The Dictatorship of Diversity

hasan-guilty

It is a bedrock assumption of our age that diversity is a good thing—something to be encouraged and celebrated. Nowadays, for example, a good part of a college mission statement is typically devoted to extolling the institution’s diverse faculty, diverse student body, and diverse course offerings. Similar claims to diversity can be found in the mission statements of almost any large corporation or institution. Anyone who bothers to read such statements will be assured of the organization’s commitment to diversity, its diverse workforce, and its plans to become even more diverse in the future.

Part of this commitment may be due to the fact that companies and colleges that are insufficiently diverse may be liable to lawsuits. Our society has decided that diversity, being such a good thing, must be ensured and enforced. Most large universities, for example, now have diversity officers whose job it is to see that everyone falls uniformly in line with diversity.

If diversity is such a good thing, we might expect to find much praise for it in the Bible. But the opposite seems to be the case. For example, the diversity of language visited on the people of Babel is presented in Genesis as a curse, not a blessing. More importantly, there is little if any support in the New Testament for the idea that the pursuit of diversity ought to be one of the main goals of life. On the other hand, there is much to suggest that unity is highly desirable. As Jesus, the good shepherd, tells his listeners, “And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd” (Jn 10: 16). That doesn’t sound like a call to diversity. Neither do the four passages in John 17 where Jesus prays to his Father “that they may all be one.” Viewed from a New Testament perspective, the world’s diversity of beliefs is something to be overcome, not celebrated.

Yet celebrate it we do because we have been taught that diversity has all sorts of benefits, chief among which is that it “enriches” our culture. This can sometimes be true, but it is important to understand the conditions under which diversity contributes to a culture. Without a proper context, diversity can easily become a destructive element rather than a positive one.

The American experience of absorbing immigrants from many different backgrounds is often cited as proof of the enriching power of diversity. What is sometimes forgotten, however, is that the success of America’s melting pot experiment was largely due to the successful assimilation of immigrants to the existing American culture. Americans took pride in their diversity, but their main source of pride was that America had maintained its unity despite the diversity. The idea that unity should take precedence over diversity was expressed in the motto inscribed on the Great Seal of the United States: “e pluribus unum.” The words can be translated as “out of many, one” or as “one from many.” The hope expressed in those words is a secular analog to Christ’s prayer to his Father, “that they may all be one.” Likewise, in the Pledge of Allegiance the pledge is to “one nation under God, indivisible.” Again, the emphasis is on unity, not diversity.

So the main condition under which diversity adds to the strength of a culture is that a society’s diverse peoples be willing to assimilate to a common, unified culture with shared beliefs and values.  Throughout most of American history, most newcomers were more than willing to assimilate.  The “tempest-tossed” of the world were eager to be Americans.  Like converts to a new faith, they often believed more strongly in American values and opportunities than did the native-born who sometimes took their blessings for granted.

But that no longer seems to be the case.  For example, a 2013 Hudson Institute Study found that less than 50 percent of foreign-born citizens thought that students should be taught “to be proud of being part of the U.S.”  What accounts for this changed attitude?  The most likely answer is that many native-born Americans no longer believe in American exceptionalism either.  Rather, they have been taught to believe that America is racist, sexist, homophobic, colonialist, and imperialist.  In short, they have been taught to be ashamed of their culture.

Multiculturalists claim that the worst thing you can do is take away a person’s cultural inheritance, yet many of their courses and textbooks are aimed at alienating Western students from their own multimillenia cultural inheritance. Within a few decades, the traditional basis for assimilation was shattered.  Many Americans lost the sense that they belonged to a worthwhile cultural tradition.  The emphasis in America (and also in Europe) shifted from cultural unity to cultural diversity.  Diversity came to be looked upon as a good thing in and of itself without reference to any larger unity of purpose.

Still, humans continue to yearn for some kind of unity, and a substitute was needed.  What could take the place of cultural unity?  For many social and intellectual elites, the answer was human unity.  Not the unity we have as children of God, but simply our shared humanness.  And if we are all united by our common humanity, who needs a common culture? If anything, cultural boundaries serve to prevent the simple human bonding that would occur without them. Moreover, the elites, being for the most part secular humanists, view the human race as unfallen.  Thus, we are all united and we are all basically good.  If you start with such assumptions, then, of course, it would be safe to celebrate all sorts of diversities. In this secular version of The Peaceable Kingdom, the differences between lion culture and lamb culture are as nothing, and the lion will lie down with the lamb on an eco-friendly mat.

Paradoxically, then, the belief in the benefits of diversity for its own sake rests on an even deeper conviction that differences between peoples are in reality only surface phenomena. Although cultures and religions may appear to be diverse, they are, in this view, very much the same; the differences are not significant. Or, to put it another way, many citizens of the West have become so sheltered and naïve as to actually believe that people from different cultures are separated only by such superficial and innocuous things as differing tastes in food, drink, clothing, and music.

The new wisdom about cultures goes something like this:  Don’t get hung up about cultural differences because they don’t matter.  Underneath the minor differences, people are essentially the same.  And because they are the same it follows that cultures and religions must at their core be very much alike—just varying expressions of the same human impulse.  Here we touch upon one of the roots of cultural relativism.  If all cultures and religions are pretty much the same, then the members of one culture have no business in forming judgments about the rightness or wrongness of another culture’s traditions or practices.  And there is certainly no basis for thinking that any culture or religion is superior to any other.  Therefore, go forth and celebrate them all equally.

In practice, however, cultural relativists tend to favor certain cultures over others.  The basic division is between the West and the non-West, and the basic formula is West, bad; non-West, good.  In the West, where most of the professional multiculturalists reside, the idea that there is nothing special about their own culture quickly morphed into the idea that there is something radically wrong with it for not appreciating and respecting all the richness and diversity of the rest of the world. Thus, the multicultural revolution brought with it a heavy burden of guilt, and the guilt, it was believed, could only be absolved by greater shows of openness and tolerance to the “other” and to all of the other’s beliefs and practices.

One result of this sea-change in thinking was that the idea of assimilation became anathema to many. The most dramatic effects of this new way of viewing cultural interactions were felt in Europe. For just at the point when waves of immigrants began to descend on Europe (and the UK), European elites were coming to the conclusion that their culture was not worth assimilating to.

Unfortunately for the Europeans, a great many of these immigrants were arriving from Muslim countries—that is, from cultures that would be difficult to assimilate even if one were inclined to assimilate. But the European elites were not so inclined. To attempt to assimilate others implied that your culture was superior to theirs. Indeed, many Europeans were inclined in the opposite direction. They reasoned that if any accommodating was to be done, it was the host culture that had to accommodate to the newcomers.

On several occasions, Pope Benedict XVI warned about a “dictatorship of relativism” in the West, and there is no better illustration of the concept than the capitulation of Europe to the relativistic multicultural ideology. In regard to Islam, relativism dictated that Europeans should ignore the evidence of their eyes and assent to the proposition that barbaric laws and customs were every bit as good as civilized ones. Relativism dictated that schools should accommodate the newcomers by dropping offensive subjects—such as the Crusades and the Holocaust—from the curriculum. Relativism dictated that immunization programs be halted because the unmeltable enrichers were suspicious of modern medical science. Relativism dictated that Europeans accommodate themselves to practices that were heretofore thought uncivilized—polygamy, wife-beating, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, and the like. Moreover, relativism further dictated that criticism of such practices would result in criminal charges.

Diversity can be a good thing—up to a point. The point you don’t want to go beyond, as Europeans are learning, is the point at which you have to sacrifice everything good in your own culture for the sake of maintaining the illusion that all cultures and beliefs are created equal. Unfortunately, many in America now appear willing to make that sacrifice. Perhaps the classic statement of diversity uber alles was uttered by former Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey, after the first Fort Hood massacre. It could have been worse, said Casey: “What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.”

General Casey’s comment misses the point that the diversity and the tragedy were inextricably linked.  It was precisely the Army’s blind commitment to diversity that made the attack possible in the first place. Major Nidal Hasan made his jihadist intentions almost crystal clear well in advance of the massacre, but deference to diversity dictated that no one would notice—or, if they did notice, no one would take action. After Hasan delivered an unnerving PowerPoint presentation to his colleagues on the justification for jihad murder, the policy committee at Walter Reed Army Medical Center declined to do anything about it on the grounds that it would look bad if they kicked out one of their few Muslim residents.

Celebrate diversity? That would depend, wouldn’t it, on what diversity you’re talking about. Does diversity enrich our society? That again would depend on the content of the diversity. As columnist Mark Steyn put it:

“Diversity” is not a virtue; it’s morally neutral: A group of five white upper-middle-class liberal NPR-listening women is non-diverse; a group of four white upper-middle-class liberal NPR-listening women plus Sudan’s leading clitoridectomy practitioner is more diverse but not necessarily the better for it.

If such a grouping ever did occur, the NPR-listening women would soon discover that cultural differences can run a lot deeper than one’s choice of spices for the evening meal. Europeans have learned this lesson the hard way. They discovered that people from other cultures arrive not only with different tastes in food and clothing, but sometimes with radically different beliefs and practices.  Consequently, Europeans are now, belatedly, rethinking their commitment to diversity. According to a recent Pew poll, the majority of Europeans believe that Muslims in their countries do not want to integrate. An Ipsos poll of nine European countries found that more than half of those polled believe that immigration is having a negative effect on their lives. An opinion poll conducted by the University of Munster shows that the majority of Germans disagree with the statement that Islam “belongs in Germany.” Even the European elites are having second thoughts. In 2011, the leaders of Europe’s three most powerful nations pronounced multiculturalism a failure. Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron called it a “failed policy,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that multiculturalism had “utterly failed,” and French President Nicholas Sarkozy declared that the experiment is “clearly … a failure.”

Europe’s blind adherence to doctrinal diversity has led it to the brink of societal suicide. Hopefully, America can learn from Europe’s failed experiment before it travels too much further down the same path. And if you need an added incentive for putting the celebration of differences in a proper perspective, consider that the Gospel calls us to a much higher destiny than mere diversity.

William Kilpatrick

By

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

  • john

    I don’t think this article connects the dots very well. Especially in our current, rotten cultural climate it’s difficult to say that we SHOULDN’T be ashamed. What are we in the US up to now, 50 million aborted babies? We have plenty to be ashamed of that immigrants didn’t cause: Our “Western values” permit vocal minorities to hijack democracy to overturn natural law. The last 50 years of Western civilization (maybe more) have produced greedy, self-absorbed, sex-addicted, selfish, undereducated whiners who’d rather have birth control pills and iphones than Truth or Beauty. Slavery, colonialism, and Love Canal really did happen, and it gets us nowhere by giving the West a pass on those. And doesn’t Sharia law represent the ultimate in unity? Could it not be that Muslim immigrants don’t want to integrate because European culture is Hell itself? If there were a Catholic version in any recognizable form we’d celebrate it, wouldn’t we? Wouldn’t that require refusing to assimilate with the current culture of free sex and intolerance? So I don’t think “diversity” is the real enemy, as if some form of pure unity exists or ever existed on Earth. Even if it did, it should be clear that it would be coercive and exploitative for most of us.

    • sybarite123

      I agree. American Society is corrupt almost to the core. Why? IMO Communism at least since the early 1930’s has accomplished its mission in America: To destroy patriotism, to destroy Morals, and to infiltrate the Churches. ‘Cultural Marxism’ has fed on the chinks in the American society. A ‘Divided America’ has resulted. “Trayvon Martin could have been my son.” were the words of one communist who has himself done his work well. Same Sex marriage is another agenda promoted by communist driven people such as Henry Hayes who founded the Mattachine Society in the early 50’s to promote homosexuality. Henry was a communist. The role of communism in the decline of America is incalculable. Communism and ‘useful idiots’ have done their work of ‘softening up’ America in preparation for a new America(“Yes, we can!”). And the new America is ‘Sharia Law’ and Islamic domination. The Muslim Brotherhood has been working to destroy America under various guises since the 1960’s.
      BTW Frank Marshall Davis was the mentor of a High School aged Barack Obama. Bill Ayers was Obama’s associate. And the two hotbeds of Communism in the U.S. were New York City and, you guessed it, Chicago! Alan Keyes who opposed Obama for the Illinois Senate seat, a well educated Catholic man, was of course defeated. Later Keyes would say of Obama, “He is a Communist.” I thought Keyes’ remark was ‘over-the-top’ when I first heard it, but now I don’t.
      Yes, America is corrupt along with the entire West, but the catalyst was Communism’s Mission as early as the 1930’s. The attending weakness of Human Nature took the ‘Apple’ of greed and sexual excess only too willingly and almost without a fight.
      Kilpatrick’s warning about ‘Diversity’ is, however, well taken. Pope John XXIII, who will shortly be canonized along with Pope John Paul II, proclaimed that the Catholic Church should ‘throw open the windows of the Church to the World..” John XXIII did so, but not without ‘discernment’ as to what flew in! In short, we ought to embrace the good in other cultures, but eschew the corrupting evil which in any human society is present, especially in Islam and any other such ideology.

      • Arriero

        – «American Society is corrupt almost to the core. Why? IMO Communism at least since the early 1930’s has accomplished its mission in America […]»

        Change «communism» for «pseudo-calvinism» and you get the answer.

        The first communists in history were protestants, the anabaptists (Muntzer and De Leyden). The majority of protestant sects that immigrated to America had a very communist spirit (for instance, the quakers). The first and real communism came to America not through marxism (which was almost nonexistent through the entire XVIIIth century), but through protestantism (which was the movement that gave birth to the american constitution).

        There HAS NEVER BEEN communism «à la bolshevik» in America. Please, Catholics are serious people who don’t invent tales.

        PS- Some clarifications: 1) Communism has always been incredibly ruthless with homosexuality because it assessed homosexuality as a «decadent product of the bourgeoisie society» (Joseph Stalin re-criminalized homosexuality in 1933 [Stalin’s criminal code punishing gay men by up to five years in prison with hard labor] and the law withstood until after dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1993). It has been the social-democrat left – which is anti-marxian and anti-communist – who really began with that «anus&fetuses» ideology. 2) Communism does not want to destroy patriotism, in fact it boosts patriotism, the proletariat patriotism (as seen in the Soviet Union). 3) Communism is profoundly atheist, it despises muslims in the same way it despises Catholics. The «muslim lover» ideology is another product of what I call an «islamized-with-suit» left. Yesterday, some international groups had a demonstration in Cordoba claiming that the Cordoba Cathedral should be again a muslim temple as it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_campaign_at_C%C3%B3rdoba_Cathedral ). 3) The muslim Brotherhood, as many other islamist organizations are by-products of American cold warfare. The american anti-communists pacted with such islamists.

        Put some order in your ideas. The soft left (through the works of Rawls and Rorty, for instance) in America is as anti-communist as it is anti-Catholic.

      • musicacre

        Yep. You only have to read a tiny bit to see this. Those not ready for the truth of the machinations around us blind themselves, and want to be caudled.

    • samharker

      “Could it not be that Muslim immigrants don’t want to integrate because European culture is Hell itself?”

      Why would anyone immigrate to Hell?

  • Vinnie

    “…and the guilt, it was believed, could only be absolved by greater shows of
    openness and tolerance…” thus you have Barack Obama as president, who hasn’t yet figured out that Europe’s diversity is a failure.

    • TheAbaum

      It worked fine for him. Diverse attributes over meritorious qualifications.

      From an objective standpoint, there is nothing that would have recommended for the job he occupies. His inexperience was only exceeded by his covetousness.

      • JefZeph

        …and his narcissism.

    • Arriero

      – «Europe’s diversity is a failure»

      Who says that?

      The failure of Europe is precisely trying to «homogenize» that wonderful diversity. You cannot put in the same room and under the same rules and characteristics an Italian, an English, a French and a German. If Europe has always had something admirable is its diversity, which was certainly exported to the US.

      The concept of «Nation» is a french revolution invention. There is no European nation. Yet, there is a US nation, despite the diversity. That’s a key difference.

      We should Catholics respect the diversity coming from protestant sects and not from muslim sects (denying both the Authority of the Church)? There is a lot of hypocrisy. An american, who has to respect and sometimes even pact with the protestant multiculturalism (mormons, calvinists, unitarians, etc.) has few lessons to teach about how to end with such aspect which is inlaid in the same foundation of America. Everybody knows that there is a hundred times more multiculturalism in America than in Europe. In fact, in the majority of European countries you already have «culturally exclusive» (ergo, anti-multicultural) parties. That would be impossible in the US.

      • TheAbaum

        Who says that?

        Anybody with a brain. The whole continent is a fiscal, cultural and demographic trainwreck and this regime is apparently attempting to take us down the same bridge.

        We really should have left you smoldering after you gave us Hitler, Mussolini and the rest of the gang.

        • Arriero

          – «We really should have left you smoldering after you gave us Hitler, Mussolini and the rest of the gang.»

          You really left Europe smoldering for quite a long time in both the I and II WW. It’s a pity that during the 1898 Cuban War Valeriano Weyler eventually decided not to invade the US. Maybe then Spain would have ended the evangelization of all North-America.

