Disparate
matters have caught my attention lately.
The faculty at Rutgers University voted against having Condoleeza Rice
speak at commencement. A student
editorial at Harvard suggested, in the name of some sort of justice, certain
viewpoints shouldn’t be tolerated. Some
gay rights activists have made clear that any rejection of gay marriage rights
is an intolerable secular sin, no matter what reason might be given. The Obama administration fought to deport a
German family seeking asylum in order to homeschool their children, only to
relent, even after obtaining a favorable ruling from the Sixth Circuit and a
denied appeal to the Supreme Court.
The common
feature here is the worldview that underlies these matters. Generally, these situations are occurring
because Western civilization has granted wholesale acceptance to naturalistic
materialism as its prime principle for understanding reality. This worldview accepts that the universe is
all there ever was, all there is, and all there ever will be. Ultimately, everything is explainable by purely
naturalistic causes. This, in turn,
means that human beings are really
nothing more than very sophisticated slime, developed, somehow, from lower life
forms over millions of years. Our place
on the planet exists only as a byproduct of the ongoing existence of the
universe itself. We are born, we live,
we die. There is no God, there is no
overarching purpose to reality that governs our existence, our lives have no
ultimate meaning, and our lives have no intrinsic value. We simply are.
This has
enormous implications, which we see borne out again and again. Secularists, ironically, consistently claim
that their point of view is better. Why else
would the Rutgers faculty protest Condoleeza Rice speaking? By all accounts she is an intelligent,
learned, and successful woman – wouldn’t that ordinarily qualify her to speak
at a commencement? Well, apparently not
if she worked for George W. Bush and helped him “lie” about weapons of mass
destruction. The problem, here, is that
the underlying world view doesn’t provide a rational basis for the Rutgers’
faculty argument. Who gets to say which
morals count and which don’t? Upon what
basis does the Rutgers’ faculty claim Ms. Rice’s secular sins merit their
disdain? They truly don’t have a
rational basis, only a personal bias –
they just don’t like Ms. Rice or at least don’t like her politics. But this is enough.
Enter a
young lady at Harvard who apparently believes justice means that if you don’t
agree with the group, then your views should be banned permanently from
discussion. I guess we could at least
give her credit for making her bias clear.
She doesn’t want to even have to deal with those with whom she disagrees
because their point of view is, again, not wanted. Her claim actually makes a bit more sense
than the Rutgers’ faculty, since she cites Harvard’s own policies and, at least
reasonably suggests that if the policies are truly to be believed as some sort
of moral good, then, by definition, the opposite is a moral bad and ought to be
banished. Of course, the irony is that
the academic buzzwords of tolerance and diversity have proven to mean validation and
anything goes. As a result, the most
secular of sins are to suggest that someone else is morally wrong and that
not everything goes. Ironically, though,
secularists hypocritically commit this sin every time they claim that Christian
belief is morally wrong and shouldn't get "anything goes" status.
Some gay
activists are taking this to an extreme.
It is now deemed utterly bigoted and homophobic to have any opposition to gay
marriage for any reason. Essentially,
this has now reached a social tipping point which permits proponents to argue
for annihilation of any view other than absolute gay marriage equality as
utterly wrong. Thus, those in favor of
gay marriage who also want no opposition to anything gay are taking advantage
of their relative cultural power to completely oppress and ostracize those who
disagree.[1] But wasn’t one of the big arguments for gay
rights that the feeling of oppression and ostracization among gays shouldn't exist in a liberal society? Doesn’t this, then, make this argument
hypocritical, and ironic? You have to understand,
though, use of power follows from a naturalistic worldview. Since life has no overarching purpose,
meaning, or value, then raw power becomes the only arbiter of morality. Might makes right.
The last
example of this is the curious handling of the Romeike family by the Obama
administration. This family fled Germany
because they are Christians and Germany does not allow homeschooling,
particularly Christian homeschooling (interestingly, an old holdover law from
the Hitler days). The Obama
administration attempted to deport them, but they won in immigration
court. The administration appealed,
winning in the district and circuit courts.
The Supreme Court would not accept the Romeike’s appeal. Oddly, the Department of Homeland Security
then granted the Romeikes an indefinite visa.
I believe
the Obama administration was making a simple point
– we have power and are not afraid to use it.
See what we did with these people – we jerked them around until we were
good and ready to let them stay, on our terms.
There is a ruthlessness here that should scare all Americans, not just
homeschoolers. There was nothing that
suggested the Romeikes have been anything but model citizens while living in
the United States. There is no evidence
there will be a flood of German Christians rushing in to seek asylum if the
Romeikes had been allowed to stay. No,
this was simply a government making clear to people with whom it doesn’t
generally agree that they had better watch out because it has power to do
whatever it wants. Again, when there is
no outside moral restraint, the result is that power becomes the sole arbiter
of morality. Might makes right.
Ironically,
what many so-called progressive “thinkers” fail to see and understand is that
they could easily be next. When a Harvard educated student is prepared to
banish academic dissent because it doesn’t follow the party line, what happens
when the party line changes? If 5,000 or
so years of recorded human history tells us anything about our fellow human
beings it is (a) the party line is always changing and (b) human beings can be
and are malevolent creatures who will act spitefully. Gay rights supporters think all is now
peaches and cream. Maybe, but what
happens when the next group comes along and decides homosexuality is the new
secular sin? Guess who will come to your
aid? It won’t be your so-called fellow “progressives”
because they will have no reason to come to your aid. No, it will be nasty Christians, like me,
whom you currently belittle and bemoan. You
see, I don’t believe might makes right because we are not just sophisticated
slime; we bear the very image of the God of the universe. As a result, we matter – not because the
faculty at Rutgers voted us in, or because the president decided not to make an
example of us – but because the God who put all this together says so. We have intrinsic value, purpose and
meaning. Since I believe that God wants
you to spend eternity with him, I will advocate for His reality until I can no
longer draw breath, even in defense of a gay Rutgers professor who wants to banish
academic dissent and deport German homeschoolers if he is being harmed as a
result of a might makes right naturalistic worldview. But I’m the puritanical one, right?
[1]
Not all gays, nor all gay marriage advocates fall into this camp. However, for one who does, see Mark Joseph
Stern at Slate.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment