The Church of Diversity

by Brad Nelson   1/7/14

I had a peaceful run-in the other day with a young fellow from the Church of Diversity. Unlike the German socialist who I threw out of my office a month or so ago (and who physically smelled), this diversity fellow was too darn nice and clean-cut for me to take any offense. Nor was I looking for any.

When I see these kids from the Church of Diversity (or their other denomination, the Church of Environmental Wacko-ism), I generally just smile and hold my tongue. Admit it, I could no more talk any of you out of your belief in Jesus Christ than I could talk these kids out of their various Leftist beliefs.

That these yutes have no idea that they are supporting a rotgut Leftist cause, and are the equivalent of emasculated sheep in aiding and abetting the hardcore higher-ups, is both cause for alarm and for some sympathy. But doing in-office interventions is just too difficult of a task. If I could get paid for it, then maybe.

Some of this fluffy “diversity” stuff is harmless. It can, in some respects, be analogous to the Christian idea of brotherly love. But one very large and important difference between the two points of view is that justice, not equality, is (or should be) the guiding light of Christians. And justice depends upon the very idea of there being a right and wrong, of not all things being the same simply because that idea gives you the warm-fuzzies.

But for the Church of Diversity, “equality” is the highest principle. And you can’t have equality (even if just inside your head in pleasing imaginings) if you need to make judgments of others. Therefore you simply declare, by acclimation, that Jews are the same as Christians which are the same as Hindus which are the same as Muslims which are the same as the Manson Family.

This is why a flaky and misguided “non-judmentalism” is part and parcel of the Church of Diversity. If you had to point out that the Muslim doctrines of hating Jews, of institutionalized misogyny, of hatred of homosexuals, of an aggressive and murderous built-in Jihadism, then it would spoil the self-satisfying warm-fuzzy vibes of being the world’s roving Buddha by declaring love for all.

And that Christians themselves have forgotten their own religion and bought into this stuff is perhaps grist for a future post.
Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (2271 views)

Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Church of Diversity

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Many years ago, a friend of mine described the liberal notion of diversity as “Disney diversity”: a bunch of puppets in different colors, but all made from the same mold and singing in unison.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      That’s pretty much it, Timothy. As I believe Walter E. Williams had noted years ago, “diversity” is about people looking different but thinking the same.

      Still, as with any religion, you have people interpreting it and living it in different ways. This fellow seemed harmless enough. But for all intents and purposes, these people have punted away their ability to gain wisdom. They have lost the ability to discern which is part and parcel of achieving knowledge and wisdom. These people, unless they change, will not be the equivalent of St. Francis walking the earth but will be like Kindergarteners who have never grown up.

      I understand the idea of indoctrination. It’s truly a type of programming wherein somebody else’s mind is implanted onto your own (and this is far above the normal aspect of enculturation). And the Leftist implanting is always going to be of the type wherein you instinctively believe nice, Orwellian thoughts that serve to keep you from ascertaining that the people who implanted this garbage in the first place are the bad guys.

      So I see these people from the Church of Diversity (or the Church of Environment Wacko-ism) as I would somebody from the movie “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” No wonder zombie movies are so popular these days.

  2. steve lancaster says:

    Church of diversity. Excellent term for the brain damaged that seem to think saying they believe in diversity makes it so. On university and even secondary school campus across the nation there is a department of diversity, charged to ensure equal treatment for all 5 sexes and any religion no matter how obscure. We now are so diverse that anyone with a chip on their shoulder can claim discrimination and get attention to their desires.

    The goal of EEOC and other programs was to open the system to those who actually were discriminated against, however, that was 60 years ago. Today, we have exclusive organizations on campus like the Black Students Union, no whites allowed, various gay organizations no heterosexuals allowed. Clubs for ethnic groups no “others” allowed. Try to join La Raza if you are not Hispanic.

    These same groups in the name of diversity have the chutzpah to demand membership in Christian or Jewish organizations on campus, although the primary qualification is to be Christian or Jewish and adhere to ethics of the religion. Campus diversity czars, in the interest of diversity, either ban the Christian and Jewish organizations from campus and withdraws their funding or threatens them to comply under threat of banishment.

    You can walk through student unions across the nation and view the cultural, ideological, and racial group’s voluntary separated from the rest of the student body. About 125 years ago the court created the “separate but equal concept” with Plessy v. Ferguson. Modern progressives are quite comfortable with that decision as long as their political, cultural and social ideals are fulfilled.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Well said, Steve.

      I think “diversity” is a combination of two things: the feminization of men and what Dennis Prager calls “nice, but not good.”