          About the Great Patriotic War – as was used in Russia -, the USSR had already defeated the nazis in the east and the UK resisted like champions the german bombers before the US entered into the war. Spain was neutral and France was difficult to control. Moreover, the US mainly focused in the Pacific, in Europe Hitler had already lost the war after the Russian campaign. But would be very long to explain why and how the US entered in the war (selling oil, gas and weapons was certainly very profitable, regardless of who was the buyer). You can hate hearing it, but the real WAR HEROES in the II WW were the russians who totally crushed the german army in some very epic battles. Americans in Europe did a very bit part, if we assess the war as a whole (the self-publicity has helped to change how history developed).

          Nevertheless, the topic was «diversity», and there is certainly more diversity in the US than in any European country. Even France is the foremost expression of nationalism (as understood by French revolutionaries). Diversity is embedded in the same foundations of America. And ask me something: why respecting protestant multi-culturanism and not the other multi-culturanism? Why people does not critize that (anti-Catholic) diversity (which is exceptional from America, by the way)?

          • TheAbaum

            Valeriano Weyler eventually decided not to invade the US.

            No, he decided he couldn’t. Big difference.

          • TheAbaum

            You really left Europe smoldering for quite a long time in both the I and II WW.

            Don’t blame us for your bellicosity.

            In the late 1930’s there was a growing pacifist and isolationist movement here, because anybody with a brain realized Europe learned nothing from the “War to end all Wars”.

        • Arriero

          Apart, not everybody hated Hitler in America…

          http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/henry-ford-receiving-grand-cross-german-eagle-nazi-officials-1938/

          http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/louis-theroux-nazis/

          It’s clear to me that there is a line which joins nazism, old protestantism, Ku Klux Klan, racism and, of course, ANTI-CATHOLICISM.

          • TheAbaum

            And if Europe hadn’t pioneered Protestantism, Nazism, racism, there’d have been no Klan.

            All this things were reared in your house, they are your children even though they sailed the ocean blue.

  • uncle max

    Diversity in and of itself is fine, but – let it occur naturally. Any other way is stupid and self-defeating.

  • uncle max

    Somewhere out there is someone who is going to make a few dollars by producing bumper stickers and the like with the message – ENFORCE diversity

  • publiusnj

    The current dominant interpretation of the First Amendment, which is the schwerpunkt of the Diversity Movement, goes beyond mere “cultural relativism.” It enshrines amorality. Back when Utah sought admission to the Union, the Supreme Court recognized that the USA was a Christian Nation and could require an end to polygamy in that territory. When polygamy becomes the next marital cause celebre, we’ll fold on that just as the fold on “same sex marriage” is set in concrete.

    And it won’t require all that many Muslims in the country either. Remember that Same Sex Marriage was never supposed to happen. When Bill Clinton felt the backlash of the nation in the wake of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy” he imposed on the services against their advice, he and the Democrats joined the Republicans in supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, passed overwhelmingly in 1996. Thereafter, 32 states in a row voted in referendums against Gay Marriage, but the “diversity folks” kept pushing.

    If they couldn’t win in the Congress or the states or in the popular vote, they could control various judicial panels. So, the first crack was the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court in 2003. Slowly, that beachhead of amorality was extended in courts in a few more states, but the people fought back and actually used referenda to overrule the courts.

    The people’s justified reaction against a court system that was acting in direct contravention of the deeply held views of the Nation led to a complete breakdown in Democracy in this country when the courts and the executive body of the State of California, just refused to listen to the people’s will and overturned the referendum on Prop. 8 on the spurious grounds of standing. To make the triumph of the governing class over the People permanent, the US Supreme Court affirmed the decision overruling the people on the grounds that–effectively–the only people who could defend the referendum’s results were the Governor and Attorney General of California. Since they had refused to do their job, the People’s Will could be ignored. In effect, even though the People had used the referendum power to overrule the State’s decision which the People had a right to do under California’s referendum mechanism, the State could just ignore that vote even though that meant the Governor and Attorney General were flouting the Will of the People. And the worst thing about that is that a “justice” who is supposed to be conservative–Antonin Scalia–supplied the necessary fifth vote to overule the people’s will based on that arcane principle of “standing.”

  • BillinJax

    Divinity diversity is killing us.
    We have put too many god’s before us today and we feel the need to give all of them some attention in order to maintain a balanced inclusive society of fools.

