Political Incorrectness


Oh the irony!  The chief diversity officer at Gallaudet, a university in Washington D.C. that serves the deaf, was put on a leave of absence for signing a petition to get an initiative on the ballot to decide the legality of same-sex marriage.

Apparently the school is not interested in diversity.  Everyone must subscribe the politically correct viewpoint.  But remember, the government’s sanction of same-sex relationships will have no affect on those who disagree.  And I’ve got beachfront property in Nevada to sell you too.

When President George W. Bush cited his religion as influencing his political decisions the Left cried foul.  The Left is eerily silent, however, to President Obama’s admission of the same.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

The problem is not with the idea that one is influenced by their religious convictions, but rather with the idea that religious convictions should not influence a president’s policies and decisions.  Given the fact that moral values are highly influenced by religion, and that policies usually involve a moral dimension, it is to be expected that a president’s policies would be influenced by his religious convictions.

A 7 year old boy who is living life as a girl is being allowed to join the Girl Scouts of Colorado (GSOC).  Initially he was rejected, but when the media began inquiring over the decision, the organization reversed course.  According to GSOC they are “an inclusive organization.”  Come on!  It’s called “Girl” scouts because it is meant for girls, not boys.  Have we become so insane with political correctness that we’ll treat people according to what they feel to be, rather than what they are?  What’s next, allowing humans to compete in dog shows because they feel like a canine?

David Evans once believed in global warming, and even advised the Department of Climate Change in Australia.  He has since changed his mind because the empirical evidence has not confirmed the original predictions.  In fact, it has disproven them.  He admits that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet, but it is clear that humans are not solely responsible for the warming, and can do little to change it.  He ends the article by saying:

Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler! … Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

I would highly recommend you read the article.  I’ve read a number of articles on this topic over the last few years, but few have broken the issue down as clearly and concisely as Mr. Evans has.

Here’s another example of liberal “tolerance” at its best.  Apple has been “forced” to remove an app created by Exodus International that is intended to help people with a homosexual orientation overcome that orientation.  How did this happen?  A small pro-homosexual crowd expressed their displeasure with having an application available with such content.  And presto…Apple buckles and removes it.

According to Apple they removed it “because it violates the developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people.”  Do they really consider 146,000 people a large group?  What would they do if 1,000,000 people signed a petition saying they find the removal of the app offensive?  Would they put it back up again?  I doubt it.  (more…)

National Public Radio has terminated the contract of longtime news analyst Juan Williams because he said the following on Bill O’Reilly’s show: “Look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

I can’t believe he would get fired over this comment.  He was simply expressing what virtually every American thinks and feels in such a circumstance.  We know not every Muslim or Arab is an extremist or terrorist, but we can’t forget that it was Muslims, not Buddhists or Hindus, that attacked us on 9/11 and want to carry out more attacks.

It’s a sad day in American when you can’t express what should be obvious to all without losing your job.  I can guarantee you that if he had said something similar about Christians his contract would not have been in danger.  Political correctness has caused us to lose our minds.

In a situation almost identical to the one I described yesterday, Julea Ward was booted from the counseling program at Eastern Michigan University because she refused to counsel gay persons on matters of homosexuality due to her religious convictions.  The case went to court, and a federal judge ruled on behalf of the university!!  This is quite scary.  We are living in a country in which the academy is actively discriminating against those with certain moral convictions and it is being approved by the justice system.  Talk about calling evil “good” and good “evil.”

UPDATE 1/27/12: The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed this decision, and sent the case back to the lower court. They wrote: “A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems based on a phantom policy as the price for obtaining a degree…. Why treat Ward differently? That her conflict arose from religious convictions is not a good answer; that her conflict arose from religious convictions for which the department at times showed little tolerance is a worse answer. … Ward was willing to work with all clients and to respect the school’s affirmation directives in doing so. That is why she asked to refer gay and lesbian clients (and some heterosexual clients) if the conversation required her to affirm their sexual practices. What more could the rule require? Surely, for example, the ban on discrimination against clients based on their religion (1) does not require a Muslim counselor to tell a Jewish client that his religious beliefs are correct if the conversation takes a turn in that direction and (2) does not require an atheist counselor to tell a person of faith that there is a God if the client is wrestling with faith-based issues. Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination.”  Good for them!