      First off, I’m all for being kind and considerate to people (but not to movements). There’s nothing wrong with treating other people as people first, and political ideologies second. That’s what any good conservative or Christian does. Hate the sin, love the sinner. I might not believe in gay marriage, but it will be a cold day in hell before I turn away a client just because they are gay (although I would indeed refuse to do any work for any of the gay activist groups….I don’t support fascism in whatever guise [guys] it comes).

      That said, there’s something particularly creepy and vapid about going around and just saying you accept everyone and everything without distinction. This is the mindset of someone given over to a cult. No human being can remain above the mental level of a vegetable and not make distinctions and value judgements. And blindly valuing everything as “good” is a dead end. I understand part of the impulse for this. Kids have been taught that wars are the result of “intolerance,” and “intolerance” is therefore to be avoided at all costs.

      But should we be tolerant of intolerance? Is “diversity” always good? Isn’t a society that has some pedophiles more “diverse” than one that does not? And isn’t the cockpit of the airplane you may be flying in more “diverse” if one of the pilots is competent and the co-pilot is not?

      Long story short, this indoctrination into “diversity” as a value onto itself (which includes non-judgmentalism and multiculturalism) is a scrambling of the brain. One can imagine Jim Kirk feeding this type of info into one of the many computers he has faced-down and melted with either logic-bombs or irrationality-bombs. This “diversity” talk would turn those alien computers into hulking scraps of smoking metal.

      And that is what happens to yutes who are fed this diet of “diversity.” It’s not so much that they themselves become dangerous. Most of these fellows are various kinds of “Pajama Boys.” Their greatest danger is that they might spill scalding hot chocolate onto themselves.

      But the danger they do present en masse is that this emasculated sense of “diversity” offers no resistance to the fiends, frauds, and other scoundrels who don’t mean well but use this same smarmy language. The entire 60’s generation, for example, is still beholden to all the vapid slogans and wordplay that they learned in their youth. This is one of the reasons they never saw through Obama. All his toxicity had been hidden and normalized because Obama used the same language they used.

      But when dealing with the Left, we have to look behind the mere words and not be fooled by them.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Ultimately, the argument for “tolerance” is based on a rejection of making judgments about others. But the people who say that are extremely judgmental about what other people think. They only reject judging behavior. It’s also very Orwellian: At one point in 1984, the point was made that the older authoritarians said that “Thou shalt not”, the later ones said “Thou shalt” (think of the Obamacare mandates here), and the modern ones (IngSoc and its ally-enemies in Eurasia and Eastasia) said “Thou art” — and that is how liberals judge people.

  3. dagny says:

    If you subscribe to the Sesame Street level ideology that “everyone is the same” then it would follow that everyone should have the same status, living conditions, income, wealth, et al. The entire idea is the basis for transforming what the left sees as capitalistic unfairness into the socialist utopia. When you take equality to it’s obvious end; there is no merit and therefore no achievement, no innovation, no creativity, no success, no failure.

    When I was a very small child, 4 or 5, in tail end of the ’60s, the buzz word was “prejudice”. People were cautioned not to be “prejudiced”, what we now know as the constant accusation of racism. I remember thinking, in my pre-literate brain, how someone couldn’t be “prejudiced” if that meant liking something more than something else. I was quite certain that I preferred spaghetti (quite the ethnic experiment) to mom’s chewy roasts, and I definitely preferred My Favorite Martian to Walter Cronkite.

    Decades later we find ourselves facing down what is going to be a constant klaxon of “income inequality” as if there were a pie to be shared and some people were getting less as a punishment for their color, sex, education, life choices, et al. The original idea that we could have a classless society was going well, when liberty meant the opportunity to achieve through merit, until the left with their utopian fantasies showed up.

    Diversity isn’t about diversity but rather about the attempt to make everyone the same so that they have the same. Choices don’t matter, because everyone is the same. Women no longer even have to be sexually discriminating, because, why would anyone judge that? The consequences are nil (they say) so why care? It doesn’t even matter whether you choose a male or female, only that you don’t discriminate.

    Being discriminating was a virtue, it connoted good taste or sense, now it means that you’re not on board with the socialist utopian vision.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      An important point to consider here is that “prejudice” refers to pre-judging, which is what liberals actually do to those who disagree with them (especially social conservatives who actually vote that way). “Discrimination” simply refers to differentiating one item from another. It’s only bad when it results from actual prejudice rather than from careful observation.

Leave a Reply to Timothy Lane Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *