Intelligent Design

Gobsmacking Stupidity at U of M

Spread the love

 

I don’t really want to talk about the “War on Christmas.”  It is boring and obvious and has been done to death.  It’s like liberal bias in the MSM.  Yeah, and the sun rose today.  Got anything everyone doesn’t already know?

And, believe it or not, this is not a post about the War on Christmas.  This is a post about how post-moderns are apparently unable to think.  Look at the memo officials at the University of Minnesota distributed to their staff.  Consider the title:  “Religious Diversity and Holidays.”  One would expect a memo with that title would be about, well, diversity.  Instead, the purpose of the memo is to quash even the faintest whiff of tolerance for Jews and Christians celebrating holidays and enforce a rigid secularism that brooks no dissent.

Concerning the word “diversity,” I will leave you with Indigo Montoya:  “You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.”

48 Replies to “Gobsmacking Stupidity at U of M

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    Individuals may display expressions of their religious faith in their own personal space if it does not have a meaningful public function…

    LMAO

  2. 2

    Yeah, things are really that bad.

  3. 3
    News says:

    Barry, it’s not just a war on religion. It is a war on thinking. Religious people are scary because they might have actual thoughts, not the pap that has merely been fed to them. But that means they have thoughts, right?

    Universities are currently training, at public expense, Orwell’s Outer Party: The toxic snowflakes are groomed to become bureaucrats in a total state that they will work to bring about. They will not think, only react and enforce. They cannot otherwise survive.

    See: Free Speech Activist Lindsay Shepherd Does Not Teach At The Same WLU That I Attended 1967-1971.

  4. 4
    Axel says:

    ‘Concerning the word “diversity,” I will leave you with Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”’

    To me, there is something quite magical about that little paragraph, so understated as to seem quite elliptical, and perfectly prefaced in the same tersely off-hand, patrician style by your prefatory words, News.

  5. 5
    mike1962 says:

    ‘Concerning the word “diversity,” I will leave you with Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”’

    +1000

    “Diversity” at so many so-called universities means conformity to cultural Marxism.

  6. 6
    JSmith says:

    I was just driving around the neighbourhood, enjoying the Christmas lights and displays. I must say, as a person of the Jewish persuasion, I perceive this “war on Christmas” as a non event. But I agree, this memo is stupid.

  7. 7

    Bows and wrapped gifts? Bells? Red and green ribbons? On further reflection I think this might be a joke. Has to be.

  8. 8
    J-Mac says:

    While I’m no expert, but I don’t think this is a war on religion… after all Donald Trunk wants to bring the Christian values to their right place.. or something like that… What it could be and probably is, is the war on human rights… ” …because everyone seems to have rights these day but no one wants to take responsibility…”

    It has to end some day…

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    It seems to me that memo comes perilously close running afoul of the First Amendment.

  10. 10
    kairosfocus says:

    Mr Smith, 2 + 2 = ___ ?

  11. 11
    asauber says:

    Jsmith,

    Some people (not me) will tell you all the lights are part of the War Against Christmas, but that’s a complicated subject. Probably worth an OP of it’s own, but it’s not ID related.

    Andrew

  12. 12
    JSmith says:

    KF

    Mr Smith, 2 + 2 = ___ ?

    I’m not sure I understand what you are implying here. I don’t see any coordinated effort to suppress a person’s ability to celebrate and enjoy Christmas. Just as I see no coordinated attack on Hanukkah, Diwali or Ramadan. Companies and institutions will develop policies that they think will maximize business. I think that many of these are misguided, and if you oppose them, let your feet do the talking. Walk to the store that has a nativity scene in the window.

    But, frankly, “Happy Holidays” is simply a more accurate term. Christmas is one day. Hanukkah is eight. New years is one. Thanksgiving is one. But the time from mid November to New Years is best described as the “Holiday Season”.

    But let me repeat. I think that this memo is stupid and insulting.

