Not the Real Thing
I've seen hamsters more intimidating than this mob who shouted at me - but what is frightening is their intolerance of all other opinions
Peter Hitchens
The Mail On Sunday
A person wearing a face-muzzle, a baseball cap and socks adorned with the words ‘Hotter than Hell’ appeared at my side. He or she (I had better be careful not to assign a gender) spoke sharply to me, like someone with power: ‘Why have you chosen to stand here?’ For a moment, I was taken in by the air of authority, but recovered myself and asked: ‘Who are you?’ To this I received no useful reply, but the person continued: ‘A lot of people would prefer it if you did not stand here.’
The last time I looked, nearly two million people had viewed the resulting internet video of me strolling along through some ugly shopping streets, being shouted at by a small mob at my heels. It has even been set to music by some wag. To which I replied that I was – for the moment – a free man and would stand anywhere I liked on the streets of my home city, thank you very much.
I had gone out on Tuesday afternoon in Oxford to observe the second of two recent demonstrations calling for the removal of a statue of Cecil Rhodes. It is probably because I used to be a foreign correspondent in Moscow and Washington that I feel I should take a close direct interest in events that are happening in my home town.
I can remember clearly taking part in Left-wing demonstrations, some of them pretty unruly, on these same streets more than half a century ago, when I was myself a revolutionary Marxist. I was fascinated to see how things had changed. Basically, the causes I supported in the 1960s have won. Our 1968 protests were demonstrations of powerlessness, which is why they were rowdy. Today theirs are laps of honour.
On both recent occasions I’d fallen into perfectly civilised conversations with demonstrators, who had recognised me, knew I disagreed with them and wanted to talk about it. I’d also noticed what sort of people they were – overwhelmingly young, ethnically mixed, generally middle class.
And I was amused and a bit disturbed to see a rather stately middle-aged figure, with whom I’ve often had good-natured chats, transforming himself into a slogan-chanting, fist-pumping rabble-rouser. I am now not sure which is the real one, and which is the act.
Both demonstrations were supposed to be about the image of Rhodes, which, for the moment, still stands over Oxford High Street. But I don’t think they were really about that, for who can get genuinely worked up about a puny sculpture 50ft above the pavement that you have to crane your neck to see?
But for a short and amusing few minutes, last Tuesday’s event became a demonstration against me.
Showing posts with label Liberal Intolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Intolerance. Show all posts
Monday, 29 June 2020
Wednesday, 29 May 2019
The Xenophobia of Two Radical MP's
"Sit Down, and Shut Up"
The radical Left wants free speech for itself to be maintained at all costs. It also wants free speech to be denied every other occupant of the public square.
Karl Du Fresne, a serious journalist, has written a piece which hoists upon the proverbial petard some of our worst agitators against free speech. He is reflecting upon the behaviour of the "sit down, and shut up" brigade in the aftermath of the Christchurch shootings.
PERHAPS all . . . can be forgiven as a collective rush of blood to the head, brought about by the shock of the appalling events of March 15. But far less excusable is the manner in which prominent people, many of them on the public payroll, exploited the deaths of 50 innocent people to further an ideological agenda.
By this I mean people like the Green MPs Golruz Ghahraman and Marama Davidson. In Parliament, Ghahraman blamed unnamed fellow MPs and breakfast radio “shock jocks” – presumably meaning NewstalkZB’s Mike Hosking – for the “hate speech” that she claims led to the killings. (Hosking, incidentally, is another bête-noire of the Left, and for the same reason as Jordan Peterson: his daily commentaries connect with a large number of New Zealanders who are not racist or xenophobic and reject extremist ideology of both the Right and Left.)
Ghahraman, a highly accomplished self-publicist, was in such a rush to apportion blame that she wasn’t prepared to wait before making a considered response based on facts and evidence rather than supposition, assumption and prejudice. And why should she, when it was so much easier to make sweeping, unsubstantiated and emotive assertions about the killings being caused by “hate speech” (undefined), “white supremacy” and “gratuitous racism”?
Thursday, 23 May 2019
Hypocrisy On a Grand Scale
Inclusivity Means Accepting Everyone's Views - Even Israel Folau's
Karl du Fresne
Dominion Post
Something's not quite right here. The 21st-century buzzwords are diversity and inclusivity, but they seem to be applied very selectively.
It seems we're in favour of diversity and inclusivity if we're talking about race, colour, gender and sexual identity, the latter two of which keep spinning off into ever-new permutations. But puzzlingly, we're only partially tolerant when it comes to religious belief.
We are encouraged to be tolerant toward Islam, especially since the Christchurch atrocities, and so we should be. The right to practise one's religion, at least unless it interferes with the rights of others, is one we should all unquestioningly support. This applies even when secular society disapproves of some of those religions, or scratches its collective head in bemusement at their practices and beliefs.
But if freedom of religion is one cornerstone of a free society, so is freedom of expression, which includes the right to subject religion, along with every other institution of society, to critical scrutiny and even ridicule.
Virtually all religions – whether we're talking Catholicism, Mormonism, Judaism, the Destiny Church or the Exclusive Brethren – possess what, to non-believers, are quirks, absurdities, hypocrisies and cruelties that render them ripe for mockery and condemnation. For decades, comedians and satirists have taken joyous, blasphemous advantage of this freedom. How people laughed, for example, at Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, with its wickedly subversive song Every Sperm is Sacred – a dig at Catholic teaching on birth control.
If it offended devout Catholics – well, tough. Freedom to ridicule is the flipside of freedom to worship.
Karl du Fresne
Dominion Post
Something's not quite right here. The 21st-century buzzwords are diversity and inclusivity, but they seem to be applied very selectively.
It seems we're in favour of diversity and inclusivity if we're talking about race, colour, gender and sexual identity, the latter two of which keep spinning off into ever-new permutations. But puzzlingly, we're only partially tolerant when it comes to religious belief.
