To be in favor of diversity as the modern liberal defines it is to be intolerant of opposing views. The case of Ben Stein and the University of Vermont.
UVM President Dan Fogel announced that [Ben] Stein, whom Fogel had invited to address UVM's commencement in May, would not be coming after all. Fogel said that his selection of Stein generated an intense protest, that he received hundreds of angry e-mails over the weekend, and that after he shared these "profound concerns" with Stein, Stein "immediately and most graciously declined our commencement invitation."
– Burlington Free Press, 2-3-2009
If President Fogel were to receive thousands of e-mails protesting Stein's withdrawal, what do you suppose he would do?
Modern liberals wield the mighty shield of diversity to deflect all manner of criticisms regarding their intentions and their results as they seek to redefine accepted behavior and speech. Liberalism's interpretation and subsequent de facto enforcement of what they call diversity has condemned some opinions and has advocated and defended others. But how can speech be limited in the name of diversity?
Obvious contradictions compel me to analyze how liberals define diversity and by what ways and means they are prone to use to enforce it.
Quite often liberals condemn the expression of dissenting opinions in the name of diversity. That's like an opponent of the death penalty sentencing those who disagree with their view to death. If one values diversity, then those who oppose should be welcome. If all parties share the same opinions, there is no intellectual diversity.
Consider colleges that resist ROTC programs and military recruitment on campus. They believe that the use of military force to settle disputes is barbaric. They prefer diplomacy and compromise. They fear that a strong military will tend to encourage imperialism and insensitivity to the needs and opinions of less powerful nations. They claim to value diversity. They believe that diversity exposes people to disparate customs and opinions that broaden one's perspective and allow for a deeper understanding of the human experience.
Liberals believe that those who lack exposure to diversity are at an intellectual disadvantage when presented with complex problems involving people with disparate backgrounds and values. They are mentally rigid and shallow because they have been sheltered by an environment with no variety of opinion and that does not value new ideas.
They are less able to adapt to a rapidly changing environment because they have no experience coping with new ideas and situations because they have only associated with people who are just like them. They have lost the capability to adapt because they have never had to. They are considered the intellectual equivalent of a herd of stampeding buffalo; they travel together as a herd and dare not stray. They are regarded as souls who are more likely to be dismissive (and seemingly intolerant) of those not like them because they simply cannot see things from any perspective except their own.
Having made the case for diversity, why do they seek to silence those on campus who want to participate in ROTC or would like to encourage young people to join the military? These are people with different perspectives born of different experiences and customs; the very definition of diverse, they should be welcome, but they are not.
If something doesn't add up, check your premise. In this case we assume that liberals are being genuine when they advocate diversity.
In fact, liberals have redefined diversity to mean the enforcement of a strict code that has well-defined acceptable views and behaviors, and the vigorous opposition to all those who do not comply. To advocate diversity as the liberals define it is to accept certain beliefs as untouchable.
If you want to know if you meet the criteria to be defined as an advocate of diversity, you need only check your opinions against the accepted views that modern liberalism has mandated that an enlightened person must hold.
Consider what often happens when controversial conservatives such as Stein are scheduled to appear on a liberal campus; often students and faculty insist that the invitation be retracted, and at the very least they protest and disrupt the event.
It's almost funny; those who believe in diversity should protest only when someone with controversial views is silenced, not when they are allowed to speak.
In this case Stein is guilty of holding controversial views regarding intelligent design. Look at how this slice of academia has responded to a diverse opinion.
Take another example. Liberals believe that America is the source of most of the ills in this world. They believe that America is an imperialist nation that has unfairly dominated the world by means of violence and political oppression. They believe that had it not been for America's caustic effect on the earth, all nations would be living in harmony with each other and with nature.
Now, with this in mind, imagine that someone disparages America, admonishes it, insults it – how would a person that values diversity react? That's easy. He would agree; he would then make some statement to separate himself from America proper by using words like "they" and "it". He would not feel insulted because he does not consider himself part of the "bad" America. As a liberal, he considers himself part of the solution to the "America" problem. He would then feel a sense of superiority to those "bad" Americans who are causing the rest of the world such a problem.
How would he react to someone who instead defended America? Well, if America is bad, and a person is defending it, then he must be bad too. The diversity-acceptable response would be to disparage the America defender and express indignation at such cave-man like thick-skulled backwoods ignorance, after which the proper feeling would be one of superiority; since you get it and he doesn't.
The acceptable response is not to recognize that his opinions have just as much right to be heard as yours, it is not to use logic and reason to examine the validity of his statements, it is not to accept his views into the community of ideas, nor is it to feel pride that you live in a country where a man can speak his mind.
In short, the politically correct response is to be rigid, subjective, and dismissive.
So to be in favor of diversity as the modern liberal defines it is to be intolerant of opposing views. Diversity now requires the acceptance of myriad positions regarding topics ranging from A to Z. Modern diversity demands that the only acceptable viewpoints are those that have been approved by the powers that be.
Think of the last time you heard a liberal institution announce a policy advocating diversity. Doesn't that really mean that there are certain viewpoints that are taboo? Doesn't that mean that opposition to certain accepted beliefs will not be tolerated? If a diversity policy were legitimate, the only way to be in violation of it would be to prevent someone from expressing a diverse opinion.
How can someone violate a diversity policy by disagreeing with the powers that be? One can violate a diversity policy in such a manner only if said policy statement is simply a euphemism for the oppression of dissent.
What we need is the open and free exchange of ideas. When the liberal powers that be step in to be the arbiter for proper speech, they also become the oppressor of those who dissent.
As the modern liberal defines it, the last thing we need more of is diversity.
Thank you Chris
I had two thoughts while reading your article. One was a remembrance of my youth, which I always enjoy. The year was 1958. I was still two years away from getting a license to drive a car, but there was a 14 year old age limit for motor scooters under 5 HP. I saved the money I made from delivering newspapers and bought a red used Sears Allstate two wheeler. Since it was used and a bit banged up, I decided to give it a new paint job. It was still 11 years before Woodstock and 12 before Janis Joplin would OD, but the war protests had already begun with the advent of the Beatnik. At first, the Beatniks were different from other people, with there long hair, love beads, and colorful tie-dyed T-shirts, but they quickly became a style that made them all look alike. Digging into my dads stash of paint cans I found some red paint and daubed it onto to my scooter in places were the bare metal was showing, but it didn’t match. Then I was inspired by the Beatniks to make my ride a work of modern art. A little yellow here and a little green there and then a splash of blue made the scooter into a moving version of a Jackson Pollock. In white, I painted the words “Beatnik Art” on the side covers and I was coool! My friends understood my sense of sarcasm and irony, but I doubt many others did. No matter, I was having fun.
The other thought was that Orwell defined all this in 1949 when he coined the word “Newspeak”.
Chris,
In the fourth paragraph of your essay, you state that "Quite often liberals condemn the expression of dissenting opinions in the name of diversity." I would submit to you that such behavior is more easily understood if one looks at liberal/progressivism as a religion instead of a political viewpoint.
Inherently; I believe that you realize this. In paragraph twelve you say "If you want to know if you meet the criteria to be defined as an advocate of diversity, you need only check your opinions against the accepted views that modern liberalism has mandated that an enlightened person must hold."
The entire body of work as it pertains to liberal/progressivism is a series of dogmas which brook no argument from the acolytes which worship at its altar. I've noticed they even have commandments;
The Decalogue of liberal/progressives
1. Government is the lord your god. There shall be no solutions outside greater government.
2. Social/progressivism is the only goal. Do not worship 'false idols' such as capitalism or libertarianism.
3. Thou shall NEVER mistrust government; nor seek a solution not approved by the state.
4. No man should wield control over another man or creature; such power is reserved solely to government.
5. Diversity and tolerance is paramount; but only within approved tenets
6. The 'rights' of man are endless. (As granted by the state.)
7. The responsibilities of man are negligible. (The state is responsible for all.)
8. Equality of outcome is the only goal. (You shall not ever desire any more than everyone else already has.)
9. You will never bear false witness. (Unless the end justifies the means.)
10. All not immersed in the faith are infidels; and as such shall be converted or spurned.
Liberals have four gospels; the gospels according to Marx, Alinsky, Friedan, and Sanger. They intensely study the work of the prophets of Stalin, Roosevelt, Guevara, Gore, Castro, and Chavez.
In addition to those mentioned in your article; here's a list of several more pre-approved doctrines; property rights, abortion, gun control, taxes, affirmative action, health care, housing, education, living wages, immigration, and the environment. The actual list is truly endless. The decision as to what the enlightened course of action is on all these topics is already written. The only diversity of discussion that exists within these topics is how quickly can government assume 100% of the responsibility for these issues, how soon can the 'approved' solution be enacted, and how much more self-identity must be sacrificed for the good of the state. Remember "The many are more important than the few, or the one."
milbrat
I suppose you cover it in one of the ten above, but might I add "Thou shall have no comment when we change the rules at our whim." (If you protest, we have a place waiting for you in Kolima)
Being invited to speak is one thing. Being invited to be the commencement speaker is rather different. That's an honor, not merely a venue to express views.
Considering this is the guy who said "science leads you to killing people", you can imagine why people might object to honoring him.
Even if he were going to restrict his comments to economics, that's not much of an improvement. Objecting to him being commencement speaker is not 'anti-diversity', nor is it hypocrisy. Nor is it even censorship – not many people get to release multi-million-dollar 'documentaries' on a national scale.
Nice try Raymond. Let's look at the comment in context:
Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Now to place further in context, what was the previous paragraph? Did it reference Jews being taken off to the ovens? Hmmm sounds like you might be racist or a bigot! Typical liberal racism.
"They [liberals] believe that America is an imperialist nation that has unfairly dominated the world by means of violence and political oppression."
They don't care about oppression of the lowly. As the article points out, they care only about oppressing people who disagree with them.
Mickey G – Science had nothing to do with motivating the Holocaust. The virulent strain of religious anti-Semitism endemic in Germany (most of Europe at the time, actually) and specifically promulgated by Martin Luther, though…
Raymond, hate to disagree, however the master race was a genetics driven approach to the destruction of Jews and Gypsies. Of course the people selected as not a part of the master race were candidates for various scientific experiments…would you like me to list them?
Bottom line is that the intelligent design theory pulls together the concept of constant improvement (evolution) and an explanation for the beginning which is unexplanable using theories such as Darwin's.
Vermont should be ashamed of themselves!
Mickey, um… No. Just, no.. You've misunderstood, or been lied to. The Holocaust wasn't motivated by science, and certainly not by genetics, which argues against such exterminations. (Ask the ADL.)
Christianity wasn't at fault either, despite it being used to justify the poisonous anti-Semitism. The Nazis wilfully misunderstood and distorted lots of different sources to get where they wanted to go.
"The Nazis wilfully misunderstood and distorted lots of different sources to get where they wanted to go."
So, just to be clear, what you are saying is: The Nazis are the source of all anti-semitism?
Ivan – Nope. I didn't say that. I said that the source of their (not "all") anti-Semitism was neither Christianity per se nor any kind of science… but in service of their anti-Semitism, they were happy to distort both Christianity and science.
RI
I didn't expect you to fess up to the implication you made.
Ivan – Of course not, since you made the implication, not me. :-> (Heck, I even specifically talked about a "virulent strain of anti-Semitism", and specifically pointed out its existence in the time of Martin Luther. How you interpreted that as me talking about "all anti-Semitism", let alone blaming the Nazis as its "source", is beyond me. But then, I've encountered lots of little surprises on this site.)
The phenomenon observed by the author is not new by any stretch. G.K. Chesterton [d. 1936] observed it and even wrote a story about it in which a young lady wished to pledge an “idea” society and invited her fiancé to accompany her to her first informal gathering. They were greeted by the president and assured by the other members that the club was open to the expression of any and all ideas, no matter how absurd. The fiancé began expressing conservative ones, much to the surprise and horror of everyone. The young lady was kindly informed that her application for membership could not be “recommended at this time.”
If we accept the concept of diversity, we necessarily must accept tolerance, especially for “The Other”. In fact, tolerance über alles would be the overriding principle. Once that this becomes our guiding principle, we no longer may judge men’s actions according to an objective standard, but whether or not they support the "correct" political causes. It soon follows that society loses the ability to stop real evil when it appears, must tolerate evil itself in whatever form, and ultimately loses the ability to govern itself. Society then becomes a will to power. [See Auster, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5423 ]
Ray,
If you're going to use a source that begins with the thoughtful insight of:
"It starts with Arthur Laffer, the Regeanomic Yahoo looking like a moron. Then we move on to some other guys who look like utter fools … "
To demonstrate that Ben Stein is not qualified as an economist, don't expect to be taken any more seriously than you would take me if I shuttled you off to the Discovery Institute for a lecture on evolutionary theory. Considering that Paul Krugman has been honored as a commencement speaker, we can clearly dismiss the idea that failing as an economist to make accurate predictions or good analyses, or being vocally political is grounds to deny someone the privilege. And considering that a Marxist revolutionary like, say, Gustavo Esteva has also been awarded such an honor, I don't think Ben Stein looks all that bad, really.
Patrick – I figured people could, y'know, watch the video. See who turned out to be wrong and who turned out to be right, and which side Stein was on. Ah, well, sorry if the frame ruined the picture for you.
Domestic terrorist Bernadine Dohrn has been [URL="http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.319/pub_detail.asp"]a commencement speaker[/URL]. So much for the “honor” of being a commencement speaker; it’s gone the way of the honor of the Nobel “Peace” Prize.
Wow, I just want to say great job on exposing the liberal idea of diversity for what it realy is.
I went to a democratic site like this and there was a topic about how conservatives are not fiscally responsible. There was a chart posted which showed the national debt increasing while republicans held the presidential office and decreasing while the democrats held the presidential office. I responded by saying that the president is only part of the equation, that it is Congress who levies taxes and passes bills which spend the tax payer money, thus putting us in debt. There was also a post right before mine which stated the government was giving away free money. I said that was assanign because if the money comes from the tax payers, when the government gives it away you didn't gain anything. I told them to think of someone reaching in your back pocket with one hand and stealing your money, then with the other hand giving it back. Anyways, I tried to log on later that day to see if anyone responded to my comment and my posting privileges were revoked for having an opposing, diverse view. I guess they weren't so tolerant and accepting now were they?
RightisRight
Close on the analogy, but it's more like someone stealing $10 and giving you back $7.
Domestic terrorist leader Bernadine Dohrn has been a commencement speaker http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.319/pub_detail.asp. So much for the “honor” of being a commencement speaker; it’s gone the way of the Nobel “Peace” Prize.
Ivan, RightisRight:
Another interesting analogy that illustrates the psychology of our income tax system is a group of people in a circle. The tax man goes around the circle and takes a dollar out of each person's pocket. Everyone is angry. The tax man then goes around and gives everyone 50 cents back. Everyone is happy.
The returned 50 cents could represent your individual deductions/exemptions/credits, your refund at the end of the year, or both.
Raymond,
I, uh, you know, did watch the video. Did you bother reading my post? If so, could you maybe re-read it? A little slower this time? Or have somebody else explain it to you? Let's have an argument based on the point I actually brought up rahter than the unrelated debate you would apparently prefer to have about the accuracy of Ben Stein's predictions of the performance of financial stocks. In case you've forgotten, let me break down your argument and my retort again.
You said:
Being invited to speak is one thing. Being invited to be the commencement speaker is rather different. That's an honor, not merely a venue to express views… Even if he were going to restrict his comments to economics, that's not much of an improvement. Objecting to him being commencement speaker is not 'anti-diversity'…
The casual, English-speaking reader would synthesize this argument as, "Based on a video in which Ben Stein inaccurately prediced the direction of the housing market and the performance of financial stocks, Ben Stein is not qualified to comment on economics at a university commencement speech, so disallowing him to speak is appropriate". You with me so far?
I responded by pointing out to you a well-known Keynesian socialist economist who has also made wildly inaccurate statements and predictions on economics in the past, and who also holds very strong polarizing political viewpoints, who has been honored with the task of delivering a university commencement speech – a comparison by analogy, whereby a liberal speaker with similar "flaws" as the original subject, Ben Stein, was allowed to deliver a commencement speech despite his faults, but a conservative speaker was not. To solidify the argument, I also pointed to a Mexican radical Marxist revolutionary who has been conferred the same honor and pondered why he was any more deserving of such an honor than Ben Stein, even considering Ben Stein's faults as you perceive them. Still with me?
I'm not sure which of those arguments you didn't understand or misconstrued – mine or yours – but either way, I am not having an argument with you about the veracity of Ben Stein's predictions for economic activity or the performance of financial stocks. Rather, I was addressing the argument that you actually made about his qualifications to be a commencement speaker based on his expertise as an economist. If/when you're ready to likewise address the argument that I actually made, do feel free to post a reply.
By the by, the fellow in the video you linked to who accurately predicted the further failure of the housing and banking industries, Peter Schiff, is an Austrian school economics supporter and advised Ron Paul in the Republican primaries. If you're not familiar with that school of economic thought, it is very decidedly classically liberal and laisez-faire – views that would be more associated with American conservatism than American liberalism/leftism. As a matter of discussion to explore the thesis of the original article, if he were excluded from speaking as a commencement speaker, would that constitute an affront to "diversity", in your estimation?
>I'm not sure which of those arguments you didn't understand or misconstrued – mine or yours …
Patrick: Raymond has a tendency to ask people to explain his own position to him, so don’t worry too much about this point. It’s just as likely he needs you to explain to him what he actually said, as it is that he misconstrued what you said. It’s why he’s always “surprised” (see comment 13) that people don’t seem to understand what he said, or to use Raymond’s own way of clearly delineating the issue, what he “not(not) Alpha X/alpha X(s)” said.
Patrick – But I wasn't defending the "diversity" practices of modern academe… which I hold in about the same regard as you do, BTW. I was pointing out that "diversity" is irrelevant here – Stein has not only insulted specific scientific disciplines but science in general, and is apparently an incompetent economist.
Were Schiff proposed, and then excluded as a commencement speaker – oh, and BTW, Stein (at least officially) declined, he wasn't excluded – then sure, it'd be good evidence that "diversity" didn't mean what it sounded like. The fact that non-deserving people have been selected as commencement speakers is further evidence against it.
What I'm pointing out is that the case of Stein isn't an example of sham "diversity" in academe. Fortunately, there are plenty of other examples, as you've brought up, so you don't have to rely on him.
Dr Jackson – You want to watch your double-quotes. Some people get testy when you appear to put words in their mouth, even by accident.
Of course, I apologized. I'm not going to hold my breath for one from you, though, at this point.
To be fair, professional mainstream neo-classical economists generally "got it wrong" as a group, so singling out Ben Stein as incompetent for holding a fairly mainstream opinion, especially when he is not a practicing professional economist and never has been, is setting a rather high water mark for delivering a graduation speech in my humble opinion. And you don't seem overly frustrated by either of the examples I cited of people at least as much, and arguably a lot more, incompetent than Ben Stein being conferred with the "honor" of delivering a commencement speech. So essentially what you're saying is that you don't care so much about incompetent people in general being "honored" with the privilege of delivering a speech at a university graduation while qualified people of different political persuasions are denied the privilege, but rather that Ben Stein's belief that eugenics was a logical extension of Darwinian concepts of "survival of the fittest" (whether "distorted" or not) in the context of the then-burgeoning field of genetics is an egregious crime against the orthodoxy of almighty science and its prophet. You don't have anything to say about the principle of the actual discussion, you just resent Ben Stein because he doesn't support the purging of non-evolutionary concepts of the creation of life from the fields of science, and therefore you don't believe he is fit to appear on a university campus. Had you said that to begin with instead of wrapping your personal objections to Ben Stein in particular in an argument about the "honoring" of commencement speakers based on their competence in general, we could have avoided this entire discussion.
Raymond: The issue has never been putting words in your mouth. It's always been trying to understand what you actually believe, particularly when you ask other people to define the terms you use, and you get "testy" when they won't do it for you.
Or, as Patrick pointed out, you start with one proposition, then switch to a different proposition to make your point when initial your reasoning is challenged.
… your initial reasoning …
a bit of dyslexia.
There you go. I paraphrase Dr. Jackson, and accidentally use double quotes instead of single quotes. For this, he calls me – and this is a direct quote – "Absolutely f**king dishonest." I apologized, though he never accepted it.
Now, in comment 23 here, he does the exact same thing to me… and an apology? Nope, no such thing.
At least it's clear who's dishonest, and who's using a double standard. Got it.
Raymond: I'm tortured by your logic.
Patrick – If Stein is "not a practicing professional economist and never has been", then why would his remarks on the economy be so valuable in a commencement address?
Tortured? Not me. It's great having one of those guys in a green suit, with the pointy hat, upturned toes on his slippers, and little bells on his skirt, dancing around making a show for the court. God love him. What do you call them now? What ever the answer, just be sure not to use double quotes.
Ivan: I saw somewhere that you said you had a grandmother from Glasgow? I've actually been there twice (although once was enough, to be perfectly honest). What a depressing city! Stirling is one of my ancestral homes. If you’ve never been there, it’s worth the trip (about an hour from Edinburgh). The castle is great, and the town is not too bad either. The Mexican food near the Golden Lion isn’t half bad.
"Liberalism's interpretation and subsequent de facto enforcement of what they call diversity has condemned some opinions and has advocated and defended others. But how can speech be limited in the name of diversity?"
It's easy when you are convinced that your theories, and only your theories, are the last word, and that they now complete the knowledge in social studies.
Okay, I let a couple of hours go by, and no one wanted to comment on Raymond's links to our previous conversation. I'm assuming most people familiar with Raymond's moral equivalency have already figured it out, but for those new to the discussion, here it is.
There's a difference between inventing a fictitious direct quote that I never said, and compounding the dishonesty by setting the fictitious words off with quotation marks, and directly quoting a word that Raymond actually used, where Raymond objects to the significance or interpretation I gave it.
The first deserves an apology. The second invites a discussion.
This, however, is not possible when someone sees both actions as the exact same thing. But then again, blurring the lines between opinion and facts has always been the hallmark of morally relativistic thought.
Greetings. I am new to this site. I found it as a result of an assignment in my US Government class to find both conservative/republican and liberal/democrat blogs and write a short paper on each, as well as rnc.org and democrats.org. I wasn't planning on participating in any of the blogs, but since I spent a few moments chastising the posters on democrats.org for sounding like a bunch of second-grade bullies, I figure it is only fair for you to get a post, too.
Please allow me to introduce myself, and incidentally a bit of diversity (although I prefer the term "variance" as the "di" in diversity infers only two sides)to this page. I am a suburban white woman, mid-thirties, married, a mother, returning to college. I grew up in the Midwest, later moving to Silicon Valley with my software engineer husband. I am also an atheist, bisexual, nearly vegetarian liberal in almost every political spectrum. I have very strong political opinions. Let me take this moment as self-appointed token liberal to explain some of them.
I do not believe in gods. Any of them. I do not think that there is any unseen omniscient entity laying down laws and answering prayers. I believe in science in so far as I believe in the mental power of human beings to observe nature and deduce patterns and apparent laws. I believe in history as a source of guidance in regards to human behavior and nature's rhythms. I also believe that every single other individual on this planet has his or her own set of beliefs and feelings about how the world is and how the world should be. And as sure as I know that I have an innate right to mine, I know they all have a right to theirs. So where does government come in?
I am an atheist, so using my tax dollars to place a nondenominational Ten Commandments statue in the park uses money I worked for, that could be feeding my baby, to stroke the mythology of some people. Inserting the phrase "under God" into the Pledge excludes every American who isn't Christian. Even before I had made up my mind about the existence of God, I knew the Pledge was wrong on this point. And they wedged it right in between "one nation" and "indivisible" like a chisel. It would do no harm to Christians to not say "under God." They could take another 30 seconds after the Pledge to pray for our country and no one could stop them, and then it could be everyone's Pledge, not just the Christians'.
On this note, I cannot say I take "pride" in being American, because all I did, just like everyone else on this planet, was get born. I didn't earn it. But I can be happy to be here in this place where a post like this won't get me jailed or killed (hopefully) and my neighbors can freely place Virgin Mary statues on their lawns and I can buy Matzos at the supermarket. I can also happily and safely speak against my government when it causes death and suffering for the sake of wealth or ego. And I can express outrage when people use religion, even a religion of the majority, to inflict suffering or strip the liberties of others. Lets use gay marriage as an example. Being gay hurts no one. Creating a family with another consenting adult hurts no one. Parenting children as a loving team hurts no one. The gay people of the world are not trying to un-marry straight couples or make men marry men against their wills to make everyone equal and the same, so why are straight people doing it to gay people?
