Cardinal Nicolas de Jesus Lopez Rodriguez, the Archbishop of Santo Domingo, “rebuked” the Obama administration over appointing a “gay rights activist”, while muttering “we can expect anything” from the USA (Rodriguez must read history).
As the Catholic Church is still respected in that part of the world, the administration was forced to respond to Rodriguez. Embassy chief of staff Daniel Foote said, “America’s freedom of thought, freedom of religion, expression and lifestyle, is one of the greatest values” and “that freedom includes total diversity, which is the strongest and most important source for Americans.”
Our subject is Foote’s proposition “freedom includes total diversity”. It is false. Wrong. Untrue. Not so. It is at variance with reality. It is absurdly self-contradictory. It is an outrageous, bizarre, insane, apocalyptically stupid thing to say.
Nobody, not a soul believes in diversity, “total” or otherwise, even though they claim to. Nobody should, either, because it is an appalling idea.
Just think. If Foote was right and “total diversity” was our goal, then, as Cole Porter sung to us, anything goes. Any behavior or expression is acceptable under the banner of “total diversity”. Any.
This includes a man saying and believing “Total diversity is asinine.” This includes a man slitting Dan Foote’s throat while singing Federally-recognized-holiday-of-December-25th-which-shall-remain-nameless carols. This includes a man naming that holy day at a school assembly. This includes forcing everybody else to say it. This includes a man joining in wedded bliss his goat—and then the sweater made from the creature after the goat passes. The “freedom” of “total diversity” includes locking up whoever you can overpower, removing their freedom, and torturing them by making Nancy Pelosi their cellmate.
J.S. Mill’s “experiments in living” aren’t in it. Why, even given all the money of the federal government, which loves us and wants our happiness, we could not explore every possible behavior to fulfill the stern requirements of “diversity.” For one, many diverse behaviors will end up killing off a good number of folks before they get to wander down their own avenues. For another, “diversity” requires we remove the government. People given the “freedom” of “diversity” cannot be ruled.
“Diversity” must be, in the whole history of philosophical ideas, the dumbest. Strain yourself—read Foucault, Dan Brown, even the op-ed page of the New York Times—but you will never discover anything stupider. “Diversity” cannot mean what it says. Except for the rankest, vilest, evilest anarchist, it is an impossibility that anybody can be “for” “diversity”.
Prove this to yourself. Let’s have a “Diversity Day” where, following ancient law and custom, those of unusual “orientations” are stoned to death. Let he who is without diversity withhold the first stone! Let’s put women “in their place” and require them to remain silent unless spoken to. Let’s expose those infants who hold a mother from her career and all the monetary possibilities that entails. Wait: I suppose we already do that one. So let’s instead, in the name of diversity and as used to be done, imprison these killers.
Again,”diversity” cannot mean diversity. It cannot mean “letting anybody do what they want.” It cannot even mean “letting anybody do what they want unless it hurts somebody else.” If that were so, all I have to do is claim that whatever you’re doing hurts me to stop you from doing it.
“Diversity” must be an Orwellian code-word to express a set of behaviors an individual finds acceptable and a set of behaviors the individual finds reprehensible. If you disagree with that, then you must, under pains of being against “diversity”, support those who are against (for example) same-sex marriage. You must also support those who are for it.
It is impossible to be simultaneously for and against the same thing: the best you can do is vacillate between extremes, now accepting a behavior, now condemning it. You must not, and can never, settle on any fixed opinion. To do so means abandoning “diversity.” Once you stake a position in anything, you have made yourself an enemy of “diversity.”
Thus “diversity” (as code word) can only mean “Believe this or else.” Cardinal Rodriguez is right to be worried.
“Diversity” has become what “affordable” was in the 80s. “Affordable” means “I can’t afford it”.
DavidC.
A man came to give me and some others training as fire wardens the other day. At one point, in response to something he’d said himself, he said, “No, that’s being judgmental and that’s wrong.” Perhaps everybody else smiled inwardly too. It’s hard to say.
This would be the same Obama whose supporters, reportedly around 26 percent, think the Tea Party is the greatest threat to America?
Diversity is the new affirmative action.
How should a tolerant person regard intolerance? If she tolerates it, then (it would seem) implicitly she accepts it. If she rejects it, then she is herself intolerant.
“The difficulty with toleration is that it seems to be at once necessary and impossible,†writes Bernard Williams. “Toleration, we may say, is required only for the intolerable. That is its basic problem.â€
I wonder why he didn’t nominate him to be Ambassador to Saudi Arabia or Egypt.
@John M,
Probably because those ambassadorships weren’t open.
I think the one to Libya is.
Why would anybody be against diversity?
Why would anyone want to live in a world where everyone believe and have the same opinion. This make for a very boring world, where no one is free to think for himself.
Having diversity doesn’t mean that there is no law, or no respect. Diversity is freedom of the individual over the oppression of the masses, where people can do whatever they want as long as their action don’t invade other people individuality without their consent.
It is interesting to notice that during the election of the new pope a journalist pointed out that an openly gay organization was renting the local of a building owned and administered by the Catholic Church.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/12/1193567/-Italy-s-Biggest-Gay-Club-Pays-Rent-to-the-Vatican
@Sylvain:
1) I take it Mr. Briggs was not objecting to diversity, but to *total* diversity.
2) and your point is…?
Andrew, Sylvain,
“Total diversity” and “diversity” have the same meaning. Any sane person should object to them, if they take their plain-English meaning.
But I’d be curious to hear your non-plain-English definition that you use when you say you are “for” it.
What a quaint idea, Sylvain. The freedom of the individual over the oppression of the masses. Except at this point in time, the USA is like South Africa was in apartheid: ruled by the minority through courts and executive orders. The oppression is of the majority who voted for DOMA, against gay marriage, etc. Diversity is actually oppression of the majority by the minority–let the illegals stay or you’re racist, keep affirmative action or you’re racist (think McCarthyism and substitute “racist” or “homophobic” for communist). Same for women and their “diversity”–read “stomp on the evil males” for that one and “you can’t touch me if I’m incompetent”. If we truly were talking about freedom of expression, that would be different.
Sheri,
”ruled by the minority through courts and executive orders.”
That I know of, in the last election the democrat had more than 50% of the vote in both chambers and for the president. Republican were able to keep control of the repesentative chambers because they were the one in charge of redistricting between election. This is part of the game and they did a good job so they were able to keep control of one chamber.
How do you defend that a minority of republican were able to defeat a bill that propose background checks that were supported by both the majority of American and NRA members (over 90%) and a majority of Senator. I haven’t see you complain then of being ruled by the minority
In almost every poll, since 2010, a majority of American said they were in favor of allowing gay to get married. If DOMA represented the majority in 1998, it doesn’t anymore. I have written a response to Mr. Briggs challenge that should be posted soon, DOMA was discriminatory to a minority of people and this is why the act was done with malice. Just like an act that stated that people named Sheri should not have the same right as other people. This would be discriminatory and would be done with malice.
Can you or anyone provide a single example where your individual freedom and liberty would be violated if gays get married?
Briggs,
I think you like baseball.
Baseball is diversified. There are 10 position and most players aren’t able to play more than one or two positions. In your roster you need a diversity of people, some have to be good in defence, you need sluggers, but you also need player who are able to get on base, etc.
The opposite of diversity, is uniformity. I hope you do not profess that everything should be uniformed, where everyone have the same opinion on every subject.
Water and O2 are essential to life yet too much, or not enough of it and you will die. You need food that comes from a diversity of sources meat, vegetables, milk, bread. I have an uncle and aunt who got sick trying to be vegan.
Sylvain,
You must slow down. Imagine a player who had the diverse thought that every ball he touched should be thrown in the stands. And his diverse fellow who figured what fun it would be to chase it and beat to death with his bat whomever the ball touched.
No. “Diversity” must be a code word for which behaviours and thoughts are acceptable and which unacceptable. This is a simple, logical fact.
From CNN
36 — The number of U.S. states that have banned same-sex marriage, either through legislation or constitutional provisions.
There are 50 states with well over half having banned same-sex marriage. That constitutes a majority, I believe.
Polls don’t count–actual votes do. California passed a law against same-sex marriage. You need a majority to do that.
The only “majority” supporting same-sex marriage exists in polls, which do not count. If a person doesn’t care enough to exercise his vote, we really don’t care what he thinks.
This is NOT about gay marriage–it’s about 5 judges declaring a law to malicious and vindictive and nullifying LEGALLY passed laws. There was no comment on the law not being legally passed, only that the motive was “wrong”. That is a very dangerous precedent. I would have objected if they had thrown out a law allowing guns if their reasoning was “the people who passed this were just mean.” It’s not about law, it’s about motive.
In answer to your last question: Yes, and we have covered this before. If I don’t want to photograph a gay wedding, I am taken to court. Where is my liberty to refuse service? Also, because the same people wanting gay marriage call any anti-gay speech “hate speech”, I am forbidden to call these people sinners, immoral, bad for society, a plague upon the earth, etc. My liberty and free speech are now limited. If there is just gay marriage, I can refuse service to whomever I wish and I can call these people anything I want, then the answer would be no.