We are encouraged to be tolerant toward Islam, especially since the Christchurch atrocities, and so we should be. The right to practise one's religion, at least unless it interferes with the rights of others, is one we should all unquestioningly support. This applies even when secular society disapproves of some of those religions, or scratches its collective head in bemusement at their practices and beliefs.
But if freedom of religion is one cornerstone of a free society, so is freedom of expression, which includes the right to subject religion, along with every other institution of society, to critical scrutiny and even ridicule.
Virtually all religions – whether we're talking Catholicism, Mormonism, Judaism, the Destiny Church or the Exclusive Brethren – possess what, to non-believers, are quirks, absurdities, hypocrisies and cruelties that render them ripe for mockery and condemnation. For decades, comedians and satirists have taken joyous, blasphemous advantage of this freedom. How people laughed, for example, at Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, with its wickedly subversive song Every Sperm is Sacred – a dig at Catholic teaching on birth control.
If it offended devout Catholics – well, tough. Freedom to ridicule is the flipside of freedom to worship.
Wednesday, 24 October 2018
The Neutering of Rabid Intolerance
A Christian Man Receives Justice
The Forces Of Religious Intolerance in the US Are Taking a Hit
By David French
National Review Online
In a groundbreaking win for religious liberty, former fire chief Kelvin Cochran has reached a $1.2 million settlement with the city of Atlanta.
A good man’s legal ordeal is at an end. Yesterday, my friends and former colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom announced that former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran had reached a $1.2 million settlement, ending a case he brought after the city fired him for writing — and distributing to a select few city employees — a self-published book that articulated an entirely orthodox Christian view of sex and marriage.
The facts of the case were egregious from the beginning. Cochran was a pioneer — born in Confederate Memorial Hospital in Shreveport, La., he grew up to become one of the first black firefighters hired by his hometown fire department. He ultimately became the first black fire chief of Shreveport.
He continued to ascend the ranks of firefighters, becoming Atlanta’s fire chief, and then, in 2009, Barack Obama appointed him to run the Fire Administration, a division of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
After Cochran left Atlanta, the fire department struggled. So Atlanta’s mayor recruited him back, and Cochran turned the department around so thoroughly that it for the first time received the nation’s highest fire-protection rating. The cornerstone of his effort to transform the department’s morale was a “participatory management structure” that solicited input from “every rank, race, shift, and gender.”
He consciously included LGBT employees, granting — in his words — “every group a voice.” As I wrote when his case went to court, to this point Cochran’s story was one that would make even a university diversity officer rejoice. He overcame poverty and discrimination to ascend to the pinnacle of his profession, where he implemented an inclusive management style that improved employee morale.
But Cochran is also a Christian, and — soon enough — that presented a problem that was fatal to his career.
The Forces Of Religious Intolerance in the US Are Taking a Hit
By David French
National Review Online
 |
| Former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran |
In a groundbreaking win for religious liberty, former fire chief Kelvin Cochran has reached a $1.2 million settlement with the city of Atlanta.
A good man’s legal ordeal is at an end. Yesterday, my friends and former colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom announced that former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran had reached a $1.2 million settlement, ending a case he brought after the city fired him for writing — and distributing to a select few city employees — a self-published book that articulated an entirely orthodox Christian view of sex and marriage.
The facts of the case were egregious from the beginning. Cochran was a pioneer — born in Confederate Memorial Hospital in Shreveport, La., he grew up to become one of the first black firefighters hired by his hometown fire department. He ultimately became the first black fire chief of Shreveport.
He continued to ascend the ranks of firefighters, becoming Atlanta’s fire chief, and then, in 2009, Barack Obama appointed him to run the Fire Administration, a division of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
After Cochran left Atlanta, the fire department struggled. So Atlanta’s mayor recruited him back, and Cochran turned the department around so thoroughly that it for the first time received the nation’s highest fire-protection rating. The cornerstone of his effort to transform the department’s morale was a “participatory management structure” that solicited input from “every rank, race, shift, and gender.”
He consciously included LGBT employees, granting — in his words — “every group a voice.” As I wrote when his case went to court, to this point Cochran’s story was one that would make even a university diversity officer rejoice. He overcame poverty and discrimination to ascend to the pinnacle of his profession, where he implemented an inclusive management style that improved employee morale.
But Cochran is also a Christian, and — soon enough — that presented a problem that was fatal to his career.
Wednesday, 17 October 2018
Scottish Authorities Are On the Sauce
A Message to the Bigots in Scotland
Michael Brown
The Stream
The Scottish government and Police Scotland funded billboard as part of their One Scotland campaign, condemning hate crimes and encouraging people to report hate crimes. The campaign specifically targets what it alleges is religious bigotry as a lack of "faith in respect and love."
A new billboard campaign in Scotland is calling out “homophobes” and “transphobes,” focusing in particular on religious “bigots.” In reality, it is the billboard campaign that is fear-based and bigoted.
One billboard reads: “Dear bigots, division seems to be what you believe in. We don’t want your religious hate on our buses, on our streets and in our communities. We don’t want you spreading your intolerance. Or making people’s lives a misery because of their religious dress. You may not have faith in respect and love, but we do. That’s why if we see or hear your hate, we’re reporting you. End of sermon. Yours, Scotland.”
Another reads: “Dear transphobes, do you think it’s right to harass people in the street? Right to push transgender people around in clubs? Right to humiliate, intimidate and threaten them online? Well we don’t. That’s why if we see you doing harm, we’re reporting you. We believe people should be allowed to be themselves. Except if they’re spreading hate. Yours, Scotland.”
And still another: “Dear homophobes, we have a phobia of your behaviour. If you torment people because of who they love, shout word that we are not going to write, or use violence because you don’t like who someone is holding hands with, you should be worried. If we see or hear your abuse, we’re calling the police. That’s because love lives in this country, not hate. Yours, Scotland.”
Hate Speech: The New (Ambiguous) Priority
On the one hand, we stand with Scotland in denouncing any harassment of those who identify as LGBT. And we condemn any violence against those same people. Categorically, absolutely, and without caveat.
Unfortunately, in the eyes of many in Scotland, simply reading the Bible on a street corner could be considered “harassment.” Quoting Scripture could be deemed verbal “violence.” And even delivering a sermon condemning homosexual practice as sin could be viewed as tormenting someone because of “who they love.”
As the “Word to the Bigots” billboard makes clear, it is “religious hate” that is being targeted and religious “intolerance” that is the culprit. The message is loud and clear. Those who oppose homosexuality or transgenderism do not “have faith in respect and love.”
Michael Brown
The Stream
The Scottish government and Police Scotland funded billboard as part of their One Scotland campaign, condemning hate crimes and encouraging people to report hate crimes. The campaign specifically targets what it alleges is religious bigotry as a lack of "faith in respect and love."
A new billboard campaign in Scotland is calling out “homophobes” and “transphobes,” focusing in particular on religious “bigots.” In reality, it is the billboard campaign that is fear-based and bigoted.
One billboard reads: “Dear bigots, division seems to be what you believe in. We don’t want your religious hate on our buses, on our streets and in our communities. We don’t want you spreading your intolerance. Or making people’s lives a misery because of their religious dress. You may not have faith in respect and love, but we do. That’s why if we see or hear your hate, we’re reporting you. End of sermon. Yours, Scotland.”
Another reads: “Dear transphobes, do you think it’s right to harass people in the street? Right to push transgender people around in clubs? Right to humiliate, intimidate and threaten them online? Well we don’t. That’s why if we see you doing harm, we’re reporting you. We believe people should be allowed to be themselves. Except if they’re spreading hate. Yours, Scotland.”
And still another: “Dear homophobes, we have a phobia of your behaviour. If you torment people because of who they love, shout word that we are not going to write, or use violence because you don’t like who someone is holding hands with, you should be worried. If we see or hear your abuse, we’re calling the police. That’s because love lives in this country, not hate. Yours, Scotland.”
Hate Speech: The New (Ambiguous) Priority
On the one hand, we stand with Scotland in denouncing any harassment of those who identify as LGBT. And we condemn any violence against those same people. Categorically, absolutely, and without caveat.
Unfortunately, in the eyes of many in Scotland, simply reading the Bible on a street corner could be considered “harassment.” Quoting Scripture could be deemed verbal “violence.” And even delivering a sermon condemning homosexual practice as sin could be viewed as tormenting someone because of “who they love.”
As the “Word to the Bigots” billboard makes clear, it is “religious hate” that is being targeted and religious “intolerance” that is the culprit. The message is loud and clear. Those who oppose homosexuality or transgenderism do not “have faith in respect and love.”
Friday, 27 July 2018
Another Attempt To Suppress Speech
Threats To Free Speech Appear To Abound
Liam Hehir
Stuff
The width and breadth of appreciation for free speech seems to be trending downwards of late.
For many, the open market of ideas is a smaller concept than it used to be. Some wish to fall back to a narrower, more legalistic definition of what free speech is. Others feel a more visceral urge to drive repellent views from the public square.
Not long ago, an activist telephoned me about a column I had written poking fun at the Government for relying on so many "working groups". It started with a demand to know why I had been allowed to publish it. The shrieking quickly progressed to obscenity and then to talk of unmentionable, violent things happening to myself and my wife. When I hung up, the activist continued trying to contacting me to resume the tirade.
I told the police about it. After a while, they sent me a letter saying they were on it. I've not heard anything since. As far as I know, nothing much has happened or will happen.
It was not a pleasant experience. But people like that do not present a serious challenge to freedom of speech. Their psychopathy prevents them from having any real impact on public affairs.
However, there are more sober sceptics of broad freedom of speech protections out there. They are often at the commanding heights of the academy, media and culture. They are serious and deserve to be taken seriously.
And their critiques are having their effect.
Liam Hehir
Stuff
The width and breadth of appreciation for free speech seems to be trending downwards of late.
For many, the open market of ideas is a smaller concept than it used to be. Some wish to fall back to a narrower, more legalistic definition of what free speech is. Others feel a more visceral urge to drive repellent views from the public square.
Not long ago, an activist telephoned me about a column I had written poking fun at the Government for relying on so many "working groups". It started with a demand to know why I had been allowed to publish it. The shrieking quickly progressed to obscenity and then to talk of unmentionable, violent things happening to myself and my wife. When I hung up, the activist continued trying to contacting me to resume the tirade.
I told the police about it. After a while, they sent me a letter saying they were on it. I've not heard anything since. As far as I know, nothing much has happened or will happen.
It was not a pleasant experience. But people like that do not present a serious challenge to freedom of speech. Their psychopathy prevents them from having any real impact on public affairs.
However, there are more sober sceptics of broad freedom of speech protections out there. They are often at the commanding heights of the academy, media and culture. They are serious and deserve to be taken seriously.
And their critiques are having their effect.
Tuesday, 24 July 2018
Demands For "Tolerance" Link Us to Caesar's Empire
A Sober Warning from the Earliest Christians
Tim Challies
July 16, 2018
When I was a kid, my family once watched a movie that included vivid scenes of persecution against the earliest Christians. I remember lying awake at night, terrified by these images of Christians burning in the streets and being fed to the lions. I couldn’t help but imagine myself in the place of those beleaguered believers. At the time, I assumed they were being persecuted simply for being Christians, but as I’ve studied early church history, I’ve come to realize it’s not quite so simple. And as simplicity gives way to reality, I see there are some important lessons we can learn today through that early church persecution.
The earliest Christians lived within the Roman Empire, and, despite what you may have heard, Rome was surprisingly tolerant of other faiths. As they conquered the surrounding nations, they would rarely demand full loyalty to the traditional Roman religion or gods. They would allow people to continue to worship their own gods in pretty much their own way. But still the Christians were persecuted. Why?