Jennifer Keeton is a graduate student at Augusta State University in Georgia.  She is enrolled in the school counseling program, but has been told she will be expelled from the program unless she changes her beliefs about homosexuality and gender identity.  Apparently, a remediation program was suggested to help her alter her beliefs.  Welcome to the new America.  While I support the right of homosexuals to be treated fairly in this country, the gay rights agenda will result in Christians being treated unfairly because of our disagreement with homosexuality.  This is just the start.

Update 7/2/12: Keeton lost a court appeal.

A clinic in Spain is offering homosexuals treatment to “cure” their same-sex attraction.  The Spanish government is now investigating the clinic.  If they are found guilty of offering treatments to cure homosexuals, they could be fined.  Why?  Apparently because it goes against the country’s pro-homosexual agenda.  As Spanish gay rights leader, Antonio Guirado commented, “You cannot treat something that is not an illness.”

So much can be said here.  

(more…)

Some scary news on the cultural front.  A Baptist preacher was arrested in the UK for telling a woman homosexuality was a sin.  He is charged with abusive and insulting language.  It won’t be long before this will be commonplace, me thinks.  Scary!

I have little confidence in the United Nations.  In my opinion, it is a spineless political organization.  Giving Iran a seat on the human rights body, “Commission on the Status of Women,” however, lets me know that the UN is corrupted beyond repair.  If Hitler was alive today, surely he would be given a chair on a committee for Jewish rights.  Unbelievable.

Franklin Graham was invited to the Pentagon to offer a prayer on May 6 for the National Day of Prayer.  The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (of all entities) is objecting to Graham’s invitation because he has called Islam an “evil” religion, and they say his presence will offend Muslim soldiers.  So now the Army is considering rescinding the invitation.  Maybe I failed to get the memo, but the last I checked part of religious freedom is the freedom to think one’s own religion is true, and all others are false (and perhaps even evil).  

This is what religious pluralism gets you: censorship of anyone who thinks their faith is actually true, and is willing to spell out the logical corollary to this belief, namely, that other religions must be false.  That religious view will not be tolerated by the preachers of religious tolerance.

I know you’ve probably heard of these kinds of cases before, but I just read about a valedictorian who was denied the ability to address her fellow students in 2008 because her pre-written speech mentioned “God” and “Christ.”  And now, a Montana judge has ruled in favor of the school’s actions.  I wasn’t aware that the First Amendment had been repealed!  What has this country come to when it’s no longer tolerable to even mention the name of God in schools?  Ridiculous!

Unless you have been vacationing in a cave somewhere in the nether regions of the Congo, you’ve probably heard of the brouhaha that has developed over Brit Hume’s advice to Tiger Woods:

Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question, and it’s a tragic situation with him. I think he’s lost his family. It’s not clear to me that — whether he’ll be able to have a relationship with his children.

But the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal — the extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.

So my message to Tiger would be, “Tiger, turn your faith — turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

Many liberals are furious that Brit Hume would make such comments, for a variety of reasons.  The primary reason appears to be that he is claiming Christianity is true over and against Buddhism.  That is a politically correct no-no, labeled “intolerant.”  We’re supposed to act like our religious beliefs are no more true than the next religion’s.  How tolerant is that requirement?!  The fact of the matter is that religious claims are usually exclusive and contradict competing religious claims.  Given this fact, if one really believes the tenets of their religion, they cannot help but to think their religion is true and others’ false.

(more…)

souter1As many of you have probably heard, U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter is set to retire from the bench, opening the door for Obama to nominate his first SCOTUS replacement.  I have read several news articles saying the pressure is on Obama to nominate a woman because there is only one woman currently on the bench.  Others are saying he is under pressure to nominate the first Hispanic to the bench.  And just today I read how there is pressure for him to nominate a gay man or woman to the bench.  So apparently Obama needs to find a Hispanic gay woman to satisfy everyone’s felt need for diversity.  Whatever happened to finding the person best qualified for the job, regardless of their race, sex, or sexual orientation?  Have we become so politically correct that our primary concern is to make SCOTUS a rainbow of diversity to reflect our tolerance, rather than a body of the most qualified judges in the land?  Unfortunately, the answer is yes, we have.  Frankly, I don’t care if we appoint a gay Hispanic woman.  I only care that she is a good judge who will interpret and apply the Constitution as written, rather than as she would like it to be written.

Liberals talk about tolerance, but can never seem to practice it.  Whenever someone disagrees with their liberal positions, they are vilified.  Such is the case with the recent Miss USA competition.  Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by pageant judge Perez Hilton (an openly gay man) whether she thought “gay marriage” should be legalized throughout the U.S.  Prejean responded: “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.  And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.  No offence to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

Granted, I think this was a horrible defense of her position, but I’m not here to critique her answer.  I’m here to critique the way liberals have responded to her for stating her support for traditional marriage.  Perez Hilton responded by calling her a “dumb b**ch” on his blog, and describing her as having “half a brain.”  According to Hilton, her answer cost her the competition.  Did you hear that?  She was discriminated against because she gave an answer Hilton didn’t like.  Why ask an open-ended question that you will only accept one answer for?

E! News anchor Giuliana Rancic twittered, “I know i’m a journalist, and i should be objective … but she is an ignorant disgrace and she makes me sick to my stomach.”

Even the director of the Miss California pageant, Shanna Moakler, quickly distanced herself from Ms. Prejean.  She twittered, “This is why we have judges at Miss USA, so we find the girl to rep us ALL,” and “I don’t know how you can call a gay man or woman your friend and not want them 2 have the same joys as yourself. In my family we believe in equal rights for all, I am sad and hurt, I agree with Perez 100 [percent]. It’s one thing to have an opinion I am very opinionated n have dealt with backlash from it, it’s another to alienate people who cared about u.”  After the pageant, she even refused to meet her backstage and congratulate her for being runner-up.  It sounds to me that it is Prejean’s “friends” who are choosing to alienate, not Prejean.

Do these people not recognize that the majority of Americans still oppose same-sex marriage?  Miss California’s answer reflects the thinking of mainstream America, but by the liberal reaction one would think her views represent a tiny minority, as if she denies the Holocaust or believes the Earth is flat.

How has Prejean responded?  Has she villified all those who have called her names and turned their backs on her for holding to a different point of view?  No.  Regarding Hilton she said, “I can only say to him that I will be praying for him.  I feel sorry for him, I really do. I think he’s angry, I think he’s hurt. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. He asked me specifically what my opinion was on that subject, and I gave him an honest answer.”  That is true tolerance.  And I don’t think it is any coincidence that a person who holds to Christian values is the one expressing it.

Albert Mohler examines an article in U.S. News & World Report that is quite troubling.  It appears the Obama administration requires those who offer prayers before an Obama speech, to vet it with the White House first for their approval.  This is quite clearly a government entanglement with religion.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think there is a need to even have someone offer a prayer prior to an Obama speech, but if you are going to have prayer be offered, it should not have to be reviewed and possibly edited by the White House.  This goes beyond political correctness into theological arbitration.  As Mohler wrote, “When a White House approves or edits prayers, it has entered theological territory and takes on a theological function.  The President of the United States is our Commander in Chief, not our Theologian in Chief.”

That’s right.  The British government is advising parents that they should only discuss their sexual values with their children, but not try to convince them of what’s right and wrong because it “may discourage them from being open.”  I’m irked by the fact that the government thinks it can tell parents how they should teach their kids values.  I’m amazed that England thinks this will help their society.  What good comes out of teens doing whatever they want sexually?  Nothing.

The sorts of things that are happening in England are not limited to England.  We’re already seeing them here.  I find it ironic that the very worldview that promoted religious tolerance in the first place, is the very worldview that is now being suppressed.  I would love to see how things would have been different if Muslims, rather than Christians, were in view.

silenceA U.S. District judge ruled that an Illinois law requiring a moment of silence is unconstitutional because it “is a subtle effort to force students at impressionable ages to contemplate religion.”  While I do not think the Constitution requires the elimination of prayer from schools, neither am I an advocate of having school-led prayer.  But a moment of silence is hardly a prayer, and hardly constitutes religion.

Basically this ruling says people cannot even be afforded a few seconds by school officials to offer up their own silent prayers to the god of their choice, if they so choose.  This is militant secularism.  And of course, the lawsuit was filed by a militant atheist.  And they think it’s the Christians who are intolerant.  Nothing says tolerance like “you can’t pray at school in silence if you want to.”

« Previous PageNext Page »