  13. 13
    ET says:

    OK so we need to get people in MN to visit the University and plaster it with Christmas and Hanukah decorations. It is obvious they are inviting such an event…

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    JS, do you not catch the 1984 allusion? KF

    PS: Why is the celebratory season a season in our civilisation, once generally known as Christendom [and tracing to the Christian synthesis of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome led in the first instance by Paul of Tarsus], why is it called Christmas, why is Santa Claus a rendition of St Nicholas of Smyrna?

  15. 15
    JSmith says:

    Sorry KF, but I can’t get all worked up over the shift from Merry Christmas to Happy Holidays. I wish my Christian friends Merry Christmas, and my Jewish friends Happy Hanukkah. And if I am not sure, I say Happy Holidays. Just seems polite to me.

  16. 16
    mikeenders says:

    @JSmith I don’t see any reason why a person of a Jewish persuasion would be able to see a war on Christmas. Jews in gentile countries should be quite use to people not seeing the meaning or value of Hannukah.

    I am fine with “happy Holidays” (although you are incorrect Christmas has not been merely a day for centuries)

    I think many Christians would be happy if non Christians just left the day to them but the use of Christmas, everywhere is going nowhere in “Christmas” presents, “Christmas” lights , “Christmas” tree.

    Trying to say that you can have CHRIST mas but you cannot mention Christ is onerous. Its not even a merely religious thing. If down the line you had martin luther day but you should not mention martin luther it would be the same issue.

  17. 17
    kairosfocus says:

    JS, your insinuation of empty emotive reaction glides over a long list of abuses and usurpations against Christians, with Christmas as a flashpoint. Frankly, we have very good reason and cause to see the attempt to turn “Christmas” into a dirty unmentionable word and even other similar things (cf OP) is a telltale about the sick, toxic state of much of our civilisation. And institutions that act in this way fully deserve to be highlighted for what they are doing or enabling. KF

  18. 18
    JSmith says:

    ME

    I don’t see any reason why a person of a Jewish persuasion would be able to see a war on Christmas. Jews in gentile countries should be quite use to people not seeing the meaning or value of Hannukah.

    Just because people don’t see the meaning or value of Hanukkah does not mean that there is a war on Hanukkah. Just as people not seeing the meaning or value of Christmas isn’t the same as a war on Christmas. At best, we are just talking about an indifference. Speaking as the anscestor of a historically persecuted people, often at the hands of Christians, I will take indifference any day.

    I think many Christians would be happy if non Christians just left the day to them but the use of Christmas, everywhere is going nowhere in “Christmas” presents, “Christmas” lights , “Christmas” tree.

    You should check into the origin of the Christmas tree and, by extension, Christmas lights.

    Trying to say that you can have CHRIST mas but you cannot mention Christ is onerous. Its not even a merely religious thing. If down the line you had martin luther day but you should not mention martin luther it would be the same issue.

    Are you sure that you want to mention Martin Luther to a person of Jewish heritage? Do you realize that he was a raving anti-Semite and was influential on leading to a society and a mentality that resulted in the holocaust?

    All I am saying is that you shouldn’t equate a societal indifference to traditional Christmas trappings as a war on Christmas or on Christians.

  19. 19
    JSmith says:

    KF@18. If it makes you feel better, Merry Christmas.

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    JS,

    I thank you for acknowledging the greeting, but must note the saddening tin-ear, emotive diss, again. Let me therefore pause a moment as a Christian man who has taken seriously the principle of the Olive tree and wild branch, one who comes from the Caribbean and from the experience where the gospel was a part of a liberating history that is literally written into my name; a history that includes the holocaust of a slave trade that had a death toll that may well be worse than Hitler’s and is at least comparable.

    I know, in large part due to a painful history, many Jews have been deeply inculcated with suspicion to Christianity and Christians. The litanies of the sins of Christendom are all too easily memorised and trotted out, and seem to justify that suspicion.

    The truth is, a fairer global balance would give a significantly different picture: the world’s history is in material part the long and unfinished record of our criminal inhumanity, especially the acts of those with power. That dreary but telling truth cuts across lines of latitude and longitude, time and race, colour or creed: the line between good and evil passes not between classes, races, nations etc but right through the individual human heart. Including yours and mine; leading to the challenge and struggle of virtue.