The great challenge of the Roman Empire was binding together many cultures, faiths, and nations under a common banner. As their armies conquered lands stretching from Germany to Northern Africa, from Spain to Syria, this challenge became increasingly difficult. What could serve as a kind of bond to hold it all together? The obvious answer was the Emperor. He could stand in as the living embodiment of the empire so that loyalty to the Emperor would be synonymous with loyalty to Rome.
Tim Challies
July 16, 2018
When I was a kid, my family once watched a movie that included vivid scenes of persecution against the earliest Christians. I remember lying awake at night, terrified by these images of Christians burning in the streets and being fed to the lions. I couldn’t help but imagine myself in the place of those beleaguered believers. At the time, I assumed they were being persecuted simply for being Christians, but as I’ve studied early church history, I’ve come to realize it’s not quite so simple. And as simplicity gives way to reality, I see there are some important lessons we can learn today through that early church persecution.
The earliest Christians lived within the Roman Empire, and, despite what you may have heard, Rome was surprisingly tolerant of other faiths. As they conquered the surrounding nations, they would rarely demand full loyalty to the traditional Roman religion or gods. They would allow people to continue to worship their own gods in pretty much their own way. But still the Christians were persecuted. Why?
The great challenge of the Roman Empire was binding together many cultures, faiths, and nations under a common banner. As their armies conquered lands stretching from Germany to Northern Africa, from Spain to Syria, this challenge became increasingly difficult. What could serve as a kind of bond to hold it all together? The obvious answer was the Emperor. He could stand in as the living embodiment of the empire so that loyalty to the Emperor would be synonymous with loyalty to Rome.
Monday, 23 July 2018
Shut Up, Or We Will Shut You Down
"I'm Triggered By Your Ugly Speech"
The Iron Fist Inside the Velvet Glove
David Farrar at Kiwiblog has directed readers to some material on Free Speech. The topic is timely at the moment, because of (successful) attempts to stifle the free speech of New Zealanders. Naturally, folk attempting to shut people up or shout them down so that no-one can hear what they are saying ooze with self-righteousness. They paternalistically see themselves as protecting others from ideas or opinions which might upset them or damage their self-esteem.
Robert Guest, Foreign Editor for The Economist responded recently to some questions about speech and why free speech must be maintained as a fundamental human right. We scarcely need to remind our readers that Christians have a significant interest in this issue. Unbelief always stands ready to shut down Christian discourse and proclamation, given half a chance. The ultimate champion of such repression is Satan. The last thing the demonic realms want is an open, free proclamation of Christ and His Kingdom.
Here is Robert Guest's take on why the right of free speech is so fundamental to civilisation.
Why are we so passionate about free speech? It is not just because The Economist is a newspaper. It is also because free speech is the best defence against bad government. Everyone should be at liberty to berate politicians. Constructive criticism can alert them to things they are doing wrong, and perhaps persuade them to change course. Mockery, even unfair mockery, is part of the rough and tumble of democracy. No government can be trusted with the power to silence it.
Secondly, in all areas of life, freewheeling debate helps to sort good ideas from bad ones. Science cannot progress unless old certainties are questioned—remember how the Inquisition threatened Galileo with torture for claiming that the Earth orbits the Sun?
Limits on speech are in effect limits on thought. So censorship makes it harder for us to understand the world. When a government orders statisticians to fudge the numbers, as happens in all kinds of places, it ensures that its own policymaking will be poorly informed. When academics declare certain topics “too controversial” to discuss, they hinder the quest for knowledge.
The law should recognise the right to free speech as nearly absolute. There should be very few exceptions to this rule.
Thursday, 3 May 2018
Campus Persecution and Mob Rule
Tony Esolen Contra Mundum
Rod Dreher
The American Conservative
Many readers will have heard of Anthony Esolen, the robustly orthodox Catholic literature professor at Providence College, the Dominican-run college in Rhode Island. Prof. Esolen is the author of a number of books, including an exquisite translation of Dante’s Divine Comedy, which is one of the three translations I recommend to anyone who asks me which is the best to read. He also writes frequently for orthodox Christian magazines like Touchstone and Crisis.
A couple of essays he published in Crisis this autumn sparked a huge row on his campus. The first criticizes the politics of “diversity” as they play out within a Catholic academic setting. The second poses the question to faithful Catholics (and other Christians): What will you do when the persecution comes?
Naturally, some students and faculty on Esolen’s campus were so outraged by his suggestion that “diversity” as they understand it is misguided and destructive that they have commenced a campaign to punish him, perhaps even to fire him. [Esolen has since left Providence College.] Now, Esolen is having to answer the very question he recently posed to his readers in the second essay. Tony Esolen agreed to answer a few questions from me via e-mail. Our conversation is reproduced below.
Rod Dreher
The American Conservative
 |
| Prof Anthony Esolen |
Many readers will have heard of Anthony Esolen, the robustly orthodox Catholic literature professor at Providence College, the Dominican-run college in Rhode Island. Prof. Esolen is the author of a number of books, including an exquisite translation of Dante’s Divine Comedy, which is one of the three translations I recommend to anyone who asks me which is the best to read. He also writes frequently for orthodox Christian magazines like Touchstone and Crisis.
A couple of essays he published in Crisis this autumn sparked a huge row on his campus. The first criticizes the politics of “diversity” as they play out within a Catholic academic setting. The second poses the question to faithful Catholics (and other Christians): What will you do when the persecution comes?
Naturally, some students and faculty on Esolen’s campus were so outraged by his suggestion that “diversity” as they understand it is misguided and destructive that they have commenced a campaign to punish him, perhaps even to fire him. [Esolen has since left Providence College.] Now, Esolen is having to answer the very question he recently posed to his readers in the second essay. Tony Esolen agreed to answer a few questions from me via e-mail. Our conversation is reproduced below.
