Principles Matter! As long as you are following the right ones.

Today is Sunday, the day of the week in every fall that I used to look forward to NFL football. As any logical person would expect, the “anthem protests”, which started with one player kneeling during the national anthem have morphed into a sideshow of their own, getting more and more elaborate, involving not only players but coaches, then owners and of course, Mr. Twitter, also known as the President of the United States.

The ESPN website now has a section highlighting the protests: Today the noteworthy protests–or were they responses to the protests–included entire teams staying in the locker room during the anthem: Pittsburgh Steelers, Tennessee Titans, Seattle Seahawks. The Baltimore Ravens and Jacksonville Jaguars locked arms together before the game in London. The Buffalo Bills walked 10 yards towards the middle of the field–was that to simulate approaching a battlefield? All the other teams had various combinations of kneeling, sitting, fist raising, linking arms, hands on heart, locking arms with service members or first responders. Tom Brady, as if he was trying to please everyone, stood one hand over heart while linking his free arm with a black/African-American (not sure which term to use–you know how I am reluctant to offend anyone) player who was about a head shorter than him, thus simultaneously demonstrating solidarity with America, fans (who almost in every stadium booed the players regardless of team), minorities and short people. The Los Angeles Chargers, since they are trying to out-Hollywood the Los Angeles Rams, did a little of everything, standing, sitting, kneeling,  linking . Well, not everything actually. No one saluted or put a hand over the heart. What’s left for next week?

We have been told that the principles the protesters are embodying are, variously, racial conciliation, equitable justice, freedom to express opinions, consciousness of injustice. All very noble, but I submit that the principle they are actually demonstrating is that how an individual feels about social issues, and their desire to demonstrate their virtue, should trump the well-being of their employers. Even more than that, what the players, the President, the professional commentators and anyone who thinks with their tweets are actually demonstrating is their allegiance to the “shortcut” society.  Kaepernick merely got the snowball rolling, signaling his virtue by kneeling during the national anthem, which in fact demonstrated nothing so much as “I want to make a virtue statement without much of an effort regardless of what ultimately comes of it.” No, I can’t read his mind, just the beginning and interim results.

Who knows where it will end. But today, September 24, 2017, marks a significant watershed. The conversations on sports networks and websites are as much about the “protests” (or whatever they have become–I’m not sure we have a word for it yet) as the game. A lot of the blame for this lies on the President, since his shortcut mentality led him to rash remarks and threats which unified MOST of the players and owners, even including former supporters like Brady and Kraft, against him. Shortcuts never work, unless the goal is to further divide and confuse. They guarantee that. That’s where we are now.

Many of the players have come from backgrounds of poverty and prejudice, and through very hard work and sacrifice have earned a significant public profile. However, despite that and the millions they earn, they are still employees. The customers of their employers–the fans–are overwhelmingly against their protesting social issues during the game. I doubt that most of the fans object to the principles that the players are trying to stand for, nor the right of any American, including employees, to protest whatever they are against. Just as people tune into ESPN to see and hear about sports only, people go to football games to watch football and to experience a feeling of community with their team and other fans. They are paying ridiculous sums of money–therefore making sacrifices in other areas–to go to games rather than watching at home, for a short escape from the constant bombardment of negative news about the world. What about their rights?

Imagine saving up money for a really expensive meal at the best restaurant in town. You might have to eat top ramen for the rest of the week, but you really need this small reminder that there are still rare pleasures in this world. The most expensive meal in any town wouldn’t cost nearly as much as going to an NFL game. So you go to the restaurant, and your hostess declares how angry she is at the latest police shooting outrage while seating you. Your waiter wears an upside down American flag for an apron to protest injustice, and reminds you how unhealthy red meat is when you order a steak. Occasionally, a chef visits tables, soliciting your opinion about the meal and Islamophobia. Will the customer enjoy this meal the way he had hoped? Does the behavior of the employees affect how likely the customer will be to return to the restaurant?

