Though we happen to find ourselves on the opposite side of the evolution debate, William Jennings Bryan and I find ourselves in complete agreement on this one point: "destiny is the subterfuge of the invertebrate." Consequently, I become suspicious whenever I hear a politician or political advocacy group invoking the idea of 'destiny' during the course of a debate. Destiny? Really? What pray tell does that mean? Does it mean that you've already won and have no need to fight on?
Many of the people in my generation -- at least the ones I've encountered -- seem to think so. I can't even begin to count how many times I've heard someone say "well, eventually the LGBT community will have equal rights" during the course of a conversation on the subject. People seem content to rest on what they perceive to be the inevitability of equal rights regardless of sexual orientation rather than ready to recognize that those rights won't come into being unless they stand up and do something to bring them into existence.
Many of these individuals do not want to look like bigots, but do not want to see equal rights. So, instead, they say that such rights are inevitable. Too afraid to state their beliefs either way they unflinchingly embrace the status quo -- whatever it may be. Rather then standing up and stating their beliefs so that they can be engaged in debate, they stay silent while maintaining in their mind a position contrary to the one they hold out to the world. Destiny is now, and will likely always be the subterfuge of the invertebrate.
The invertebrate is by definition a coward. They can be nothing else. The invertebrate is someone who -- rather then desiring to be convinced "truly" (as Glaucon requests of Socrates in the Republic) -- prefers to be convinced by the world the way it is. Rather than seeking to improve the world, the invertebrate is one whose stated policy is one of indifference, apathy, and contempt for the possibility of progress.
In hiding behind the mantra of 'destiny' these cowards claim moderation and information when in fact they are neither moderate nor informed. And there is nothing more damaging to the integrity of a debate then a false moderate. False moderates will always on some level resent the change. They will claim that they were not consulted during the time it was up for discussion. They will claim a number of things, but in the end they will have only their own cowardice to blame.