  • Tony

    Thank you, Professor Kilpatrick. I’ve been teaching the Development of Western Civilization for more than 20 years. Our opponents, as I learned 20 years ago to my astonishment, do not care about culture — ours or anybody else’s. The “multicultural” movement is deeply anti-cultural. It’s not that the opponents wanted students to read Li Bo rather than Horace. They didn’t give a damn, really, for either one.
    I no longer use the word “diversity.” I use the word “variety.” And I wonder, too, what strange ignorance of or apathy for human beings can possibly move someone to look at a class of twenty students, whoever they may be, and say, “These are all the same.”

    • Vinnie

      The idea IS they DON’T consider them all the same. They’re all different and different is better except for those of western culture and ESPECIALLY those who are Christian. I believe you’re correct about them only caring about cultures to the degree that those other cultures will help destroy us. After that, any other culture or ideology that they perceive is in their way will be in their crosshairs.

  • Faithkuz

    Ironic that Western culture wants to accommodate, with its ethic “diversity” a culture that has elements working actively to eliminate [Western] diversity. http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04/14/nigeria-boko-haram-islamists-slaughter-200-students-way-exams/

  • TheAbaum

    What is commonly referred to as “diversity” is one of those Pharisaical codices of the post-modern era. Not only self contradicting, (everybody has value, but some people are more valuable than others) but utterly at war with nature (we are all the same, but we need more of certain types of sameness). Because of it’s inability to comport with reality, it must be enforced absolutely and with zeal.

    Administered by a modern set of Pharisees (so-called “Human Resources” professionals and lawyers) it is indeed a dictatorship. The dictator issues fiats on “diversity” and there is no questioning their edicts.

    Anybody that has dared cross one of these petty tyrants knows this all too well.

    • Child of God

      I am a Human Resources professional, but I wouldn’t characterize myself as “so called”, a modern Pharisee, or a petty tyrant, and neither would you if you knew me. I’m what you might call “educated” academically and by life and if it makes a difference to you, I also have professional and global accreditation as well as post-graduate credentials.

      I have done much in front of and behind the scenes to help my employees; perhaps you’ve never met a moral HR person, or one who is fiercely Catholic and who lives it loudly; if not, I am sorry for that. I’m not an appendage to do the evil work of “the administration”- that is a stereotype and I don’t have time for those. I can’t deny that I am both angry and disappointed in your misrepresentation.

      I am also an immigrant who managed to integrate (not “assimilate”, that makes it seem as if the “West” is more like the Borg., or was that your intended point?”) into a different culture, while keeping my own heritage alive. Moving to the west does not mean that my heritage did or must disappear as a condition of my permanent residence.

      Interestingly, I also work at a University which does do diversity right. I have the utmost respect for freedom of expression, but I will admit that I don’t care much for generalizations, which by their very nature are always unfounded exaggerations because to put it simply, not everyone in that category can be that very way that is described.

      Messages get lost in this type of delivery. I’d like to see meaningful action to reach a righteous objective rather than labeling that might end up creating more derision and divisiveness.

      When there are comments against diversity, which kinda sound a bit ethnocentric, I wonder why people have to go “there” when there are much better and loving ways to spread Christ’s message.

      In being hyper critical of diversity, to suggest homogeneity as a
      God-approved state is akin to criticizing the artist who not only paints with
      all the colors, but who created all of them Himself. I’ve heard the
      same arguments come from white supremacists using different words, but
      trying to legitimize their views by taking a bible verse out of context. Be careful here, this is a slippery slope and the world has paid time and again with lives by virtue of arguments such as this. Matthew 7:1-3 Judge not,
      that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be
      judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again

      I am a simple gal and I’d like to see folks just “love each other as (He) has loved us”. I also would like to see words be used to build, not to destroy. Incite love. And in so doing, you’re encouraging unity in Christ, not the divisiveness of “man”.

      Pax,
      your sister in Christ

      • TheAbaum

        “I am a Human Resources professional, but I wouldn’t characterize myself as “so called”, a modern Pharisee, or a petty tyrant, and neither would you if you knew me.”

        I don’t know you or where or how you work, so charity demands that I accept your representations, but in my dealings with HR, they have almost universally fit that description, I’m sorry.

        I literally had to go to war with one “professional” to get her to back off of refusing to allow the sale of tickets by an employee recreation organization for a concert that benefited the 501c3 that was established to rehab a Church in order to allow it to become a Basilica. (the finest moment of my career was listening to her say “at a certain point, you have to accept my judgment” and responding, “actually, I don’t, because I took the liberty of calling your boss and he would like you to call him while I’m in your office”) She never screwed with me again.