Does it matter what the employee is protesting? When the protest is done during the customer’s time with the product, doesn’t it detract from the customer’s enjoyment? If so, is the business affected? Does the right of an employee to protest whatever cause they care about, on company time, trump the rights of the customers to enjoy the product or the employer to have their business well represented? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for the players to demonstrate, or otherwise represent their causes, somewhere other than the game?  It would be, if their goal is to really open a dialogue, or to accurately represent their position, but that is not happening. Fans boo, Trump tweets, commentators opine–and the country is more polarized than ever! Today some team owners joined in the protests or expressions of solidarity. Does that mean they approve of what the players are doing and the way they are doing it? Or does it mean that the virtue points they score are worth more to them than the satisfaction of their customers? Since the fans booed just as much whether or not owners joined the players, I hope the virtue points were worth it. To understand how all of this actually helps Trump, read this.trump wins

While writing this post I am also listening to the Vietnam documentary on PBS.  A marine is describing an ambush his platoon stumbled into when his company commander insisted on counting VC bodies rather than saving his men, and how a fellow marine risked his own life to rescue him. No reference was made to the race of his savior, because in war nothing matters less. I was over there too, and I know. The film also describes what happened to protesters in north Vietnam who demonstrated against their side. I will leave their fate to your imagination. America has a lot of faults, at least we are allowed to protest them. But even this right can be abused. I wonder if anyone asked Colin Kaepernick to think about what would be the most appropriate time and way to protest injustice. If it was suggested to him to write a blog about his concerns, or build Habitat for Humanity homes during his offseason, instead of what he did, would he have agreed? It wouldn’t have attracted nearly as much attention, but what has been accomplished?

Before I go, I have to get this off my chest. Mr. Kaepernick, while in Miami for a pre-season game, decided to exercise his right of “free speech” by appearing at a press conference wearing a t-shirt with a photo of Malcolm X greeting Fidel Castro (at their one and only meeting–Malcolm X turned down subsequent meetings with Castro). Then he doubled down on his ignorance…or was it arrogance (I sometimes confuse the two) by defending Castro–in a city in which a significant proportion fled Cuba–and further tried to equate Castro with non-existent social benefits. Later, when he was unemployed and the Miami Dolphins were desperate for a quarterback (with starter Tannehill out for the season), he was passed up for a guy who had already retired. I wonder why. Yet his defenders continue to hold him up as a paragon of virtue, and insist he be employed. So what happened to his closest shot?

Ray Lewis said the Baltimore Ravens chose not to sign Colin Kaepernick after the quarterback’s girlfriend posted a “racist” tweet featuring the former All-Pro linebacker and owner Steve Bisciotti. “We were going to close the deal to sign him,” Lewis said on Showtime’s “Inside the NFL” on Tuesday night. “Steve Bisciotti said, ‘I want to hear Colin Kaepernick speak to let me know that he wants to play football.'”

“And it never happens because that picture comes up the next day.” The Aug. 2 tweet by Nessa Diab compared a picture of Lewis hugging Bisciotti to a scene from “Django Unchained,” in which Samuel L. Jackson as a loyal house slave held Leonardo DiCaprio’s cruel plantation owner character. “His girl [Diab] goes out and put out this racist gesture and doesn’t know we are in the back office about to try to get this guy signed,” Lewis said. “Steve Bisciotti has said it himself: ‘How can you crucify Ray Lewis when Ray Lewis is the one calling for Colin Kaepernick?'”

Lewis was asked whether the Ravens would have signed Kaepernick if not for the tweet. “Then he’s flying him to Baltimore,” Lewis said. “I am sitting with all three of them and we are all having a conversation about bringing Colin Kaepernick in.” So President Trump didn’t corner the market for foolish and insulting tweets?

I am okay with not being popular.


  • The first proposition: The right way (that which eventually gets the results you are seeking) usually appears to be the hard way, the long way, the slow way, the narrow way. Matthew 7:13. “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”
  • The second proposition: Therefore, the majority—or at least those vocal enough to appear as if they are the majority—doesn’t favor the right/hard/slow/long/narrow way. The majority favors the easier way—faster, shorter, less work and self-discipline—which is by definition wider…..and leads to destruction.
  • The third proposition: Since popularity is by definition being liked by the crowd—the majority—it requires adoption of which way? The easier, the way that doesn’t work, the path of failure.
  • The evidence for the truth of these propositions is overwhelming in the results: in wealth, the majority is broke; in fitness, the majority is flaccid; in health, the majority is sick; in weight, the majority is over; in morality, the majority is fashionable. That last word should be anathema to a leader.
  • The desire to be popular spells L.O.S.E.R.: Loss Of Self Esteem and Respect.
  • It is also the route and the root of cultural, moral, national and personal decline!


