The Blindside of Hypocrisy

Dear Reader, I’ve joined a group called Gospel Areopagus and one member of the group posted this below:-

“Sometimes I wonder why people practise double-standards so eagerly. On the one hand, they are so quick to bash Christianity. On the other hand, they are so accepting of other kinds of religions/philosophies without much criticism. Is that a sign that the closer they are to truth, the more they repel or rebel against?” (Dr Yap)

Below is my reply, which I think is relevant to our discussion of hypocrisy:-

Dr Yap, I agree with you: the closer one is to the Truth, the more one rebels from or is repelled by it. There is a fear that the Truth is more than just an inconvenient one.

From what I've read, I think you are describing a discriminatory skeptic, also an insecure and indecisive one. He is a person who bashes one religion (Christianity) or ideology, and then readily embraces another without applying the same skepticism to it.

I guess this kind of universal attitude comes in many labels or names, and all of which goes under the umbrella of hypocrisy. No one is immune from double mindedness, deceptive talks and despotic deeds.

Under this umbrella, i can think of self justification, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and totalitarian ego. They are all essentially different sides of the same coin, each supporting and reinforcing one another.

And most ironically, a hypocrite never comes to his/her senses because this quote hints to why: "There is no such thing as a conscious hypocrite."

Take for example, the reformed Ted Haggard. He was bashing homosexuals with the fervor of a street preacher, but was himself caught having sexual liaisons with a male prostitute.

Congressman Newt Gingrich struck a chord here with this surprising admission, "My, what a hypocrite I am. There I was, I was all riled up about Bill Clinton's sexual affair, while I was having an extramarital affair of my own right here in town."

I think we are the only creature on earth to be bestowed with this dishonorific title of being an unconscious hypocrite. And mind you, this is no light feat for our brain or mind.

To qualify as one, you must be holding two conflicting cognitions in tension, and then exercising extreme bias against one and showing blind favoritism to the other and be staunchly consistent about it! This is what they call "cognitive dissonance" and this ironic statement explains it well, "When I read that smoking can harm you, I finally resolve within myself to give up...reading."

Because of the benefits or convenience derived from being an unconscious hypocrite (by choice?), we over time suffer from what is labelled "mental ossification". That is, our view, reinforced by our deeds, freezes up and we become "stick in the mud" or stiff-neck people.

One British politician, Lord Molson, said, "I will look at any additional evidence to confirm the opinion to which I have already come to."

How do we come to be this way? Well, a simple answer is because of our upbringing, social environment and it's indoctrination.

It's best to illustrate indoctrination with this example: "If you are going to a discussion group, and on the way to the building where the discussion session is held, a flower pot falls on you. You will naturally be pissed off with the discussion group.

But, if you volunteer to allow the flower pot to fall on you, doing it for the group, maybe as a form of initiation, you will embrace the discussion group even more."

Food for thought? Remind you of any occultic ritual leading to unswerving allegiance?

A suburban housewife, Marian Keech, once foretold that there would be a universal flood on 21 Dec of some year and when it did not come to pass, she told her die-hard believers this, "The goodness of the group had saved the world from flood." I call that the flower pot mindset.

You see, there's no better storm of deception than the perfect storm of personality cult, herd instinct (lemmings effect) and self-justification.

(Sidebar: It's funny that I am watching Mitt Romney giving his president-nominee speech while typing this. And I can somehow understand the euphoria of the supporters when they repeatedly give him standing ovations whenever he places an emphatic "period" at the end of most of his sentences. Whilst I will not call this the flowerpot mindset, I fear that some of the euphoria expressed goes to making the "basket" mindset).

In a nutshell, we self-justify when confronted with a relevant truth that contradicts our stand. And one author warns about the effects of self justification as such: "It exacerbates prejudice and corruption, distorts memory, turns professional confidence into arrogance, creates and perpetuates injustice, warps love, and generates feud and rifts."

I think this comes closest to a "totalitarian ego" where one arbitrarily draws his own "moral" lines to ensure self-survival and self-aggrandizement - more like a "police state of the mind" where all ideas and opinion in contrary to the entrenched position are dismissed and suppressed with mindless disregard.

I guess for such people, they are constantly faced with the choices along this line: "To err is human but humans then have a choice between covering up or fessing up." Alas, while I know "to err is human; to admit it will be spectacular!" The choice for these people, I guess, is a foregone conclusion (not exempting myself of course).

Let me end on a somber note with the lyrics of this song, heartless:

"Lie to me just a little bit longer

Lie to me until I'm stronger...

I'm not ready yet

To accept

The truth

So lie to me." Cheers out!