Wednesday, 2 May 2018
The Rise of Homofascism
Homofascism at a Small Catholic College
Philip Devine
Mercatornet
Providence College (PC) is a small Dominican college in Rhode Island. Michael Smalanskas, a student at PC, put up a poster defending the Roman Catholic understanding of marriage, which did not express fear, hatred, or even disapproval of anyone. The local LGBTQ+ alliance began a campaign of harassment against him, including a threat of anal rape.
Philosophy professor, and advisor to the student gay group. Dr. Christopher Arroyo announced a march against “every sign of unjust discrimination towards LGBTQ* members of the Friar Family.” (e-mail to the Providence College faculty, March 16, 2018. my emphasis) Michael was even advised to prove that he was not a homophobe by joining the march against himself.
Belatedly, after much protest by faculty, students, and alumni, the President of the College affirmed Catholic teaching about marriage and condemned the threats against Michael. In 2016 Anthony Esolen, a distinguished Dante scholar and dynamic teacher, criticized the cult of diversity and was subjected to a campaign of vilification, by the President of Providence College among others, serious enough to cause him to leave the College. [Esolen's account follows tomorrow. Contra Celsum has carried a number of pieces written by or referring to some of Esolen's published works, most recently Out of the Ashes. JT]
If it can happen at Providence College, it can happen anywhere.
 |
| The Offending Poster |
Mercatornet
Providence College (PC) is a small Dominican college in Rhode Island. Michael Smalanskas, a student at PC, put up a poster defending the Roman Catholic understanding of marriage, which did not express fear, hatred, or even disapproval of anyone. The local LGBTQ+ alliance began a campaign of harassment against him, including a threat of anal rape.
Philosophy professor, and advisor to the student gay group. Dr. Christopher Arroyo announced a march against “every sign of unjust discrimination towards LGBTQ* members of the Friar Family.” (e-mail to the Providence College faculty, March 16, 2018. my emphasis) Michael was even advised to prove that he was not a homophobe by joining the march against himself.
Belatedly, after much protest by faculty, students, and alumni, the President of the College affirmed Catholic teaching about marriage and condemned the threats against Michael. In 2016 Anthony Esolen, a distinguished Dante scholar and dynamic teacher, criticized the cult of diversity and was subjected to a campaign of vilification, by the President of Providence College among others, serious enough to cause him to leave the College. [Esolen's account follows tomorrow. Contra Celsum has carried a number of pieces written by or referring to some of Esolen's published works, most recently Out of the Ashes. JT]
Wednesday, 7 March 2018
Relentless Intolerance
The Wrong Kind of Catholic School
Do Christian Institutions Have a Right to Exist?
John Stonestreet & G. Shane Morris
Breakpoint
Here’s an outrageous proposition: Maybe Christian schools should be able to require their teachers to adhere to Christian teaching.
Peter and Paul Catholic School in Miami recently made national headlines for terminating the employment of first grade teacher Jocelyn Morffi. The reason was that Morffi had just announced her “marriage” to her lesbian partner. “In their eyes I’m not the right kind of Catholic,” Morffi complained on social media.
According to the Washington Post, “dozens of angry parents” showed up at the school the following day and demanded an explanation. Local politicians took time from their busy schedules to likewise wag their fingers at the school.
“It’s 2018,” said openly gay Florida State House Representative, David Richardson. “But you may be surprised to learn that you can be fired from your employment not just because of gay marriage but also because you’re gay.” Although there’s nothing in the story that confirms the last part of his allegation, Richardson still thinks the whole affair “underscores the need” for state and federal legislation prohibiting discrimination.
Of course, Miami-Dade County already has a local ordinance forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But there is a religious exception.
In response, a spokeswoman for the Archdiocese gently reminded the media that Morffi was, in fact, a teacher at a Catholic school. As part of her job, she signed a contract pledging to follow the Catholic Church’s teaching—including its teaching on marriage.
Do Christian Institutions Have a Right to Exist?
John Stonestreet & G. Shane Morris
Breakpoint
Here’s an outrageous proposition: Maybe Christian schools should be able to require their teachers to adhere to Christian teaching.
Peter and Paul Catholic School in Miami recently made national headlines for terminating the employment of first grade teacher Jocelyn Morffi. The reason was that Morffi had just announced her “marriage” to her lesbian partner. “In their eyes I’m not the right kind of Catholic,” Morffi complained on social media.
According to the Washington Post, “dozens of angry parents” showed up at the school the following day and demanded an explanation. Local politicians took time from their busy schedules to likewise wag their fingers at the school.
“It’s 2018,” said openly gay Florida State House Representative, David Richardson. “But you may be surprised to learn that you can be fired from your employment not just because of gay marriage but also because you’re gay.” Although there’s nothing in the story that confirms the last part of his allegation, Richardson still thinks the whole affair “underscores the need” for state and federal legislation prohibiting discrimination.
Of course, Miami-Dade County already has a local ordinance forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But there is a religious exception.
In response, a spokeswoman for the Archdiocese gently reminded the media that Morffi was, in fact, a teacher at a Catholic school. As part of her job, she signed a contract pledging to follow the Catholic Church’s teaching—including its teaching on marriage.
Saturday, 9 December 2017
The "Freedom" of Secular Humanism
. . . And In the Darkness Bind Them
Secular humanism and atheism commenced their campaign to "rule them all" by appealing to tolerance and liberty. People, we were told, should be free to embrace causes and ethics which recognize and respect atheist and humanist beliefs in the public square. The first step represented a "feel good" stage. The opposition was cast as illiberal and stingy. In particular Christians were cast as bigots, narrow minded, and holding to outdated, non-scientific beliefs.
The UK provides a case study of how this has unfolded and played out in the West. Marriage and family was the first battleground. At first, under the cloak of freedom, toleration of homosexuality was gradually extended throughout the UK. In 1967 homosexual acts were legalised in England and Wales (subsequently extended to Scotland in 1980 and Northern Ireland in 1982.) In 2001 the age of consent for homosexual acts was lowered to 16 years old.
The acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual acts was then fleshed out (still under the banner of liberty and freedom). In 2002 the Adoption and Children Act allowed unmarried and same-sex couples to adopt children.
Secular humanism and atheism commenced their campaign to "rule them all" by appealing to tolerance and liberty. People, we were told, should be free to embrace causes and ethics which recognize and respect atheist and humanist beliefs in the public square. The first step represented a "feel good" stage. The opposition was cast as illiberal and stingy. In particular Christians were cast as bigots, narrow minded, and holding to outdated, non-scientific beliefs.
The UK provides a case study of how this has unfolded and played out in the West. Marriage and family was the first battleground. At first, under the cloak of freedom, toleration of homosexuality was gradually extended throughout the UK. In 1967 homosexual acts were legalised in England and Wales (subsequently extended to Scotland in 1980 and Northern Ireland in 1982.) In 2001 the age of consent for homosexual acts was lowered to 16 years old.
The acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual acts was then fleshed out (still under the banner of liberty and freedom). In 2002 the Adoption and Children Act allowed unmarried and same-sex couples to adopt children.
Thursday, 16 February 2017
Stupid Is as Stupid Does
It's Not OK to Punch Fascists
Liam Hehir
Stuff
Not long ago, disreputable Right-winger Richard Spencer was attacked on live television. Spencer is often accused of being a Nazi though he disputes that label.
He is undoubtedly a purveyor of white identity politics, however, and is notable for coining the term "alt-right". At the time he was attacked he was being interviewed on the street during the Trump presidential inauguration. A man came up, smashed him in the side of the face and ran off.
A punch directly to the head is serious business. A blow to the cranium – even a relatively restrained one – can cause lasting damage. Spencer could have been seriously hurt or even killed.
Nevertheless, for many "liberals" in the United States and elsewhere, the sight of such a villainous personage being clocked caused much glee. The offender was compared to Indiana Jones, Captain America, the Blues Brothers and other pop-culture icons who were famous for their (fictional) assaults on Nazis. Videos of the incident set to music went viral, with a former Obama administration speechwriter tweeting that, "I don't care how many different songs you set Richard Spencer being punched to, I'll laugh at every one."
Since then, it has become clear that the idea of using violence against alleged fascists has gained some respectability.
Even if they deserve the term
Liam Hehir
Stuff
Not long ago, disreputable Right-winger Richard Spencer was attacked on live television. Spencer is often accused of being a Nazi though he disputes that label.
 | ||
| A man attacks Richard Spencer during the ABC's live interview. |
He is undoubtedly a purveyor of white identity politics, however, and is notable for coining the term "alt-right". At the time he was attacked he was being interviewed on the street during the Trump presidential inauguration. A man came up, smashed him in the side of the face and ran off.
A punch directly to the head is serious business. A blow to the cranium – even a relatively restrained one – can cause lasting damage. Spencer could have been seriously hurt or even killed.
Nevertheless, for many "liberals" in the United States and elsewhere, the sight of such a villainous personage being clocked caused much glee. The offender was compared to Indiana Jones, Captain America, the Blues Brothers and other pop-culture icons who were famous for their (fictional) assaults on Nazis. Videos of the incident set to music went viral, with a former Obama administration speechwriter tweeting that, "I don't care how many different songs you set Richard Spencer being punched to, I'll laugh at every one."
Since then, it has become clear that the idea of using violence against alleged fascists has gained some respectability.
Friday, 23 December 2016
Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow
How High Is the Water, Momma?
Blog&Mablog
Lord willing, and if the crik don’t rise, I want to write a short series of posts to help Christians understand the nature of the bigotry-avalanche coming our way. Not only so, but I want to explain how the success of the bigotry depends upon us sharing certain key assumptions with our confused masters of bastinado. They wield the stick, but we hold our feet up for them.
Not to be coy, I am writing about the impossibility of genuine secularism. Secularism only works as a veneer on a Christian culture. In short, “secularism” is fully capable of taking credit for the magnanimity shown by a Christian people, but when those Christians and their root assumptions are successfully herded into their assigned ghetto, and the central altar in the high cathedral really is an altar to that trousered ape called man, it is then that we discover how mean and petty and nasty the jackbooted totalitolerant actually are.
First, so that we have a little grist for our mill, let us take a look at what Airbnb is now doing. Excuse me—I meant to say the Airbnb community. Suppose you want to go stay somewhere, and you log on to their most welcoming website in order to make some reservations somewhere. You will now run into this.
Ten Feet High and Risin'
Douglas WilsonBlog&Mablog
Lord willing, and if the crik don’t rise, I want to write a short series of posts to help Christians understand the nature of the bigotry-avalanche coming our way. Not only so, but I want to explain how the success of the bigotry depends upon us sharing certain key assumptions with our confused masters of bastinado. They wield the stick, but we hold our feet up for them.
Not to be coy, I am writing about the impossibility of genuine secularism. Secularism only works as a veneer on a Christian culture. In short, “secularism” is fully capable of taking credit for the magnanimity shown by a Christian people, but when those Christians and their root assumptions are successfully herded into their assigned ghetto, and the central altar in the high cathedral really is an altar to that trousered ape called man, it is then that we discover how mean and petty and nasty the jackbooted totalitolerant actually are.
First, so that we have a little grist for our mill, let us take a look at what Airbnb is now doing. Excuse me—I meant to say the Airbnb community. Suppose you want to go stay somewhere, and you log on to their most welcoming website in order to make some reservations somewhere. You will now run into this.
Saturday, 26 November 2016
Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow
Totalitolerance and the Tactics of Trigglypuff
Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog
INTRODUCTION
If you assume that secular society is an actual possibility, which is a big suppose, one of the first things you have to do is ignore the outliers. In other words, diversity is great, and will continue to be great, just so long as nobody leans too far to the right or left in our wobbly societal canoe. In other words, secular diversity works great so long as we manage to keep the diversity to a minimum.
This is just another way of saying that any culture, in order to be a functional culture at all, has to operate around shared values. If the values are not shared, if people cannot quietly assume them in their disputes with members of a rival party within that culture, with the rival party assuming the same values, then we do not have a culture at all. What we have is a cultural civil war.
And that is what we currently have.
THE SET UP
In order to work out the ramifications of this, let me point to a current manifestation of what is being touted as simple liberal hypocrisy. But it is not so much hypocrisy—although there is a hypocritical element—as it is an example of the limitations of stage four secularism. The current secular ruling elites are incapable of handling the hardline outliers, and their canoe is going over.
Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog
INTRODUCTION
If you assume that secular society is an actual possibility, which is a big suppose, one of the first things you have to do is ignore the outliers. In other words, diversity is great, and will continue to be great, just so long as nobody leans too far to the right or left in our wobbly societal canoe. In other words, secular diversity works great so long as we manage to keep the diversity to a minimum.
This is just another way of saying that any culture, in order to be a functional culture at all, has to operate around shared values. If the values are not shared, if people cannot quietly assume them in their disputes with members of a rival party within that culture, with the rival party assuming the same values, then we do not have a culture at all. What we have is a cultural civil war.
And that is what we currently have.
THE SET UP
In order to work out the ramifications of this, let me point to a current manifestation of what is being touted as simple liberal hypocrisy. But it is not so much hypocrisy—although there is a hypocritical element—as it is an example of the limitations of stage four secularism. The current secular ruling elites are incapable of handling the hardline outliers, and their canoe is going over.
Friday, 25 November 2016
Liberal Cant
Refusing To Serve Customers You Don’t Agree With Is Suddenly Cool Again
The Federalist
Mary Katharine Ham
To the many things the Trump administration in waiting has made cool again, add private businesses refusing service to customers based on moral objections.
Friday, fashion designer Sophie Theallet, who has dressed the current first lady Michelle Obama, offered a preemptive refusal to hypothetically dress the next first lady, Melania Trump, should she ask for some of her clothes— presumably not the ones available at The Gap. In her unsolicited letter, Theallet informed the world that a person who did not ask for any of her clothes would not be getting them.
The Federalist
Mary Katharine Ham
Remember how it was the height of bigotry for religious objectors to decline to participate in a gay wedding? But now it's brave to decline to sell Melania Trump a dress.
To the many things the Trump administration in waiting has made cool again, add private businesses refusing service to customers based on moral objections.
Friday, fashion designer Sophie Theallet, who has dressed the current first lady Michelle Obama, offered a preemptive refusal to hypothetically dress the next first lady, Melania Trump, should she ask for some of her clothes— presumably not the ones available at The Gap. In her unsolicited letter, Theallet informed the world that a person who did not ask for any of her clothes would not be getting them.
“As one who celebrates and strives for diversity, individual freedom and respect for all lifestyles, I will not participate in dressing or associating in any way with the next First Lady,” the letter reads. “The rhetoric of racism, sexism, and xenophobia unleashed by her husband’s presidential campaign are incompatible with the shared values we live by. I encourage my fellow designers to do the same,” it goes on.In refusing service to Trump, Theallet appealed to “individual freedom” and the idea of her art as an expression of the company’s “artistic and philosophical ideals.” Her announcement was called “noble,” “patriotic,” and “admirable integrity.”
Wednesday, 14 September 2016
God's Workmanship
A Latter-Day Joan of Arc
This story comes in three parts.
The first is a You Tube piece of Professor Carol Rain describing her origins, her family home, and her upbringing.
The second piece is a You Tube video of an interview Rain describing how modern liberal political ideology only cements the conditions and circumstances of poverty.
The third You Tube video summarises what has has happened to her recently at Vanderbilt University.
First, Carol Rain's family and upbringing--and how she escaped it.
Second, the awakening of Professor Rain to the destructive effects of liberal political ideology.
This story comes in three parts.
The first is a You Tube piece of Professor Carol Rain describing her origins, her family home, and her upbringing.
The second piece is a You Tube video of an interview Rain describing how modern liberal political ideology only cements the conditions and circumstances of poverty.
The third You Tube video summarises what has has happened to her recently at Vanderbilt University.
First, Carol Rain's family and upbringing--and how she escaped it.
Second, the awakening of Professor Rain to the destructive effects of liberal political ideology.
Carol Rain got her GED, earned an associate degree from Virginia Western Community College, and went on to Roanoke College where she earned her bachelors Magna Cum Laude. She then went to Virginia Tech for her Masters, University of North Carolina for her Ph.D., and finally Yale University Law School.
She became an Assistant Professor at Duke, then Associate Professor at Princeton, and finally a distinguished Professor of Political Science and Law at Vanderbilt University. I mean, seriously, this is the American dream. This is the story we all want to have. Prof. Swain embodies hope. She should be celebrated and lifted up as an example to all our young people.
But, she doesn’t toe the liberal line, you see. “Burn her at the stake!” Here are the sort of things Prof. Swain says that have prompted the little brats at Vanderbilt to rebel against her:
My accomplishments didn’t come easy. It was through hard work. It was perseverance. A “can-do” spirit that I attribute to the grace of God. It is so amazing what a little encouragement and direction can do. But the system itself doesn’t encourage people to better themselves. The social welfare programs that we have in America put a band aid on the problem but it does not fix it. The only thing these programs do is create, in the long term, a sense of entitlement that results in the loss of self-worth for the individual. The truth is people feel good about themselves when they can work and provide for themselves and for their families.What! She said, What? No, no, no, no, no. Remember, Swain is African-American (did I mention that?); how dare she omit the fact that the system is rigged and there is nothing African-Americans can do to succeed as long as “the white man” is in charge?
