THE DEPLORABLES, HATE SPEECH, AND PC CULTURE

Emotions are high. Some have called for assassination. Madonna confessed she had been thinking to “blow up” the White House. What has de-legitimized this election and this nation?

I think that we can place part of the blame on the alienation and marginalization caused by our PC culture. Adam Tucker laments that:

·       According to Campus Pride, “safe zones” are needed because LGBT students need to know who on campus is safe and supportive.” Wesleyan University in Connecticut has a building called Open House to serve as “a safe space… [for] generating interest in a celebration of queer life from the social to the political to the academic.” (Christian Research Journal, Vol. 39, #06, 60)

Well, what’s the matter with this? Should not the vulnerable be protected against offensive ideas?

There is much the matter with this, especially at the university where diversity of opinion should be the stock and trade of higher education. For one thing, preference for one set of ideas over others or one set of students over others represents a rejection of equality and justice. This amounts to favoring some over others, disenfranchising one group of students in order to favor another.

Favoritism separates and breeds suspicion; equality and justice provide trust and common ground where we can all stand together, sharing the same freedoms of thought and expression.

For years, PC has slammed those who have expressed un-PC thoughts, sometimes banishing the un-PCs from university, business, and employment. They became the “deplorables,” a description which they gladly accepted. Why? Because this is what they had been experiencing for years. The term simply brought to light and made tangible what they had been thinking all along.  An angry backlash was inevitable, and it ushered into the presidency a highly improbable candidate.

Meanwhile, the PC media will not accept responsibility for the alienation, polarization, and the widening divisions within our nation. Instead, they continue to rally around the PC idea that they are merely crusading against “hate speech.”

What is “hate speech?” Even the Bible has been accused of “hate speech” by the PC culture. Why? Hate speech is offensive speech, and people have a right to not be offended, right? Certainly, needlessly offending others is not acceptable. However, charges of “hate speech” are also offensive “hate speech.” It’s like the person who charges, “You have no right to judge me,” while they too are judging. This is nothing short of hypocrisy.

However, this hypocrisy has become a hallmark of PC culture. The university student is no longer allowed to express their opinions against same-sex marriage, abortion, or transgenderism. Why not? Because it offends! However, the “deplorables” are offended by this unjust oppression. Why is this offense not taken into consideration?

We need to find a way for all of us to live under the same roof. Favoritism only alienates and embitters. We need to return to the democratic principles that had once made this nation great – justice and the freedoms of speech and religion.

ATHEISTS ATTEMPTING TO SQUELCH HUMANITARIAN EFFORTS BECAUSE THEY ARE CHRISTIAN

We might think that atheists would want to partner for a better world. Apparently, this is not the case:

·       “Humanists [atheists] in America are attempting to ban the practice of getting school children to fill shoeboxes with gifts to send to children in deprived parts of the world.

·       Samaritan’s Purse Operation Christmas Child collected more than 7 million gift-filled shoe boxes for hurting children around the world this holiday season.

·       The American Humanist Association wants to stop Operation Christmas Child, run by Franklin Graham's organisaton Samaritan's Purse, from promoting the shoebox scheme.” http://www.christiantoday.com/article/humanists.want.to.ban.christmas.shoebox.gifts.to.children.around.the.world/101100.htm

We are not requiring atheists to become Christians. We just insist that Christian be allowed to be Christian – the very right that the First Amendment has always protected.

Instead, atheists and others are telling us that there is no room in this nation for Christians. This would be understandable if we were killing and kidnapping, but we are merely trying to carry out our Christian mandate to love and to demonstrate that Christ is the source of this love.

How can this great nation be held together in the face of such intolerance? Can the US continue to be an umbrella for the peaceful minded? It cannot!

CONSCIENCE COERCION: REPRESSION OF THE DOCTORS

Should doctors have the right to deny performing procedures that they believe are unethical? Many now believe that doctors should be coerced or be dismissed:

·       Two bioethicists known for their pro-euthanasia views have published an academic paper calling for a ban in Canada on doctors’ rights to conscientious objection… Queen’s University bioethicist Udo Schuklenk teamed with Oxford counterpart Julian Savulescu to argue that doctors have no right to refuse to provide abortions, contraceptives, or euthanasia on moral grounds to patients who request these “services,” reported the National Post. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bioethicists-rebuked-after-calling-for-ban-on-doctors-conscientious-objecti

According to these two bioethicists:

·       “Doctors must put patients’ interests ahead of their own integrity… If this leads to feelings of guilty remorse or them dropping out of the profession, so be it…There is an oversupply of people wishing to be doctors.”

They also propose that medical schools should screen out candidates who would refuse to comply with policy on moral grounds.