My daughter has a right to go to public school without being exposed to religious doctrine. Prayer and creationism would be a violation of her right to not worship. I do not propose following students home to be sure they do not pray there, or even forbidding someone from praying at school, as long as they do not impose. I have no problem with Muslim girls wearing scarves to school (the French have gone too far here, in my opinion)or teachers wearing cross necklaces. (I read the Bible in high school English class. We read it along side Greek and Roman mythology and other texts important to understanding the culture of society.)
I do not expect a PFLAG chapter at BYU, or more than one women's restroom in a frat house, or a crucifix in a mosque, or an atheist in the Boy Scouts of America. These places are exclusive by definition and there are perfectly clear lines drawn here; membership is optional. (I still don't get gay Republicans, though, really. But just because I don't understand it doesn't make it invalid.) However, I do expect that here in America, in the broader public arena, where perspective vary greatly, for everyone to be capable of living within their rights. If my only way of protecting myself and my rights is to employ government, then that is what I will do. I do not want to strip you of your rights. If you want to marry another straight person, go to it, if you (oops) get pregnant at 14, then keep the baby, if you want to get stoned and watch the Muppet Show all night, more power to you. Own eight guns if it makes you happy, but for the love of your children keep them locked up or go to prison for the rest of your life when someone gets killed. If you want to marry two women, and all three of you are good with it (and old enough to make that decision clearly) then by all means, save that money you would have spent on daycare and housecleaning.
Everyone can be who they are, just don't expect to conform others to your ideas of what is right. If two or more ways of living are not mutually exclusive and can coincide in ways that do not infringe on others rights, then they should. My point is that I, a "liberal" by most definitions, do want variance represented in those places where it is appropriate.
Phil RE:#35
Yes, my Granny was born in Motherwell, a suburb of Glasgow, but I prefer to beleive that her family was from the highlands. She was only 5 when she came over. I was there is 95, but I didn't learn about the Motherwell thing until I returned and spoke with my aunt. The only thing I saw was Loch Loman. I've also been to Mexico several times and I can't imagine Hagis with chilis:>)
Welcome to the site, Avendesora.
A couple of things you may want to know about us.
This is an issues discussion forum. Unlike the Huffington Post and other similar blogs (including some far Right wing fringe sites), this site is not about offering opinions or sharing personal feelings. We enjoy debating people who offer supporting evidence to back up their statements, and show little tolerance for those who simply emote, or dance around answering questions put to them. As a general rule we never ask anyone about their background, but many people do offer facts about themselves if they feel it’s relevant to the conversation.
You wouldn’t know it from my exchange with Raymond, but he and I have actually had a real discussion about real issues. See
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/ The tenor of that discussion is markedly different what you see here, for the reasons I stated above. Genuine disagreement and debate is encouraged; silliness is treated as silliness.
On that note, you’ll also find a wide divergence between what the political “Right” believes as represented in this website. Many of the people who agree with me here have disagreed with me on other matters, and vice versa. Some of the best debates have actually been between otherwise like minded people as we delve into things like the nature of the Constitution.
As for religion, again there is a divergence of opinions among the political “Right”. My own conclusions on this matter are summarized in http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/06/08/the-politics-of-science-and-religion/
So, again welcome to the discussion. The only thing we consistently ask for is that contributors avoid telling us what they feel, and instead attempt to analyze the situation at hand, and defend the statements they make when presented with counter-information instead of simply repeating their personal feelings about the matter.
Avendesora,
I got about two sentences out of that rambling novel that had anything even remotely to do with the specific topic under discussion. The fact that you rail against your daughter being forced to pray in public school when she isn't; or that you believe the definition of the completely religious concept of marriage should be amended (remember, gay people already have the right to have sex, live together, adopt children and raise a family); or that marriage is even a "right" in the first place when it is, in fact, licensed as a privilege; or that you believe that creationism and prayer, neither of which are taught or observed in public school, constitute a form of "worship", isn't really relevant to whether or not it constitutes censorship or hypocrisy to deny certain "controversial" speakers at your university because of their political orientation while allowing "controversial" figures with political orientation similar to your own. You have, however, rather ironically illustrated the author's contention that the liberal concept of diversity is essentially the idea of censoring the public expression of certain religious, political and philosophical viewpoints, when the actual definition of the term would be precisely to allow every viewpoint to be expressed.
Avenderosa: Patrick's reply is a perfect example of what I mean. You can't make blanket statements here without supporting them, or you'll get taken to the woodshed. If you make a statement, be prepared to defend it. Or, withdraw it if it's not supportable or nothing more than a gross generalization as Patrick pointed out. It's the only way to have any credibility in the discussion.
Avendesora
Having been brought up a Baptist and rejecting the church in my early 20's after reading Ayn Rand, I can identify with your atheism. However, I was never an advocate for the belief, or should I say non-belief, during the 35 years before the Holy Ghost visited me. I think it is interesting that your proclamation of "nearly vegetarian" is so closely followed by your next proclamation of "strong political opinions". Three times, you state your non-belief and that makes me wonder if you are not seeking something outside yourself. How does it go? Me thinks….
But, I do think you will find more diversity/variance here than you will at the D-KOS. After all, it is the conservative/libertarian credo to promote free will, freethinking, and individual liberty.
Patrick – If Stein is "not a practicing professional economist and never has been", then why would his remarks on the economy be so valuable in a commencement address?
Who's to say they are? You're arguing a different topic again. The real question is why Gustavo Esteva or Paul Krugman's opinions are any more valuable, or stated differently, why Ben Stein's remarks in particular are unworthy of the occassion when other arugably more incompetent people are conferred with the privilege.
"It's almost funny; those who believe in diversity should protest only when someone with controversial views is silenced, not when they are allowed to speak."
And I am semi-vegetarian because I am allergic to soy but have a genetic code determined to make me diabetic and so I now choose to get my dietary protein in the form of humanely and sustainably raised animal flesh.
The original post in this thread is chock-full of unsubstantiated generalizations about how liberals think and feel and act. I am about as liberal as it gets and I posted to say it was wrong. I was writing about "diversity" using my atheism as an example to illustrate my point – which is what I see the appropriate role of government to be, as defined by the constitution, in regards to individual rights. The University of Vermont is a public institution and so the choice for such an honor as commencement speaker should have been made with that in mind.
I have to get to class. Maybe when I get back I will be intellectual enough for this site, if not conservative. Feel free to comment further. I'll be back.
I'd repost my analysis of the Constitution and the issue of individual rights, but it's easier to just say that I feel Avendesora is wrong as I see it.
Adendersora,
Your vegetarianism doesn't win you any merit badges outside of animal rights and rather extermist environmentalist circles, so I don't know why you keep returning to the issue. We're all duly impressed. But it's irrelevant. Particularly in reference to the quotation from the original article that you used to preface the comment.
Your objection to the characterizations of the original article are ironically contrasted by the fact that the article articulated rather accurately your liberal concept of "diversity" as the restriction of particular types of speech for what you perceive as a greater social good, which is precisely the opposite of what would be actual diversity – the tolerance, if not acceptance, of any speech or thought.
Dr. Jackson – There are two items contained within double-quotes in your comment #24. 'Tis the latter to which I refer – "not(not) Alpha X/alpha X(s)" – that's "a fictitious direct quote that I never said".
It would take deliberate stupidity to miss that – but then, "Jackson's Razor" is something you're familiar with. I really did respect you, once. I would have assumed you'd made a careless mistake. But by now, I've seen too many examples of you deliberately misreading, or refusing to read, what I actually write.
Oh come on Raymond! In Alan Roebuck “Theism vs Atheism: What's at Stake”, you described your position as “I take the position of believe(not(God))." You also said “Why not call it [God], say, ‘X’, or ‘Alpha’?” I mocked this repeatedly by re-stating it as “you believe that accepting the possible existence of God (not gods/alpha/X or believe(not(God)) will somehow associate you with religious beliefs.” At no point did you demand an “apology”.
Now, suddenly, you’re outraged, and want to compare it to inventing words I never even used to make false statements I never made.
This is why no one takes your arguments seriously. You keep throwing up meaningless diversions to divert everyone from the fact that you won’t, or can’t, defend your original propositions.
Patrick – You wrote "The real question is… why Ben Stein's remarks in particular are unworthy of the occassion when other arugably more incompetent people are conferred with the privilege."
The casual, English-speaking reader would synthesize this argument as, 'These incompetent bozos that I disagree with got an honor, but the incompetent bozo that I agree with didn't. That's not fair!'
That might not be fair, but you'd have a much better case if you argued about an example where a competent non-bozo was denied the honor.