Doesn’t she know the Democratic Platform? Actually, she knows a bit too much about the Democratic Party, and that has caused her to distance herself from it. The Democrats’ sordid history supporting the slave trade is being exposed now in Dinesh D’Souza’s Hillary’s America, in which Prof. Swain is featured revealing how the Democrats were the party of slavery. It was Republicans who rose in opposition.
Can you imagine a distinguish professor, with a Ph.D. in political science, having the gall to actually talk about history just like that, with no warning or anything? Yes, it’s all true, but it’s about more than that. This is why we need safe spaces.
So to recap, in the warped views of today’s college campuses, Prof. Swain is an exemplary role model, but she doesn’t agree with Black Lives Matter, so she must be silenced. To be celebrated, she should join the chorus of liberal African-American voices calling America as racist as ever, calling each other the “n”-word, women the “b”-word and voting for Democrats, no matter what.
Pathetic.
Mario Diaz, Esq. is Legal Counsel at Concerned Women for America, the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization. His book Be Spent: Winning the Fight for Freedom’s Survival is available now at Amazon. Follow him on Twitter @legalblurbblog.
The Blowback
Thursday, 23 June 2016
The Little Red Hen and Her "Helpers"
Some Speech Is More Free Than Others
Liberal democratic values apparently have limits. Only so far, and no further.
An interesting debate has broken out over free speech and diversity and tolerance in New Zealand. As in so many countries, the provocation is the vexed issues surrounding refugees. The rub: should we allow people to migrate into our country who hold views "we" find intolerant, and therefore intolerable?
The NZ Herald has devoted an editorial to the question which reeks of self-righteous smuggery. It suggests that New Zealand's liberal tolerance of ideas reflecting our view of freedom, liberty, and equality do not need promoting to potential refugees, nor do we need be concerned about inculcating these values into hearts and minds of refugees. Why,
Liberal democratic values apparently have limits. Only so far, and no further.
An interesting debate has broken out over free speech and diversity and tolerance in New Zealand. As in so many countries, the provocation is the vexed issues surrounding refugees. The rub: should we allow people to migrate into our country who hold views "we" find intolerant, and therefore intolerable?
The NZ Herald has devoted an editorial to the question which reeks of self-righteous smuggery. It suggests that New Zealand's liberal tolerance of ideas reflecting our view of freedom, liberty, and equality do not need promoting to potential refugees, nor do we need be concerned about inculcating these values into hearts and minds of refugees. Why,
those values do not need promoting. Refugees are well aware of them; those values are the reason they want to come here.Puleeze. Has not the editorial writer heard of Maslow's Heirarchy of Human Needs? To suggest that refugees are fleeing to our country because of our superior values rather than because they face starvation and death is smuggery beyond compare.
Tuesday, 14 June 2016
Tactical Victory in Norway--But The War Continues
Norway Reunites Seized Children With Family
By Jayme Metzgar
The Federalist
A child welfare case in Norway that has been grabbing headlines and stirring protests worldwide came to a sudden end late last week.
The story, which I covered in depth for The Federalist in April, centers on Marius and Ruth Bodnariu and their five young children. Marius, a Romanian citizen, and Ruth, a native Norwegian, first ran afoul of Norway’s child protective services (called Barnevernet) in November 2015. After privately interviewing the family’s two oldest daughters at school, Barnevernet abruptly took all five children into emergency custody: first the girls, then the younger boys, and finally the three-month-old baby.
Charges focused on the family’s occasional use of physical discipline (which is banned in Norway), but lawyers pointed to troubling CPS statements about the Bodnarius’ Christian faith, suggesting religious discrimination had also played a role. Despite medical exams and interviews with family members, doctors, and neighbors, Barnevernet was unable to find any evidence of abuse. Still, the children were split up among three foster homes, where they stayed for months with minimal parental contact.
International Pressure Bears Fruit
The Bodnariu family’s ordeal ends, but advocates vow to keep fighting for reforms.By Jayme Metzgar
The Federalist
A child welfare case in Norway that has been grabbing headlines and stirring protests worldwide came to a sudden end late last week.
The story, which I covered in depth for The Federalist in April, centers on Marius and Ruth Bodnariu and their five young children. Marius, a Romanian citizen, and Ruth, a native Norwegian, first ran afoul of Norway’s child protective services (called Barnevernet) in November 2015. After privately interviewing the family’s two oldest daughters at school, Barnevernet abruptly took all five children into emergency custody: first the girls, then the younger boys, and finally the three-month-old baby.
Charges focused on the family’s occasional use of physical discipline (which is banned in Norway), but lawyers pointed to troubling CPS statements about the Bodnarius’ Christian faith, suggesting religious discrimination had also played a role. Despite medical exams and interviews with family members, doctors, and neighbors, Barnevernet was unable to find any evidence of abuse. Still, the children were split up among three foster homes, where they stayed for months with minimal parental contact.
Monday, 6 June 2016
Rampant Intolerance in Academia
Unbelief Does Not Like Competition
An op-ed piece appeared recently in the NY Times declaiming the overwhelming prejudice against conservative academics that bubbles away in the ivory towers of the United States. Nicholas Kristof reveals the extent of the problem.
An op-ed piece appeared recently in the NY Times declaiming the overwhelming prejudice against conservative academics that bubbles away in the ivory towers of the United States. Nicholas Kristof reveals the extent of the problem.
A Confession of Liberal Intolerance
Nicholas Kristof
New York Times
We progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.The extent of the prejudice does not surprise us in the slightest.
Universities are the bedrock of progressive values, but the one kind of diversity that universities disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us. O.K., that’s a little harsh. But consider George Yancey, a sociologist who is black and evangelical. “Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black,” he told me. “But inside academia I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.”
I’ve been thinking about this because on Facebook recently I wondered aloud whether universities stigmatize conservatives and undermine intellectual diversity. The scornful reaction from my fellow liberals proved the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)