Sheri,
The example you provide is different than the one you presented before. A photograph is very different than a florist. A florist sells goods (flowers), a florist sells himself. A florist cannot refuse to sell flowers because he disagree with the person. If the person has the money to buy them he has to sell them. If he would be willing to sell his flowers to a straight person then he would have to sell it if the person happened to be gay.
A photograph is different. A photograph could not refused to sell a picture he has already taken to someone because he is gay or black or white, but he could refuse a contract to take picture of a gay wedding. The difference is the right of property. Any person has a right of property over an object, but no one has the right of property over a person.
The same goes with restaurant. A chef could not refuse to serve someone for the color of their skin, religion or opinion, but he could refuse to go to a house to cook the meal of a gay wedding.
Gay rights are protected by the first ammendment. Free speech is freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. Any government could pass a law interdictiong a group of people some rights. This is why SCOTUS exist to make sure laws are legal. And laws that target groups of are usually found illegal. Would you complain if SCOTUS declared a law that banned the right to bear arms for women?
I do not understand your distinction with business–If I own the business, it should be mine to do with as I please. If diversity is our goal, then florists that cater to gays and florists who do not should both be welcomed. Remember, total diversity. If we all cater, then diversity is stifled.
I would object if SCOTUS said a law that banned the right to bear arms for women was “malicious in nature” and overturned it on that basis. (Check my comment on the SCOTUS posting–that is my position in this–I did not really intend to mix the two postings.)
Sheri,
I search the pdf decision, written by Kennedy, for the words malicious and vindictive and they appear nowhere in the document. I guess that this was not the reason why they declared DOMA unconstitutionnal. The decision is 77 pages long so their argument his beyond those words.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf
About the distinction:
Our Rights and Freedoms are balanced between one another.
Everything depend on the business and the prodict that someone want. If you are Joe the plummer you can refuse to repair the plumbery in home owned by gays. But you could not refused to sell a faucet if the couple goes to the store.
What is the difference?
When the plummer goes to the house, it is his own person that do the work. Everyone has the right to accept or not to do a job. The individual rights of Joe the plummer to choose to enter into contract or not with someone.
When the gay (you might put any word in its place)enter the store to buy a faucet, the right of property of the buyer precedes the right of the seller to discriminate. Why because the right of property is protected by the first amendment while the right to discriminate is not protected.
When you decide to open a store and put something on the tablet. You agree to sell it for a price. As long as the person who wants to buy it has the money to buy it, the opinion of the person, or what the person looks like doesn’t matter.
In the US, a gun seller could not refuse to sell a weapon to a muslim because of his religion, in some state he would have to sell him 200 AR-15 if it was what he wanted thanks to the pro-gun movement and the NRA.
Mr. Briggs,
Diversity doesn’t mean there is no rule. If the guy thought it was a good idea to throw the ball in the stand, my guess would be that the manager would ground him or would not use him. Let say that the same player is gay and that the manager doesn’t use him because he throw the ball in the stand. That player wouldn’t be able to sue the team pretexting that he doesn’t play because he was gay. The situation would be different if he was a great player and was grounded because of it.
There are more than 15,000 people murdered each year in the US. This kind of diversity is already present and if people are cought they are sent to prison for life, or in Texas happily killed.
Does the 10 players in the field need to have the same opinion about religion or is it better that they should have the same understanding of the game.
Playing soccer in my youth I couldn’t stand one of the player(and he me) we dicided to simply play the game and not care about each other. We won the championship without never talking to each other, we only agreed to play the game.
On
Sylvain: Check the thread on the government for my answer. I think that’s where this should go.
@ sylvian said:
“…Having diversity doesn’t mean that there is no law, or no respect. Diversity is freedom of the individual over the oppression of the masses, where people can do whatever they want as long as their action don’t(sic) invade other people(sic) individuality without their consent.”
I can think of the obvious example your expression of diversity is violated by modern society. The issue is abortion, as alluded to by Dr. Briggs.
How would this apply your definition of diversity to the unborn human’s right to life? They are put to death without any one gaining their consent. No advocate is obtained for them since they have no means of expressing consent. The only examples that have survived from so called “botched abortions” have unanimously agreed they prefer life.
If any choose to respond please do not take the trouble to state “They ate not alive”, or “not a person”, or even “not yet human” as I have heard some state, as a board member on an Ethics Board of a large regional hospital. As a biologist, and physician, I am aware of the biological facts that all “products of conception” in any species are 1) alive, 2)members of their parents genetic species, and 3)are unique individual persons.