    So, in that light, the litanies of the sins of Christendom can and should be balanced with the less often heard record of those who have been the great moral teachers and reformers, as well as the record of those who brought to us the blessings of genuine enlightenment and progress.

    A good slice of that is also the heritage of Christendom.

    And of the great teachers and reformers, it is patent that Jesus of Nazareth, in Galilee and Bethlehem in Judaea, is the foremost. He taught us to love our neighbour as we love ourselves, echoing Moshe; amplifying with for example the parable of the Good Samaritan, the half-breed heretic and hereditary enemy who reached out to a half-dead victim of a mugging who had been passed by by those who should have known better.

    Neighbourliness ought to go beyond theological, racial, political and similar divides, recognising that we are all made in God’s image, are all loved by God to the point of redemptive sacrifice and sending a peaceful message of reconciliation at great and ongoing cost [the list of martyrs and confessors is long and unfinished . . . ], are all of worth beyond the cumulative resources of a planet.

    Let me put it this way, in the words of the greatest all time Missionary, Saul of Tarsus, a C1 diaspora Jew with Roman Citizenship:

    Rom 13:8 [b]Owe nothing to anyone except to [c]love and seek the best for one another; for he who [unselfishly] loves his neighbor has fulfilled the [essence of the] law [relating to one’s fellowman].

    9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,” and any other commandment are summed up in this statement: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

    10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor [it never hurts anyone]. Therefore [unselfish] love is the fulfillment of the Law. [AMP]

    That, is close to the core of the Christmas message, and it is well worth taking a pause to listen again to the Angel voices spreading over the plains and echoing from the distant hills: peace, goodwill to men from Heaven’s all gracious King.

    KF

  21. 21
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: Maybe, as part of the needed rebalancing, we need to hear again the ME Scholar, Bernard Lewis (and yes, I know he is Jewish) in his 1990 essay in The Atlantic, The Roots of Muslim Rage:

    . . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty — not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . .

    In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.

  22. 22
    kairosfocus says:

    PPS: Let me now pick back up on the corrective to the current form of oppressive behaviour, political correctness run amok:

    Mr Smith, [as in, Winston] 2 + 2 = ___ ?

    George Orwell’s point of course was that this is a self evident but sometimes politically inconvenient truth. So, what does the all-domineering party demand? That we answer on this day one way then on another day, in a different way. All, depending on what the party bosses deem the urgency of the hour as they crack a few eggs to create a paradise.

    And all the time, the cynical repudiation of and disregard for plumbline truth creates a ruinous march of folly, one that can only get moving by seizing power and imposing itself without regard to the individual person.

    The utopian anti-gospel, in short.

    Which dooms itself to go over the cliff, as it becomes ever more disconnected from reality and the right, imposing itself through force, deception and intimidation.

    Demonic, suicidal insanity.

    But that poor broken man will end up: I love Big brother.

    KF

  23. 23
    JSmith says:

    KF

    I thank you for acknowledging the greeting, but must note the saddening tin-ear, emotive diss, again.

    I am afraid that you are reading something into my comments that is not there. I have just said that I can’t get worked up over the shift from “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays”. And that I see this more as indifference rather than a coordinated attack on Christianity. You can certainly disagree with me but please don’t make my opinion out to be more than what it is.

    When someone wishes me Happy Holidays, I am glad to receive the greeting. When they wish me Happy Hanukkah, I am pleased that they made the effort to acknowledge my heritage. When they wish me a Merry Christmas, I welcome the sentiment and return the favour. The important thing is that people are wishing me well, not the actual words used.

    I know, in large part due to a painful history, many Jews have been deeply inculcated with suspicion to Christianity and Christians. The litanies of the sins of Christendom are all too easily memorised and trotted out, and seem to justify that suspicion.

    Thank you for acknowledging that the suspicions that some have towards Christianity (in general, not individually) are justified. Personally, I only consider myself Jewish due to my heritage, not because I am practicing.

    So, in that light, the litanies of the sins of Christendom can and should be balanced with the less often heard record of those who have been the great moral teachers and reformers, as well as the record of those who brought to us the blessings of genuine enlightenment and progress.