There are many problems with their proposals, some even terrifying. It would mean that your doctor’s first allegiance is not to doing the good and to patient care but to the institution. Consequently, it is not a matter of putting “patients’ interests ahead of their own integrity” but a matter of putting interests of the institution before all else.

Do we want our doctor to be an institutionalized clone of the system or someone whose first concern is for our welfare? Institutional clones have not proven good friends or caring neighbors. It is also doubtful that they would make good doctors. Once the system lobotomizes the conscience, we are left with a robot, a mere shell of a human being.

Must the conscience be removed like a cancerous tumor? It is certainly not necessary for the welfare of the State, as history has amply demonstrated. The protection of such human rights and the thriving of the West have proven to be a viable marriage. Once such protections are eliminated, so too is thriving and everything else we have valued in the West.

Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, commented:

·        “When I’m at my lowest time in my life, I don’t want my doctor to be thinking, ‘If I don’t kill this guy or send him to someone who will kill him, that I’m going to lose my medical license. I want my doctor to look me in the eye and say, ‘I’m not going to do this.’”

·       They “want their doctors to be computers. Someone can go up, put in their order and they can get what they want. But to me that’s a ridiculous situation. Human beings should never be treated like computers, nor are they like that.”

While institutionalization and standardization are sometimes advisable, too much micro-management, conformitization, and control can kill, especially when they attempt to remove the conscience. When we treat people like conscience-less computers, they begin to act like them. (They can also rebel creating costly outcomes.) When we dismantle their conscience, we make them into zombies, and zombies are not the ideal life-forms.

We also have to wonder why these two bioethicists insist doctors must be coerced to conform to the system. While it is obvious that now the system’s “progressiveness” is in harmony with their own vision, will they still be smiling when this same coercive and repressive system adopts a vision at odds with their own? They want to put a loaded gun in the hands of the State but do not consider the possibility that this same gun might soon be later aimed at them.

They want to purge non-conforming doctors from practicing. However, these bioethicists do not consider that they might be the next Gulag exiles, so commonly the fate of the comrades of the Revolution.

RICHARD DAWKINS, THE STATE, AND MILITANT INDOCTRINATION

The renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, recently stated something that is increasingly resonating with others:

·       “There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents,” he said. “Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.”

Well, what’s wrong with such a statement? Much! For one thing, religious liberty has enabled Western Civilization to thrive. It has given every family a sincere welcome, but now it is being taken away, and many are beginning to feel marginalized, even victimized. The nation that had once been their friend is now regarded as a deadly enemy – a threat to their family.

However, there is another problem with this statement. It fails to acknowledge a couple of crucial realities:

1.    There is no alternative to the indoctrination of children. It will either be the parents or it will be the State. However, the State has a poor track record in caring for our children. State control also reduces choice and diversity.

2.    The State also has its religion and values that it is militantly determined to inculcate, even around the backs of the parents.

State control is nothing short of oppression and disdain for the welfare of the children.

Gay Marriage, the Supreme Court, and Gross Hypocrisy

Predictably, the Supreme Court split along ideological lines, voting 5 to 4 in favor of gay marriage, making it legal for the entire nation.

President Barack Obama also responded predictably:

• "This ruling is a victory for America. This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts. When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free."

Certainly, all Americans must be treated as equals, but this isn’t the point. The law has never treated behaviors as equal; nor should it. In fact, discrimination is the very essence of justice. It is the law’s duty to convict the perpetrator of criminal behavior and to defend the innocent.

I also agree with the President that “When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free." However, the very opposite thing is happening in the wake of pro-gay rulings. The rights and speech of those who believe in traditional marriage are being violated. For example:

• An Iowa Christian couple has lost their livelihood, because they believe in natural marriage. Richard and Betty Odgaard ran Görtz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa -- a beautiful wedding chapel, art gallery, flower shop, and bistro.  They had been serving happy customers in the renovated stone church for 11 years. That is, until homosexuals from Des Moines targeted their Christian business, to use as a tool of the gay agenda.

• A Pentagon spokesman has just said in writing that Christian troops will be punished and court-martialed if they dare to talk about their personal faith in Jesus Christ. 

Such violations of our constitutionally guaranteed rights are escalating along with the gay political agenda. Why doesn’t the President apply this same principle - “When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free" – to others! Would you call it “hypocrisy?” I certainly would!

The Supreme Court’s deciding vote was cast by Justice Kennedy, who argued:

• "Without the recognition, stability and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser."

Is Kennedy truly concerned about the welfare of children? Why then isn’t he concerned about the myriad of studies showing the high price paid by these future parents in terms of abbreviated lives, STDs, mental health issues, domestic violence, and substance abuse? Why does he seem to be dismissive of the overwhelming number of studies showing that children fare far better with their biological parents?

Does he really care about the children? Do any of those who voted in favor of gay marriage?