You may have read in the news that a
faculty member of the Gallaudet University in Washington DC has been
placed on “administrative leave,” due to the fact that she signed a
petition requesting referendum on the issue of gay marriage in Maryland.
Angela McCaskill is “Chief Diversity Officer” at Gallaudet University in Washington DC. She
was at church one Sunday, and requested to sign the petition that would
permit the voters of Maryland to vote on the issue of gay “marriage.”
She signed the petition and says she did so because she favors democracy
and allowing citizens to vote on such controversial issues, as opposed
to having legislatures and courts force so-called “gay marriage” on the
populace. (More HERE)
But the administrators at Gallaudet University consider her signing of the petition to be unacceptable. Apparently, as “Chief Diversity Officer,” they don’t consider her kind of diversity the right kind of diversity.
To be sure, it is refreshing and surprising
to hear that a “diversity officer” would have signed a petition
opposing Gay “marriage” and insist that gay marriage be brought to a
vote, instead of merely being imposed. As most social conservatives
know, and have experienced, the usual “diversity office” at a campus is
anything but diverse in its views. And, that a diversity officer might
actually understand that there more than one side to the issue of Gay
“marriage” surprises not only social conservatives, but also
(apparently) social leftists. In effect, the leadership at Gallaudet
University sees Ms. McCaskill’s actions as incompatible with their
notion of diversity, and are saying, in effect, “How could you!”
But merely expressing surprise is not
usually enough for radicals on the left. Thus, they have placed her on
“administrative leave.” Never mind all the usual calls for tolerance
from the radicals, never mind the “free exchange of ideas” that they so
often extol on college campuses. Never mind all that, according to them,
Ms. McCaskill has to go.
The reaction well demonstrates that when leftist cultural radicals speak of “diversity,” they don’t mean it in any fair minded or straight forward definition of the word.
The word diversity comes from the Latin word diversus: di (two) + versa
(turns or sides). Thus, the true meaning of the word “diversity” means
“two sides.” Or by extension, “more than one side,” “more than one
viewpoint” or just “different.”
But the cultural radicals mean no such thing. In their lexicon “diversity” means you have to accept anything they
propose. But it does not that they should accept you, or that they
should even consider the fact that you might be troubled that they
propose anything, no matter how deviant the behavior has historically
been seen to be. In their lexicon, being “open-minded” means that you
agree with them. “Tolerance” is your obligation to agree with them, but
not their obligation to accept you, or your deeply held Christian
beliefs, no matter how ancient or how well attested.
And, in their form of diversity, tolerance and open-mindedness, if they can punish your non-compliance or even just your non-placet, they will do so with a sense of righteousness, and they will do so firmly and swiftly.
The central point is, when cultural radicals use these terms, they mean no such thing.
To be sure, I am not hereby articulating
a position that diversity is an absolute quality or virtue. There are
certain diversities to be celebrated and/or tolerate. But there are
certain behaviors, which ought not be tolerated, illicit sexual union
and Gay “marriage” among them.
The intent in this post is
merely call the cultural radicals on their bluff. When they talk about
diversity, they don’t really mean it. When they try to parade around in
clothes of openness, tolerance, and diversity, they are misrepresenting
themselves. When they celebrate “diversity” they don’t mean you,
especially if you are a traditional Christian. Their ‘diversity” doesn’t
include the Scriptures or the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition, or
Natural Law. And don’t even think about mentioning the Catholic Church
to them, you’re certain to be shown the door out of their “diverse”
world.
To them these things are not something
to celebrate or tolerate. They are something to abhor, to legally block,
and for some of them, even something to destroy.
Just remember, when they speak of diversity they don’t mean it.
And if they mean it all, it is only for them and their favored groups.
But they certainly don’t mean it for you, especially if you are a
traditional, Bible believing Christian. No, you are not part of the
rainbow, you are not part of their tapestry, or their mosaic. You have
no place at their table, no place in their celebration.
The views of diversity officer Angela McCaskill regarding (so called) “gay marriage,” are not clear. But one thing is clear,
she has (wittingly or unwittingly) called the bluff of the diversity
motif of the cultural radicals, and has incurred special wrath because
she has done so.
To them she is “off message.” She actually took the word diversity to me what it says.
How wrong was that! And now she is cast out of the “hallowed halls” the
radicals think they own. She is proof that when cultural radicals
speak of diversity they don’t mean you, they only mean themselves.
Disclaimer: I have
chosen the words “cultural radicals” carefully. I am willing to admit
that there are many who oppose the Church’s teaching on Biblical
marriage who are far less radical, who are of good will, and may also be
shocked at what happened to Angela McCaskill. There are some who are
willing to allow the cultural debates of our time to be conducted in an
open and honest way, and accept that varying groups, including
Christians, have the rights of any citizens to engage in the political
process, and to seek to influence the discussions in the on-going
cultural shifts of the West.
But the radicals have no such room in
their world for opposition or even discussion, and they want to silence
any questioning of their agenda. They are growing in number, especially
in university and government settings, and it is to them that I address
the concerns of this blog.