    My problem is not with Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other religion, it is with the people who use their religion to justify prejudice and other evil acts. My personal opinion is that a person’s religion should be more inward driven than outward. It should be a force that a person draws from in a guide as to how to live their life, not a bludgeon to be used on others to force them to change the way they lead their lives.

  24. 24
  25. 25
    mikeenders says:

    JS you missed the point entirely

    “Just because people don’t see the meaning or value of Hanukkah does not mean that there is a war on Hanukkah.”

    In gentile communities no one is taking away the meaning of Hanukkah and substituting it. The points is it has no meaning to them. With Christmas you are asking Christians to subtract a meaning from the word Christmas – a meaning it did hold and has held for centuries.

    Thats why your perspective of not seeing a war has no enlightenment to bring to the issue. Very few celebrate Hannukkah, it has no meaning to most and no one is asking you to subtract any meaning it has. You are equating two things as equal when they are not

    “You should check into the origin of the Christmas tree and, by extension, Christmas lights. ”

    I don’t need to because it is irrelevant because it is not the tree or the lights that are at question but the reason why people continue to reference CHRIST mas with it”

    “Are you sure that you want to mention Martin Luther to a person of Jewish heritage? ”

    VERY SURE and without any apology whatsoever. I took the name Martin Luther as part of the name the same way people take part of the name Christ out of his. The full name of the person would be Martin Luther KING and had I even meant Martin Luther as the full name of the person referenced it would not matter anyway. It still would be illogical to call a holiday in any name and then claim a reference to the person it refers to must be barred from mention

  26. 26
    mikeenders says:

    “It should be a force that a person draws from in a guide as to how to live their life, not a bludgeon to be used on others to force them to change the way they lead their lives.”

    this is an old and tired tactic used against people of faith and also in fact against ID proponents without faith – the Idea that people outside of a faith or viewpoint get to define what the faith should and should not be about and that the opposition of a proposition gets to define the proposition.

    In the case of religion-

    Holding or expressing your values and beliefs (which should be they define – inward based) is “bludgeoning”

    and with ID
    if they say its creationism – well then its creationism and if vocally upheld its evangelism and forcing religious ideas down our throat

    Very self servingly however notice –
    they never seem to live up to their own standards of inward rather than outwards.

    They are ALWAYS outward with their belief that we should be “inward”

  27. 27
    JSmith says:

    ME

    With Christmas you are asking Christians to subtract a meaning from the word Christmas – a meaning it did hold and has held for centuries.

    Where did I ask Christians to do this?

    Very few celebrate Hannukkah, it has no meaning to most and no one is asking you to subtract any meaning it has.

    Again, where have I asked you to subtract any meaning Christmas has for you?

    VERY SURE and without any apology whatsoever. I took the name Martin Luther as part of the name the same way people take part of the name Christ out of his. The full name of the person would be Martin Luther KING…

    My bad. But, in my defence, I have never heard MLK’s name truncated in that way. Especially considering that his namesake (I assume that ML was his namesake) was such a raving anti-Semite.

    this is an old and tired tactic used against people of faith and also in fact against ID proponents without faith – the Idea that people outside of a faith or viewpoint get to define what the faith should and should not be about and that the opposition of a proposition gets to define the proposition.

    Do you seriously not see the irony in this statement?

  28. 28
    kairosfocus says:

    JS, ME is quite correct to point out the import of what you have said, as reflecting intent to silence and to empty what has been long since established (in a context for our civilisation and world that I drew attention to). I don’t think you want to ponder the classic examples of turnabout accusation. KF

  29. 29
    mikeenders says:

    He also doesn’t seem to understand the concept of a generic you

  30. 30
    JSmith says:

    KF

    JS, ME is quite correct to point out the import of what you have said, as reflecting intent to silence and to empty what has been long since established (in a context for our civilisation and world that I drew attention to).

    Sorry KF, but tou are speaking total BS. Please point me to where I have tried to silence Christmas expressions and celebration. I am getting the impression that you are the type of person who is looking for a fight at every perceived offence, even when one has not been given. Sadly, that speaks more about your intent than mine.

    Again, I wish you a Merry Christmas.