        In the public sector, they seem to have one objective: avoid union grievances, no matter how much inefficiency and disorder that engenders. They are fond of putting together programs for various “history” months, and lecturing us on stress, diet and other things.

        I think we need to go back to the days of “personnel departments”.

        • Guest

          You can see the “diversity” your overlords tell you to see. Please do not rock the boat. We know better than you.

  • Waljoy

    Thank you very much, William Kilpatrick and Crisis magazine, for this fine article ~! ‘Multiculturalism’ might also be called ‘cultural Marxism’, and it seems to be the basis for much of what is being taught in many educational institutions in the Western world. It’s an underlying assumption that one must agree with or face a lot of problems in one’s academic career, and later on in other areas of social and political life. I believe it provides the philosophical foundation for a so-called ‘New World Order’ that globalists will impose on all of us, if we allow them to do so. It is flawed, anti-Christian, and has nothing to do with reality. God showed at the tower of Babel what he thinks of a united world or culture. God has created many nations, races, cultures, and tongues, and I believe it’s His desire they be retained. Also, good and evil are absolute values as defined by God. Relativism is an attempt to make things ‘equal’ that never can be, nor should be.

  • NDaniels

    The problem with the Dictatorship of Diversity is that it does not recognize that regardless of ancestry, desire, or consent, every member of the human race has been created in The Image and Likeness of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as a son or daughter.

  • Pingback: Diversity: Is it a good thing? - Christopher's Apologies : Christopher's Apologies()

  • cestusdei

    Diversity in our current culture means believing and acting in the exact same way. My niece got a piercing and wanted us to accept her individuality. Yet every other teen her age has the same kind of piercing.

  • Glenn M. Ricketts

    Diversity is indeed a good thing. There’s just precious little of it anywhere these days among academic institutions or media and cultural elites.

  • Pingback: Diversity 101()

  • fredx2

    Diversity simply means “We’re Liberals”. So if you go to a university that advertises its diversity, don’t expect any diversity of thought. You will get one strain of thought only.

    • TheAbaum

      One minor comment. I would change “We’re Liberals” to “we’re subjects of the liberal elite”. They really don’t care what you believe as long as you are subordinate and obedient.

  • Tyler

    “An opinion poll conducted by the University of Munster shows that the majority of Germans disagree with the statement that Islam ‘belongs in Germany.’ ”
    There was a time when the majority of Germans disagreed with the statement that Judaism “belongs in Germany.” Let’s learn from history rather than repeat it.
    And … any suggestions about what to DO with people from other cultures? Should people of European descent vacate the US and leave it to the Native Americans? Or should we forcibly resettle those of us who don’t hold to particular doctrines or whose skin is too dark?

    • Jane Galt

      The relevant question is whether Muslims believe that Christianity and liberal democracy belong in Germany, not the other way around. You’re a smart fellow. Why don’t you find out for us? And educate yourself while you’re at it.

  • Tyler

    Pope Francis stated “because Muslims, Hindus and African Animists are also made in the very likeness and image of God, to hate them is to hate God! To reject them to is to reject God and the Gospel of Christ. Whether we worship at a church, a synagogue, a mosque or a mandir, it does not matter. Whether we call God, Jesus, Adonai, Allah or Krishna, we all worship the same God of love. This truth is self-evident to all who have love and humility in their hearts!”

    • marlin

      Love everyone, even your enemies. But the second part of the quote is troubling. I assume he is not saying that one religion is as good as another, but it could be interpreted that way.

    • sez

      Don’t believe everything you read on teh interwebs:
      http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/francis.asp

    • Guest

      Where is your reference to this quote?

    • sybarite123

      Certainly it is of a Christian to love everyone without exception, even our enemies. The age old distinction however must be made between a ‘Religion’ and its adherents. A religion may teach erroneous and therefore inhuman doctrine. An adherent of Islam, for example, if sincere, may in fact be following Jesus Christ and His voice. We are sure that Christ is at work among all men, including Muslims, atheists, and Hindus to name a few groupings. Read John 1:9 and you have the doctrinal foundation of ‘Christ working among all peoples’ even since the beginning of time. No one is left without Divine Aid given through the one mediator between Heaven and Earth, Jesus Christ.
      Now as to adoring the same God, there also must be distinctions. Catholics who possess the Fullness of Christian Truth, are privileged indeed. The Catholic concept of God is, although necessarily limited on this Earth, without distortion or dilution. Certainly the Islamic concept of God is not without error. As we know, the Koran itself denies the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ. We know the tremendous love of the Father toward us by way of the Incarnation and Life and Death and Resurrection of our Savior.

