Heather MacDonald warns US colleges are breeding hate | Life, Liberty & Levin – Fox News

Heather MacDonald – political commentator, essayist, attorney and bestselling author of The Diversity Delusion – tells it like it is, on the danger of this delusion to the university, and to the nation.

What is “the diversity delusion”? In brief, the belief that America is awash in discrimination, and that any perceived inequality or lack of “parity” (equality of opportunity is no longer enough; now the expectation is equality of outcomes) in race or gender in any field is the result of systemic, institutional (or individual, or both) racism, sexism, etc.

MacDonald notes that there is a cottage industry of both pandering to and actively fomenting this fear on campus, and she is not the only one to note her fear that this may eventually lead to civil war, by breeding hate among students in our colleges and universities.


Nota Bene:  This belief may ultimately, I fear, create a self-fulfilling property.

If someone, or a group of people (in this case primarily white, heterosexual, Christian men, although white, heterosexual, Christian women are not immune, in this age of “intersectionality”) are told “You hate me, you’re prejudiced against me, you’re putting me down!” the initial response is likely to be shock and sadness: “No, man! I’m not! I don’t want to do that!”

The goal of the Left, of course, is for this message to be internalized, to “Oh, wow, man, I guess I am… what do I have to do to make up for it?” The answer to that is “There’s really nothing you can do to totally make up for it, because you’re you’re a straight white Christian male, but you can make reparation by becoming an ‘ally’ and kowtowing to us constantly.”

But unless this happens, and maybe eventually even if it does, the ultimate result is going to be resentment. “Why do you keep harassing me, man? I’m not doing anything to you!” And eventually, that resentment is going to, as I say, create a self-fulfilling prophecy: “You know what, man? I really am starting to hate you, now!”

And that is when it stops being about suppression of difference (ironically, a thing the Left used to claim was bad, but now actively utilizes to advance its agenda), and may begin to edge over into the civil war that MacDonald and many of us fear. Lord, have mercy upon us!

 

A provocative essay: “Saving Christian Civilization Through Eros” | The Imaginative Conservative

“Conservatives must now begin the restoration of civilization by promoting erotic love in order to bring us towards higher forms of  love—philia and agape. Specifically, it will be women who will save us, and their weapons will not be their brains, but their bodies.”

Source: Saving Christian Civilization Through Eros ~ The Imaginative Conservative

Here’s the video, from which the image above is a still:

And here are some excerpts from Peter S. Rieth‘s commentary on it:

“What I behold is a Western world so morally bankrupt and decadent, that even the natural, primitive sexual appetites that make men attractive for women and women attractive for men have been erased in Western minds. Decades of feminist propaganda have led to a Western society that has liberated itself from even eroticism.

“It has come to this—that a conservative must now begin the restoration of civilization from such a low, low point as to proclaim in the public square: Men should try to look attractive for women, and women should try to look attractive for men, because we require erotic love in order to bring us towards higher forms of  love—philia and agape.”

“The video screams out to European men: have you forgotten what women are? Have you forgotten what erotic love is? Have you all gone sterile? For it seems that Western European man has indeed forgotten what women are. Eastern Europeans and Russians certainly have not…

“Imagine a world without erotic love—a world of ‘tolerance’ and homosexual-inspired androgyny. Indeed, this world is fast approaching, and is upon the West already. It is a world without the vices associated with erotic lust. True. [*] But it is also a world where the natural virtues of spiritual love, often born of erotic love in the maturing years of youth, will also be abolished.”

“Specifically, it will be women who will save us, and their weapons will not be their brains, but their bodies.”

An interesting and provocative – in several sense of the word! – thesis, this. Worth reading and pondering, in my opinion.

One cautionary point: this is not permission for promiscuity and fornication, even in a heterosexual context! The traditional Christian standards for properly ordered sexual expression – chastity, defined as celibacy while single and fidelity while married – remain the same. But as a comment on the friend’s page I borrowed this from aptly noted,

The church historically seems to have taught [that] erotic love and marriage is only for procreation and you better not enjoy it! But if we read both Solomon and St Paul, we see a different frame of mind. The command is not to covet or lust after what is our neighbour’s, … but what about coveting what is ours?

[The Anglophilic Anglican notes: Of course we cannot technically “covet” that which is already ours, as the definition of “covet” is to desire what is not already ours. But you get the idea: we certainly can, and indeed should, desire what is our own.]

“Solomon encourages his young student to ‘rejoice with the wife of his youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.’ And the very next line reads… ‘And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?’ This teaching of wisdom brings the commandment into its proper context. Passion is for the marriage bed only.

“St Paul states to abstain from sexual relations while unmarried (commanded by God from the beginning), but a married couple are not to withhold their bodies from each other. And as the author of Hebrews wrote, ‘Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.’