  31. 31
    mikeenders says:

    “Do you seriously not see the irony in this statement?”

    No JS. I don’t . You are free to show me the irony…Fair warning….just don’t wax ironic when you show me the alleged irony.

  32. 32
    JSmith says:

    ME

    No JS. I don’t . You are free to show me the irony…

    I will leave that for you to figure out. I’m sure it will come to you.

  33. 33
    kairosfocus says:

    JS, enabling behaviour. If you doubt, just think about the import of “suspicions toward” as you used above in the context of the balancing remarks I gave. FYI, the Christian faith is not a nefarious totalitarian or genocidal plot or the like and the ingrained reaction of suspicion speaks to a polarising prejudice that would simply needlessly escalate hostility through the notorious chip on the shoulder phenomenon. Ponder if I had played the card of “suspicions toward” and used that to slander millions you would care about. Perhaps, it is time to ponder the beatitude, blessed are the peacemakers. KF

  34. 34
    mikeenders says:

    Trolling are we today JS? You make the weak accusation that something is ironic and then can’t answer a legitimate question as to why.

    What I know from past experience is that people who talk like you do tend at this point to prove my previous point

    Anyone expressing their beliefs is “bludgeoning” me.

    Weak stuff.

  35. 35
    JSmith says:

    KF

    JS, enabling behaviour. KF

    What exactly am I enabling? Please provide concrete examples, if you can.

    All I have said is that I am indifferent to the cultural shift from “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays”. I am Jewish. What would you expect? But I have also stated that I have no problems with people wishing me a Merry Christmas, and that I always wish my Christian friends a Merry Christmas. If that is what you consider “enabling” then the problem is yours, not mine.

  36. 36
    mikeenders says:

    “ponder the beatitude, blessed are the peacemakers”

    KF towards that end. Maybe we should just accept and ratify that any celebrations formerly associated with historical figures should not have their names, beliefs,writings, speeches or lives mentioned across the board. You know….for peace sake

    We could start with this balanced approach on February 12, 2018 – Darwin’s Day.

    I’m sure no one would take any offense or think it any act of aggression toward that Individual or his beliefs.

    and certainly Not JS bless his heart. He would still be unable to see how that could cause any fuss and why would it?

  37. 37
    kairosfocus says:

    JS, I would generally leave the matter to stand as self evident on what I warned against. But, I care that this matter be brought to the bar of peace. So, I ask you, simply look above, as I amplified. What do you think this communicates to any reasonable person who recognises that the Christian Faith, for all the flaws that are inevitable in any large scale cultural movement, has literally done and continues to do a world of good: “Thank you for acknowledging that the suspicions that some have towards Christianity (in general, not individually) are justified.”? I am sorry but that sort of prejudice and projection are well beyond the pale of civil discourse or simple good broughtupcy . . . to use a Caribbean word. It reeks of a mentality that has so steeped itself in one-sided litanies of the real and imagined sins of Christendom, that it fails to realise the utter imbalance and bigotry thereby revealed — something I already noted on above but which you obviously did little more than cherry-pick to feed a hermeneutic of selective hyper-suspicion. And, leaving open a pet door for a few exceptions simply makes the matter worse — oh, yes, there are a few decent people who mysteriously, inexplicably happen to be Christian. I suggest, again, that you ponder the far wiser words of Bernard Lewis as I brought to the table. KF

  38. 38
    JSmith says:

    KF

    It reeks of a mentality that has so steeped itself in one-sided litanies of the real and imagined sins of Christendom, that it fails to realise the utter imbalance and bigotry thereby revealed — something I already noted on above but which you obviously did little more than cherry-pick to feed a hermeneutic of selective hyper-suspicion. And, leaving open a pet door for a few exceptions simply makes the matter worse — oh, yes, there are a few decent people who mysteriously, inexplicably happen to be Christian.

    Seriously. What is wrong with you? The fact that you can interpret the intent of anything I have said into that load of crap you have spewed above is very disturbing. Obviously there is no point trying to have a serious discussion with you. I will limit my future discourse to those who can do so with an appropriate level of sanity.

