Are we missing something when it comes to diversity?
Lead Summary
By
-
By Jim Thompson
HCP columnist
When it comes to diversity, it seems like those of us who might consider ourselves mainstream citizens seem to be constantly encouraged to move to the left.
Perhaps “encouraged” is too soft a word.
We are castigated, berated and sometimes it feels like beaten into submission.
In a world that has more ink covering their bodies than one would find surrounding a defective octopus and more holes in their earlobes than the gashes in the Titanic, some of us feel abused and disenfranchised by proponents of these lifestyles – if we happen to see things a different way and avoid actively embracing their lifestyles.
Of course, there are nefarious reasons for diversity as promulgated by the left.
Dr. Edward J. Erler in the July/August 2018 edition of “Imprimis,” historically and adroitly schools us on the roots of modern diversity (it started with Lyndon Johnson) and shows us the failures of the Republicans and Democrats through the last half century to (a) understand the true objective (Republicans) and (b) to protect the sovereignty of the United States (Republicans and Democrats) when promulgating modern progressive diversity through wide open immigration policies.
He cites President Trump as the first president in the post-Lyndon Johnson era to understand what is going on and to clearly appeal to the portion of the population being destroyed by today’s diversity/immigration pogrom.
Dr. Erler further states, “More than a century ago, the Supreme Court announced what was considered the settled sense of the matter when it remarked: ‘It is an accepted maxim of international law and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within [a sovereign nation’s] dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.’
“This view was re-affirmed in the recent Supreme Court decision, handed down on June 26, that upheld Trump’s travel ban on foreign nationals from eight countries, six of which have majority Muslim populations. The dissenting opinion in this case would have invalidated the ban on constitutional grounds, based on the idea that the president’s campaign statements and those of his advisers proved that animus against Islam was the real and pervasive motivation for the travel ban. Had this dissenting opinion prevailed, it would have created an anomaly in constitutional jurisprudence.
“Conceding that the plain language of the travel ban was neutral and therefore constitutional, what rendered the travel ban unconstitutional was Trump’s purported display of animus in his public speeches. If signed by any president other than Trump, there would therefore be no constitutional objections. In other words, in the minds of the dissenters, psychoanalysis of Trump’s motives held greater constitutional significance than the intent of the law expressed in its plain language.”
Clearly, the dissenters – as is often the case displayed by those with Trump Derangement Syndrome – were grasping at (paper) straws.
Thank goodness, rational minds prevailed.
But back to where I started. Today, diversity is rubbed in our faces with examples often plucked from what were once the fringes of society. It no longer addresses garden variety racism or sexism against our neighbors or coworkers. Today, one is labeled xenophobic for any number of reasons, usually because someone does not look or act like (I) (we) (you) do.
We’re back to the poster child permanently splattered with ink in strange patterns or perhaps riddled with unnatural holes.
A few weeks ago, I got a letter from a gentleman who is a Mennonite. I have a daughter and family in Colorado who are Mennonites, but they are the more liberal Mennonites with modern conveniences. You wouldn’t know them from Episcopalians (what they were before they became Mennonites).
My correspondent is of the more traditional type. He has asked me to come visit his family and him, and I plan on doing so later this fall. I am eagerly looking forward to visiting with them.
Surprisingly, I have come to think of this upcoming event as an exercise in diversity education for me, for I have never lived quite like this family lives (thanks to my Dad, I got really close to this lifestyle in my high school years).
I have never held some of the views this family holds. I will be very respectful of their lifestyle.
I do not plan on telling the readership here when I go or be specific about what I learn. My expectation, though, is that I will be (and I hope they are, too) richer for the experience.
All of this has gotten me to thinking. Why is the cry for diversity never directed toward learning more about the Mennonites and Amish among us? They look pretty successful from where I sit, by any way you want to measure success. They are definitely peace-loving and tread lightly on society and the environment. They are prosperous, and their communities are obviously thriving and growing.
Should more of us emulate them, it seems the world would be a better place.
Given these conditions, why are these fine people never on the radar of those pushing for more diversity in our society? Does this say something about the nefarious intent of those pushing modern diversity? Or are those pushing modern diversity actually displaying their own xenophobia by ignoring this important and fine example of modern citizenship in our midst today?
Jim Thompson, formerly of Marshall, is a graduate of Hillsboro High School and the University of Cincinnati. He resides in Duluth, Ga. and is a columnist for The Highland County Press.
