fuck us up, the convenient collations we call Straight and LGBT probably wouldn’t exist. The idea that a married, father-of-three Cleveland telemarketer who gets off on scat play is more “normal” than a square-dancing neat-freak lesbian is too silly for words.
My suggestion for rational genders: PWF (people who fuck) and PWD. Fluid distinctions, of course.
This discussion is fraught with the absurdity of this false dichotomy of sexual practices, and distorted by the forced public discussion of what should (for *everyone*) by the strictly Private. In fact, how much of this clash is precipitated and amplified by the modern loss of the Private? Like pathogens/predators being forced into “society” by a loss of natural habitat.
In any case, people who are mildly-to-wildly Gay Negative are no more “bigoted” than “we” (from a certain suave demographic) are “bigoted” against *them*. Let them teach their boychildren to avoid cocksucking, just as we encourage ours to consider it as a lifestyle! And let us all keep that shit Private. Let’s stop shoving our gooey bits in each others’ faces. But the “normal” is always a matter that’s settled by the dominant culture. The dominant culture is determined by a numbers game. The numbers never stop shifting. Most of us would probably be horrified to be re-born two or three centuries earlier or later than we actually were.
To add to this debate real quick – as a former student of Van der Breggen – I can confirm that he is very homophobic. To the point where – in our class (many years ago when he was teaching to UWaterloo students as well) – there was a gay student who was a wonderful guy but he had to drop out of the class within the first few weeks as Dr. Van der Breggen was not at all willing to even LISTEN to another view point that contradicts his. I think this is pathetic especially for a person who claims to be a philosophy professor – where you will receive bad marks if you contradict his opinions.
While I respect that he is a devout Christian – he routinely uses statistics that fit his narrative. For example, he repeatedly claims the homosexual community is BAD for society and WRONG because they have higher health (STD) issues associated. Now while that is true in the GAY community to an extent – LESBIAN WOMEN have the LOWEST STD rates of ALL couples – INCLUDING heterosexual couples.
When I pointed out this fact about Lesbian women in his class – he was very dismissive and I had to drop out of his class because of this attitude of “my way or the highway”. It is comfy and easy teaching in a Christian college where everyone follows your exact same worldview – but I do believe he has no place teaching to students at public universities like UWaterloo (thankfully he no longer does so).
If you are a private citizen you can have any view points – but as a professor he needs to be mature enough to respect and accept differing viewpoints that contradict his Christian Worldview – but I never saw that when he was teaching.