  39. 39
    mikeenders says:

    ” I will limit my future discourse to those who can do so with an appropriate level of sanity.”

    Would such sanity include answering simple questions as to in what way a post was ironic or do you consider explaining statements you make as insane?

  40. 40
    Molson Bleu says:

    JSmith, I think you are being too hard on KairosFocus. He/she has some very valid points. I think that you owe an apology.

  41. 41
    mikeenders says:

    “to use a Caribbean word. It reeks of a mentality ”

    kf,

    Ha….not to get off topic…but spent a good chunk of my life there. You from the a particularly Island and yes reek is very natural to me.

    Js,
    “Seriously. What is wrong with you? The fact that you can interpret the intent of anything I have said into that load of crap you have spewed above is very disturbing.”

    It did seem a bit snide to me as well JS. I don’t know how it could be read anyway else. This is not ganging up on you but an honest reading. People claiming to be Christian have persecuted jews but it is not something that can be wrapped around Christianity or Christians in general. Our leaders is a Jew as was his twelve apostles and all of the first church.

  42. 42
    JSmith says:

    ME

    This is not ganging up on you but an honest reading. People claiming to be Christian have persecuted jews but it is not something that can be wrapped around Christianity or Christians in general.

    And where have I made such a claim? I haven’t. That KF could take my words and twist them into some sort of offense to him and Christianity is beyond reason. But I have never claimed to understand the psyche of those who see the glass as always being half empty. It just seems like a sad way to approach the short life that we are given. I choose not to do so.

    Merry Christmas.

  43. 43
    kairosfocus says:

    JS, you have now crossed a clear line. Kindly, note, again, your words from 24 above: “Thank you for acknowledging that the suspicions that some have towards Christianity (in general, not individually) are justified. . . . just scroll up. Where, I must highlight that in rhetorically jumping on my corrective just now you neatly avoided acknowledging your words that led to my feeling it necessary to say no, that specific thing goes too far. That’s the he hit back first, half-truth trollish game, and it confirms the problem. Perhaps it has not dawned on you that painting the Christian faith, history and civilisation as a whole — in general — as you did in 24 above is beyond the pale of civil discourse, but it is. Yes, overnight I spoke to you in stronger terms than I am wont, in hope that that might open eyes. Obviously, it has not. I already pointed the way to a more balanced view (and have acknowledged that there are indeed the sins of Christendom, noting that a fair view will need to also reckon with more than that), so I will not repeat myself. G’day. KF

  44. 44
    kairosfocus says:

    ME, kindly see the just above to see why I thought it necessary to say, nope, that goes way too far. Notice, JS has left out his words in 24 that I cited as being beyond the pale, then resorted to the he hit back first fallacy. Where, too, I already pointed the way to a better balance at 21 and 22 (so he already cherry-picked an item out of context to set up an across the board smear). Of course, 21 and 22 should be also seen in context. We are unfortunately seeing a pattern of snipping out of context to rhetorically snipe. KF

  45. 45
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: It’s time to reconsider what has been going on when we see people distilling social permission like this: http://www.breitbart.com/calif.....christmas/ KF

    PS: It is likely, sadly, necessary to point out my longstanding on- the- record views here.

  46. 46
    JSmith says:

    KF

    JS, you have now crossed a clear line. Kindly, note, again, your words from 24 above: “Thank you for acknowledging that the suspicions that some have towards Christianity (in general, not individually) are justified.“ . . . just scroll up.

    Then you misinterpreted what I said. Let me try again, hopefully in a clearer fashion.

    Given the long history of people using their sacred texts (regardless of the religion) to justify evil actions is ample justification for people being suspicious of Christians/Jews/Muslims/whatever when they use their respective scriptures to justify other actions. This is not being anti-religion. It is just being cautious base on learning from history.

    Maybe a recent example will make this clearer.

    Over the last hundred years we have seen religion used to justify:
    1) the execution of homosexuals.
    2) the jailing of homosexuals.
    3) the forced castration (physical and chemical) of homosexuals.
    4) the denying of employment, or firing, of homosexuals.
    5) the denial of “spousal” benefits to homosexuals couples.
    6) the denial of civil unions between homosexuals.
    7) the denial of marriage to homosexuals.

    I think we would agree that a few of these are simply the result of people misusing their religion as a justification to propose their own predudices. Yet they have all happened with little to no opposition from the respective religious authorities. Given this, would it not be wise and justified to be suspicious about the real motives behind the religious opposition to some of the others? In short, force us to make an attempt to separate the evils that reside within each of us from God’s true intentions, rather than twist what we think God’s true intentions are to justify our questionable actions.

  47. 47
    Molson Bleu says:

    JSmith, I apologize for my comment at 41. Your comment at 47 clarifies your point quite nicely. And I must say that I can’t disagree with it.

  48. 48
    mugwump3 says:

    JSmith:

    While I’d wholeheartedly agree with your objections to the history of MISUSING religion to justify actions, I think I need to point out a few things here.

    Firstly, executions, imprisonments, and sterilization in the name of some greater weltanschauung is not an exclusive privilege of “religion.” Secular regimes have also persecuted homosexuals, to an even more systematic level. See Nazism, Communism, and even ancient Eastern and Buddhist atheist cultures. To be sure, I place all faith-based belief systems into the category of religion, Christianity the one sole exception, at least in terms of blind leaps and irrationality.

    Darwinian eugenic programs are still alive and well. So, if you’d concede that mass murders and political imprisonment comes at the hands of more man-made systems than just the ever-pejorative “religious” God-based systems, then we’d agree.

    Secondly, a recent story in the past few months involved a group of supposed Christians getting kicked out of a coffee shop by a homosexual owner, an owner who openly defended the rights of the Christian bakers to refuse to make a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding. This owner, as per your point 4, believed, as the owner of a private business, had a right to discriminate. Was he justified? Morally? Legally? Constitutionally?

    Thirdly, the opposite of points 1-3 is not acceptance, affirmation, and celebration as presupposed in points 4-7. The excluded middle here is one of love and tolerance, the desire to inform and reform, to diagnose and treat. Further, if Darwinism is dogma, aren’t homosexuals incapable of reproduction and, thus, unfit? That’s precisely the eugenic justification.

    Fourthly, the Scriptures are rife with warnings of tare among the wheat, wolves among the sheep, false teachers seeking to distort and control a Gospel that speaks of no earthly kingdom control nor of a theocratic system, no popes, no bishops, no God-endorsed administrators. The Word is the sole authority. So, again, I agree with your assessment of a misuse of, at the least, the Christian theology. Whether Islam is misused, or whether Darwinist materialism leads logically to eugenic holocausts…well…

    One thing I do know is that a major political party not only supports eugenic holocaust through abortion, sterilization through gender reassignment and homosexuality, but they also supported the dehumanization of Africans in the name of Darwinian fitness and of, as per Darwin’s subscript to the Origin of the Species, preserving the superior races. A certain candidate even celebrates her Margaret Sanger award!!!!

    The OP demonstrates that yet another publicly subsidized university has been allowed to promote the Postmodern “non-binary” binary dogma and violate the 1st Amendment. The Progressive religious creed can be shorthanded as such:

    “All religions that believe in a good and evil, a right and wrong, a truth and falsehood are evil, bad, and false, and we, who hold to this creed, are good, right, and true.”

    Now, I’m sure you can see THAT irony, that obvious self-refutation, that proud hypocrisy, right? In fact the approval of, rather than the denial of, in your points 5-7 is the more egregious overstep of religious dogma. In both the OP topic and your example, the religion doing the persecution is Postmodernist, hedonist, and relativist….completely lacking in any biological, rational, or legislative justification. Judicial usurpation of Constitutional law, a “misusing of a SECULAR religion as justification to COMPEL their own prejudices, with little to no opposition from the respective SECULAR religious authorities: pseudo-intelligentsia, Hollywood, the media, and the Left.”

    I agree, it would be wise and justified to be suspicious of the real motives behind the New Religion…well, good ole humanist Gnosticism dressed up as new and progressive. And, indifference in the face of religious persecution is no more a virtue than indifference to the MISUSING of religion to persecute people is a vice.

Leave a Reply