HCP columnist
When it comes to diversity, it seems like those of us who might consider ourselves mainstream citizens seem to be constantly encouraged to move to the left.
Perhaps “encouraged” is too soft a word.
We are castigated, berated and sometimes it feels like beaten into submission.
In a world that has more ink covering their bodies than one would find surrounding a defective octopus and more holes in their earlobes than the gashes in the Titanic, some of us feel abused and disenfranchised by proponents of these lifestyles – if we happen to see things a different way and avoid actively embracing their lifestyles.
Of course, there are nefarious reasons for diversity as promulgated by the left.
Dr. Edward J. Erler in the July/August 2018 edition of “Imprimis,” historically and adroitly schools us on the roots of modern diversity (it started with Lyndon Johnson) and shows us the failures of the Republicans and Democrats through the last half century to (a) understand the true objective (Republicans) and (b) to protect the sovereignty of the United States (Republicans and Democrats) when promulgating modern progressive diversity through wide open immigration policies.
He cites President Trump as the first president in the post-Lyndon Johnson era to understand what is going on and to clearly appeal to the portion of the population being destroyed by today’s diversity/immigration pogrom.
Dr. Erler further states, “More than a century ago, the Supreme Court announced what was considered the settled sense of the matter when it remarked: ‘It is an accepted maxim of international law and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within [a sovereign nation’s] dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.’
“This view was re-affirmed in the recent Supreme Court decision, handed down on June 26, that upheld Trump’s travel ban on foreign nationals from eight countries, six of which have majority Muslim populations. The dissenting opinion in this case would have invalidated the ban on constitutional grounds, based on the idea that the president’s campaign statements and those of his advisers proved that animus against Islam was the real and pervasive motivation for the travel ban. Had this dissenting opinion prevailed, it would have created an anomaly in constitutional jurisprudence.
“Conceding that the plain language of the travel ban was neutral and therefore constitutional, what rendered the travel ban unconstitutional was Trump’s purported display of animus in his public speeches. If signed by any president other than Trump, there would therefore be no constitutional objections. In other words, in the minds of the dissenters, psychoanalysis of Trump’s motives held greater constitutional significance than the intent of the law expressed in its plain language.”
Clearly, the dissenters – as is often the case displayed by those with Trump Derangement Syndrome – were grasping at (paper) straws.
Thank goodness, rational minds prevailed.
But back to where I started. Today, diversity is rubbed in our faces with examples often plucked from what were once the fringes of society. It no longer addresses garden variety racism or sexism against our neighbors or coworkers. Today, one is labeled xenophobic for any number of reasons, usually because someone does not look or act like (I) (we) (you) do.
We’re back to the poster child permanently splattered with ink in strange patterns or perhaps riddled with unnatural holes.
A few weeks ago, I got a letter from a gentleman who is a Mennonite. I have a daughter and family in Colorado who are Mennonites, but they are the more liberal Mennonites with modern conveniences. You wouldn’t know them from Episcopalians (what they were before they became Mennonites).
My correspondent is of the more traditional type. He has asked me to come visit his family and him, and I plan on doing so later this fall. I am eagerly looking forward to visiting with them.
Surprisingly, I have come to think of this upcoming event as an exercise in diversity education for me, for I have never lived quite like this family lives (thanks to my Dad, I got really close to this lifestyle in my high school years).
I have never held some of the views this family holds. I will be very respectful of their lifestyle.
I do not plan on telling the readership here when I go or be specific about what I learn. My expectation, though, is that I will be (and I hope they are, too) richer for the experience.
All of this has gotten me to thinking. Why is the cry for diversity never directed toward learning more about the Mennonites and Amish among us? They look pretty successful from where I sit, by any way you want to measure success. They are definitely peace-loving and tread lightly on society and the environment. They are prosperous, and their communities are obviously thriving and growing.
Should more of us emulate them, it seems the world would be a better place.
Given these conditions, why are these fine people never on the radar of those pushing for more diversity in our society? Does this say something about the nefarious intent of those pushing modern diversity? Or are those pushing modern diversity actually displaying their own xenophobia by ignoring this important and fine example of modern citizenship in our midst today?
Jim Thompson, formerly of Marshall, is a graduate of Hillsboro High School and the University of Cincinnati. He resides in Duluth, Ga. and is a columnist for The Highland County Press.