“Eroticism as God intended is a thing of beauty and goodness.”

Indeed!


N.B. This essay is a very concrete example of C.S. Lewis’ “argument from desire” (or “apologetic of desire”) – that ordinary human desires, which are at least capable of fulfillment here on earth, can serve to lead the soul “onward and upward” (“is that all there is?”) toward the desire for union with God, which can be wholly fulfilled only through supernatural means – a thesis discussed in much more arcane detail by the eminent Peter Kreeft here.


* This is not entirely true. Although some, both women and men, in today’s West are indeed giving up traditional romantic and even sexual relationships, that does not mean that they are, in the main, turning to the study of history, philosophy, theology, or the arts instead.

What seems to be happening, so far at least, is the replacement of normal, natural erotic desire – that associated with the natural attraction of men for women and women for men, which carries with it at least the potential of procreation – with unnatural, disordered, increasingly perverse forms of erotic lust, coupled with the intentional extinction of procreation through abortion.

I am reminded of Tolkien’s dictum that evil can create nothing on its own, but can only pervert, warp, and twist that which already exists…

Oh, and one final comment: I am not sure I entirely agree with “their weapons will not be their brains, but their bodies.” I don’t disagree with it, either; but it’s not entirely accurate, I think, as stated.

A great deal of eroticism is not merely one’s body, but how one uses it – and that is definitely a function of brain-power. The body churns the butter, or kneads the bread: both functions which can be built into a machine. The brain figures out how to do so suggestively!

 

Sex is for male-female marriage only, Church of England confirms | Christian News on Christian Today

marriage

Sex only belongs in heterosexual marriage, a new statement from the Church of England’s House of Bishops has declared.

Source: Sex is for male-female marriage only, Church of England confirms | Christian News on Christian Today

Somewhat surprisingly, given its history in recent years and decades, the House of Bishops of the Church of England – the “Mother Church” of all Anglican Christians – has affirmed that

“For Christians, marriage – that is the lifelong union between a man and a woman, contracted with the making of vows – remains the proper context for sexual activity.”

This is the traditional teaching, albeit phrased somewhat cautiously. They go on to say that

“In its approach to civil partnerships the Church seeks to uphold that standard, to affirm the value of committed, sexually abstinent friendships and to minister sensitively and pastorally to those Christians who conscientiously decide to order their lives differently,”

which is a legitimate call to pastoral sensitivity: as a dear, excellent, and godly Anglican priest of my acquaintance put it, the duty of the Church is to “uphold the standard, and deal pastorally with the exceptions.” They go on to affirm that

“Sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings. The introduction of same sex marriage… has not changed the church’s teaching on marriage or same sex relationships.”

The Church of England and its HOB has itself fallen what seems to be short of God’s purposes for human beings in a number of regards over, as I say, the last several decades, and they do waffle a bit on practical application. But I am a believer in giving credit where it’s due!

“Christians Deceived by the LGBTQ Movement” | American Thinker

Featured Image

“LGBTQ activists are using every weapon in their arsenal to punish, humiliate, and destroy Christians.”

Source: Christians Deceived by the LGBTQ Movement | American Thinker

At the risk of being accused of virtue-signalling, I want to state clearly that this is not intended as an attack on individuals involved in serious, committed same-sex relationships.

I have friends in that category, and while I may not agree with their choices (attractions and desires may not be a choice – are not, in fact; we all have attractions and desires, some of which may be more healthy, and some less – but how we respond to them most emphatically is), they are still friends, and “there is none who is without sin, no, not one.”

Furthermore, what individuals do in the privacy of their own homes is not my business, unless they make it my business: either by asking me for spiritual counsel, or by insisting that I not only tolerate it as a private matter between consenting individuals (which is part of living together in a civil society), but “affirm” and even “celebrate” it as a public matter. That is where I draw the line.

And that is where LGBTQ+ activists – as distinct from people quietly and discretely living their lives, which is where people of any sexual orientation should be (with the possible exceptions of discussing the falling birthrate, or the fact that children do best when they have both a mother and a father [see also thisinter alia], there are few reasons to make one’s sexuality the centerpiece of one’s identity) – err most grievously, imho: they insist that their sexuality is core to their identity, in fact it’s their primary identity, and d__n it, the rest of us had better celebrate it!

Leaving aside the fact that making sex the center of one’s life points to issues far beyond merely who one chooses to engage in it with, this kind of attitude has serious – and negative – implications for Christians, or anyone else who disagrees with it, to the extent that these beliefs become or even influence public policy.

For example, this essay cites

“California’s pro-LGBTQ Assembly Bill 2943 [which] threatens free speech and freedom of religion for Christians.  It uses the state’s consumer fraud statute to make it illegal to ‘distribute resources, sell books, offer counseling services, or direct someone to a biblically based model for getting help with gender confusion and homosexuality.'” 

As noted in the above quote, this has serious First Amendment implications for Christians, on both freedom of speech and free exercise of religion grounds.

But, either failing to understand this or willfully ignoring it, “Christians believe the LGBTQ movement’s lie that they seek only Christian love and acceptance.” Well, some may. Perhaps many may, as individuals. But clearly the LGBTQ+ activist squad – a highly active division in the cultural Marxist “fifth column” that has infiltrated American public discourse – has motives that are both broader and darker than that.

In any case, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest!

“Biology is not bigotry”: teacher blasts bill that would force teachers to receive LGBT “training”

Featured Image

An elementary school teacher packed a powerful punch in a two-minute testimony last month against a proposed law that would require teachers to affirm homosexual, lesbian, and transgender students.

Source: ‘Biology is not bigotry’: teacher blasts bill that would force teachers to receive LGBT ‘training’ | The Pulse | Lifesitenews

One of the most basic principles of my philosophy on living has been and remains this: if you don’t bother me, I won’t bother you; but your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

With regard to this specific issue, that means that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home(s) is their business, unless they make it my business: either by requesting my personal or professional (as a Christian clergyman) opinion on the matter, or more generally, by insisting that I “affirm” or even “celebrate” their life choices. That’s when the fist impacts the nasal structure. Continue reading ““Biology is not bigotry”: teacher blasts bill that would force teachers to receive LGBT “training””

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

gay rights activist outside supreme court
Activists demonstrating at the United States Supreme Court for Same-Sex Marriage on April 28, 2015

A [2016] report from Johns Hopkins University scholars Lawrence Mayer and Paul McHugh revealed that there is no scientific evidence for the theory that people are born gay or transgender, and that mental health problems among the LGBT community cannot fully be explained by discrimination.

Source: People Are Not Born Gay or Transgender, According to 2016 Johns Hopkins Study

Leftist “progressives”: “People can’t help being LGBT, they’re born that way!” Also Leftist “progressives”: “Gender is fluid! You can decide for yourself what your ‘actual’ gender is, and however you ‘identify’ is what you are.”

Hmmmmmmm…. am I the only one who sees a discrepancy in this?

Ironically, some of these same people like to stress “science” and “reason” against what they see (usually incorrectly, though there are exceptions) as the merely subjective, judgmental prejudices of folks on the conservative end of the spectrum.

In any case:

“The study breaks down in three parts: First, Mayer and McHugh examined whether homosexuality is an inherited trait, and concluded that people are not simply ‘born that way.’ Second, they looked at the causes of the poor mental health associated with gay and transgender people, concluding that social stress does not explain all of it. Finally, they studied transgenderism, concluding that it is not innate and that transgender ‘treatments’ are associated with negative outcomes.

“The report found insufficient evidence to back up the idea that people are born with innate sexual attractions… ‘Studies of the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals have found some differences, but have not demonstrated that these differences are inborn rather than the result of environmental factors that influenced both psychological and neurobiological traits,’ the report explained.”

Asked about potential criticism that the study supports a particular sociopolitical narrative, co-author Mayer was emphatic:

“‘Every line in this I either wrote or approved of,’ [he] told The Christian Post. ‘There is no bias either way. The bias is just towards science.'”

The article concludes,

“Science is neither conservative nor liberal, but it does provide many reasons to be skeptical of the LGBT narrative.”

Definitely worth a read. Be sure you click on through to the second page!

Nothing Says Woman Quite Like a Dress – Crisis Magazine

Source: Nothing Says Woman Quite Like a Dress – Crisis Magazine

If there is one thing that I think is a vibrantly encouraging sign in the process of re-traditionalization in the West – a movement which seems slowly but surely to be gathering momentum – it is the way in which more and more women seem to be finding value in traditional feminine practices, whether it is home-making, the wearing of the veil in church, or in this case, what used to be the sine qua non of femininity, wearing a dress.

I will gladly admit, I am biased: I grew up with women wearing dresses. Both my grandmothers, and my mother, wore exclusively dresses or skirts – even for housework – all through my childhood and young-adult years, and in fact until the day they died. Ma, it is true, did try out the “pantsuit,” when those were in fashion; but she was not comfortable in it and quickly abandoned it, despite the protests of my older brothers, who I suppose wanted a “hip” mother.

Well, Ma may not have been “hip,” but she was a wonderful mother, wife, and homemaker, and my absolute model and ideal of feminine beauty – inside and out! So while I confess to appreciating, in my more carnal moments, the appeal of an attractive young woman in well-fitting jeans, shorts, or a short skirt, it is a dress, or a well-chosen skirt-and-blouse ensemble, that says “womanhood” to me. Continue reading “Nothing Says Woman Quite Like a Dress – Crisis Magazine”