RACISM: my response

I define racism as the emotional rejection of God’s design to paint His creations made in His image in a palette of many colors. Therefore, it is not anti-race per se, but inherently anti-God. It is sin, in one of its purest forms.

That being said, some things about the most vocal anti-racism activists that mystify me are:

  • Given that nothing can be more racist than the desire to kill other races, or to prevent them from being born in the first place, why is there no condemnation that I am aware of–from race activists—of Planned Parenthood? PP’s aims and stated missions are birth control and aborting babies, their clients are overwhelmingly non-white and relatively poor, their founder, Margaret Sanger, was an unapologetic eugenicist who openly advocated forced sterilization of “inferior races and classes” and, through selective breeding, their eventual extinction. She furnished, through propagation of the “abortion gospel”, a more viable solution to preventing breeding of the “weak and inferior” than the last sentence in the following excerpt. Usually, anti-racism crusaders decry defunding of PP, as injurious to the poor and non-whites, so I guess they don’t consider killing non-white babies as racist.
  • Same for her inspiration, Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man.With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” 
  • “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”  
  • At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.  For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper; or from that old baboon, who, descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs—as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

― Charles DarwinThe Descent of Man

It is reasonable to ask, what is it that truly motivates the anti-racism crusaders? Justice for the poor and/or non-white, some kind of personal gain (fame and/or funding), or the opportunity to revile the objects of their animus without personal consequences? Perhaps all three?

How did the whole world hear the Gospel?

Acts 2: “When the day of Pentecost arrived, they (the Christ-believers in the Jerusalem church) were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting.  And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.  And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

“Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.  And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language.  And they were amazed and astonished, saying, ‘Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?  And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?  Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,  Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome,  both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.” And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, ‘What does this mean?'”

This was amazing; men from every nation? That’s what it says. They were devout Jews in town to celebrate the Feast of Pentecost. They were hearing about something in their own language. What?  “But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: ‘Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words…..Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it……..

Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing….

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Such a message to the Jews, prior to this day, generally led to riots, beatings, stoning and persecution of the disciples…but not this day. A real miracle happened. “Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’ And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.’  And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation.’ So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.”

So what was the result of this miracle of mass repentance?

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.  And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles.  And all who believed were together and had all things in common.  And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.  And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

When the foundation crumbles.

My previous post asked the question, “how did we get here?”  “Here” being a state of near total war between dissenting opinions, with disagreements on policies and principles often being labeled as evil rather than honest differences. This post attempts to answer that thorny question. So we will start with a true U.S. history lesson, because we are in dire need of an antidote to all the revisionist history narratives promulgated by the race and victim hustlers.

The United States of America really started in the Plymouth Colony. It was founded by the Pilgrims, originally formed into two groups known as the Separatists and the Anglicans. When the Mayflower arrived at Cape Cod, several hundred miles north of its planned destination in Virginia owing to storms at sea, the passengers realized they were outside the bounds of the governmental authority they had contracted with in England. The core group of Mayflower passengers were members of a reformed Christian church, referred to at the time as Separatists, who were living in Leiden, Holland. They had originally emigrated from England to Holland in order to worship as they believed right. In separating from the Church of England, they had committed treason, and so faced prison or worse if they stayed and were caught. In 1620, the group emigrating from Leiden was joined by about fifty others recruited by the colony’s investors. These “others” were not necessarily Christians, and their worldview was quite different than that of the Separatists, also known as Pilgrims.

William Bradford, the Pilgrim leader, was alarmed to learn that some of the others felt no obligation to respect the rules of the Pilgrims. In his words, they wanted to “use their owne libertie.” The male heads of Pilgrim and non-Pilgrim families therefore drew up a compact that bound all signers to accept whatever form of government was established after landing. The compact created a “Civil Body Politic” to enact “just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices.” Every adult male had to sign the agreement before going ashore.

This colony had been one of the successful colonies in the early years along with Jamestown, Virginia. The Plymouth Colony did not have a royal charter in order to be authorized to form its own government. The Mayflower Compact was its first governing document. When most Americans today are asked, “what is the Founding Document of this nation”, most will shake their heads in consternation, but those who have an answer will generally say “the Declaration of Independence.” In truth, it was the Mayflower Compact.

During Plymouth Colony’s first two-and-a-half years, the economy was in the form of a communal system. This means that there was no such thing as private property or division of labor. The crops and food were grown for allocation to the whole town and were equally distributed to the people. But in 1623, the Plymouth Plantation had difficulties which led to starvation. These “difficulties” were what you normally run into with forced socialism: the responsible minority worked very hard to grow food, while the majority did comparatively little. When it came time for harvest, you might imagine that those who did the most were not happy about those who did least–the majority–getting most of the food, the total of which was not enough to feed the colony. This led the leaders to try another system. They started to allot private properties, mainly land, to families, which increased productivity and pulled the plantation out of poverty. It was proven that people became more productive when they were tasked to plant the crops that they would later use for their own consumption. Members of the colony were heavily engaged in matters of the soul. They constructed a church where they could worship. They also gave birth to a tradition that is still celebrated up to the present time, Thanksgiving.

So what does this short history of our founding tell us about our ancestors and, eventually, the birth of our nation? They sought freedom to worship even before economic freedom. They believed that a document–an early constitution as it were–that laid down principles of governing, was necessary for just and equal laws. So they believed in the rule of law, but when those laws were unjust and elevated a temporal monarch to be head of the church–the Church of England–they were willing to leave their homes and possessions to go to a place where they could worship properly. They believed that civil government (in England the king and Parliament) was a separate sphere of authority from the church, and that it was unholy for the king or civil government to be head of the church. They were then willing to brave great hardships, including starvation, in a wilderness called the New World, in order to worship and govern in the way Jesus called His people to, as in the following exhortation from Matthew.

Matthew 16:15-19. He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.  And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

How did this exhortation translate to the foundations of civilization, such as education and governing? Back in the formative years of our nation, churches were following Jesus’ command to attack the “gates of hell,” and they believed a first purpose of “higher education” was to train ministers of the gospel. The first 9 universities chartered in the colonies were primarily for training Christian ministers. What universities? How about 7 of the Ivy League, save Cornell, plus William and Mary, and Rutgers. Each was affiliated with a church or denomination.  The Christian universal church was explicitly an attacking force against evil. Remember that scene in the film Return of the King when the Army of the West, led by Aragorn, attacks the Black Gate of Mordor? Before the battle, Aragorn encourages his army: “Sons of Gondor, of Rohan, my brothers! I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends, and break all bonds of fellowship; but it is not this day! An hour of wolves, and shattered shields, when the Age of Men comes crashing down; but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!” That was the church when our nation was birthed, a spiritual fighting force.

“By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!” That battle cry will come back to haunt us. Haunt how? When “men of the West” got tired of standing, when the church traded attacking the gates of hell for currying favor of the culture and sought popularity over duty, the foundations rapidly crumbled. First it was compromise on the role of the church in society, as in not challenging the cultural misunderstanding the first amendment of the Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

What that first sentence meant to the founders was avoiding a situation like the Church of England, where leaving the state church was an act of treason, and allowing everyone to worship according to their own conscience, without persecution from the state. But it wasn’t long before this truth was replaced with the “separation of church and state” misunderstanding, which I call willful (since the meaning of that first sentence is clear to anyone not pursuing an agenda). “Separation of Church and State” is nowhere found in the Constitution or any other founding legislation. Our forefathers would never countenance the restrictions on religion exacted today. The phrase was initially coined by Baptists striving for religious toleration in Virginia, whose official state religion was then Anglican (Episcopalian). Baptists thought government limitations against religion illegitimate. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson championed their cause. The preamble in Act Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia (1786), affirms that “the Author of our Religion gave us our ‘free will.’” And that He “chose not to propagate it by coercions.” This legislation certainly did not diminish religious influence on government for it also provided stiff penalties for conducting business on the Sabbath. The day after the First Amendment’s passage, Congress proclaimed a national day of prayer and thanksgiving.

Further distortions of the first amendment followed, including applying it in any situation where lawmaking is not involved, like defending pornograghy as free speech under the gloss of first amendment rights. The amendment is addressed to Congress. As the church kept failing to challenge these willful misapplications of the first amendment, perhaps thinking it wasn’t their job, more and more emotion-based laws and regulations were made. Now Christians who believe in the same principles as the founders are finding that the bureaucratic state has them in the gunsights. But it is not too late, because a sovereign God still rules the affairs of men.



Tweets part 2: Are you part of the problem…of taking up offenses?

If I were to refer to cartoons with all the word bubbles having jagged edges and lurid colors, could you fill in the words? BAM! CRASH! BOOM! BLAST! You get the idea. Not exactly the stuff of reasoned, principled debate. Well, that’s what the “click-bait” world has become. To get more followers for your twitter/instagram etc. (anti)social media, or to get more click-throughs to your website, the formula is simple: Be outrageous, be incendiary, be vicious, be brutal, be truthful…oops, the last one was a mistake, I got carried away with all the beings.

What are some of the headlines that appeared in just one day, a few days ago? “CNN blasts Trump”, “Trump crushes Acosta”, “I hope Trump is assassinated” (Maria Chappelle-Nadal, Mo. state senator), “Bannon slams Afghanistan speech”, “any spark could set off an explosion” (Al Sharpton). You get the idea. But what is really the root of the problem, for that matter what IS the problem? 

Incivility itself is A problem, but THE problem is not recognizing that we each have on a pair of goggles called “worldview-colored glasses.” We each truly see things that some others don’t see, or we don’t see things that some others do see. We each interpret what we see and hear and feel through the prism of our worldview. For you who are new to this concept, a definition may help. Worldview. noun. “The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.” I question whether this word is really a noun. The process of turning a concept into a noun–nominalization–is really a way of limiting it’s impact. 

If Your worldview determines how you filter and interpret events, isn’t it as much an adverb as a noun? It matters, because no one is responsible for a noun. It’s a thing, you possess it or not. But an adverb modifies an action, and someone is always responsible for an action. I can take some examples of actual events that happened, and show how the headline–the interpretation–differs with worldview. But first, the crucial underpinnings of worldviews are presuppositions. They are beliefs and assumptions, usually unconscious, that prop up the worldview. If they are questioned, even accidentally, by something said in any context, a mature and self aware person can examine their presuppositions and determine if they are accurate, and if not can reconstruct more accurate foundations for their beliefs if debate is allowed and new input welcomed. 

What if debate and new input is not allowed? What if the discomfort that is “triggered” when presuppositions are questioned leads instead to retreat, defensiveness, and suppression of uncomfortable views? Well, that’s what we have on campus these days. As if “safe spaces” (hiding places from having to hear viewpoints that differ from your own) were not a bad enough idea, what happens when you want to “celebrate” your graduation only with people like you? What happens on campus today becomes media outlook and political decision tomorrow.

From the NY Times (who thinks these are great ideas): “This spring, tiny Emory and Henry College in Virginia held its first ‘Inclusion and Diversity Year-End Ceremonies.’ The University of Delaware joined a growing list of colleges with ‘Lavender’ graduations for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. At Columbia, students who were the first in their families to graduate from college attended the inaugural ‘First-Generation Graduation,’ with inspirational speeches, a procession and the awarding of torch pins.”

The Times celebrates this “diversity”, because in their worldview, the only diversity that is not acceptable, indeed doesn’t exist, is diversity of opinion. But you say, “they know that there are other opinions, right?” No, there are no alternative valid opinions, there is only good vs. evil, and by definition any disagreement with their worldview is not a difference of opinion, but evil itself. If you don’t believe me, just follow the headlines.  

So that raises the question, “Are all worldviews equally valid?” What if a worldview is based on false presuppositions? If we can no longer question presuppositions without being accused of something–being insensitive, mean-spirited, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, sexist, offensive–what we are then stuck with is the angry-thumbHow did we get here? That will be the subject of my next post.