    • sybarite123

      Yes, God is a God of Love…but only Christians have this great truth fully revealed to them. Muslims don’t. Hindus don’t. Animists don’t. With all due respect, Muslims, Hindus, Animists, atheists, all have an imperfect if not a distorted concept of God. Hence John Paul II and Catholicism itself sends all of us to be Missionaries by our Baptism. Only Catholics have the Seven Sacraments, especially the Eucharist. We are bound in charity to spread the fullness of the Gospel(including of course the Sacraments) to everyone insofar as we have the opportunity!
      It is true, Christ is aware that no all will become Catholic. But we are lax in our Baptismal Commitment if we neglect our Baptismal Call to help others, by imparting the Faith if possible. BTW we Catholics are surpassed hugely by the Evangelicals and Jehovah Witness in having the guts to tell others the Good News. OK OK, I know the Jehovah Witnesses are not Christian, but we ought to imitate their fervor. We Catholics suck in this regard. We have no life in us, or so it seems to many observers. Question! What is wrong with Catholics! Is it a lack of catechesis, a lack of love, a lack of courage? Are we like St. Peter who denied Christ 3 times, or even a Judas Iscariot perhaps? The adage, “The value of one, the power of many.” isn’t true for us Catholics, eh? From Canada.
      Evangelicals are energized, J-W people are at our doors knocking! We are lucky if we get to Church on Sundays! I’ll get off my proverbial ‘orange crate’ right now. END.

  • Pingback: Pope Francis Defends Parents’ Right to Teach Ed. to Children-BigPulpit()

  • Gnort

    So should the Catholic priests in Japan who were expected to assimilate into the native culture and religion have done so in the name of not causing disruption?

    Their insistence on remaining diverse encouraged all manner of things that were considered uncivilized and dishonorable.

    • marlin

      There is a difference between a small (hopefully humble) community attempting to change a culture for the good of its people through word and example, and aggressively attempting to co-opt a culture for the good of your group by numbers and legal machinations.

      • Gnort

        The point was that the objection to diversity itself (rather than to particular wrongs) is entrenched in moral and social relativism.

        Even the article admits it is morally neutral, but still spends most of its time treating it as inherently dangerous, if not outright wrong.

  • Giauz Ragnarock

    The moral of the story is: Jesus can live with all of us together (being omnipresent), but we can’t?

  • Carl

    The Cardinal Virtues of the Leftists compared to Church teaching:

    The first, tolerance, there is no right or wrong, the more a person practices or accepts from others what is harmful the more tolerant they are until anything goes—which of course is perfect tolerance.

    Prudence, right reason applied to practice allows us to judge correctly what is right and what is wrong in any given situation.

    The second, redistribution, equality of outcome and value, “from
    each according to his abilities to each according to his needs.” An oligarchy of elites will police the distribution of products.

    Justice, is the constant and permanent determination to give
    everyone their rightful due. We say that “justice is blind,” because it should not matter what we think of a particular person. Only that if we owe him a debt, we must repay exactly what we owe. Everyone having different levels of gifts and abilities will produce more accordingly and proportionally. Remembering Charity to his fellow man.

    The third, relativism, God doesn’t exist nor is he omnipresent,
    so ethical truths depend on the individual or groups holding any diverse
    opinion. “There is nothing to fear but fear itself.” The only obstacles that exist are the ones we or others create.

    Fortitude, also a gift of the Holy Spirit, the strength to overcome fear in the face of obstacles, but always reasoned and reasonable, not to seek danger for danger’s sake.

    The forth, DIVERSITY, the condition of having or being exposed to different life experiences. The more one experiences or condones unlimited desires and passions the more one is fulfilled and complete as a
    person. For “what doesn’t kill you makes your stronger.”

    Temperance, is the restraint of our desires and passions. Man’s
    disordered desires and passions have disastrous consequences both physically and moral. Temperance attempts to keep us from excesses and help us determine how far we can act on our desires. To conform and apply ourselves in proportion to our gifts and abilities.

  • Pingback: A Surfeit of Diversity | Designs on the Truth()

MENU