Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Diversity is two-way street

November 13, 2009

Advertisement

Government and military officials have issued statements since last week’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, that have nothing to do with the reality of what occurred, what is occurring and what our enemies would still like to have occur all over the United States. Listening to them leads to the conclusion that these people were handed talking points because they are all saying pretty much the same thing: that we shouldn’t jump to conclusions, stereotype or give in to paranoia.

As the quote says, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey is a good man and a faithful soldier. That’s why it is difficult to believe he wasn’t forced to say on the Sunday news programs, “As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.” Gen. Casey also spoke of his “concern” that a “backlash” might take place against Muslim soldiers, though there has been little that could reasonably be called a backlash since 9/11.

The alleged shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, was unimpressed by our diversity. In fact, it may have been diversity that set him off. Hasan and other Muslim extremists don’t practice diversity. They mostly practice Sharia law, which backlashes against anyone who won’t submit to their fundamentalist view of the world.

The U.S. State Department’s Web portal, america.gov, provides a perfect example of the problem. The site bills itself as a place to “meet the people” and “explore the values and ideas that define the character of the United States.” But when it comes to American Muslim organizations, that often means providing a U.S. government stamp of approval to organizations allegedly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Why do so many American leaders seem ashamed and apologetic about America? Holding to the view that America is unexceptional and that no idea, policy, belief, or practice is to be preferred over any other is not diversity. Rather, it is thin gruel; unappealing and unappetizing, and it robs us of our strength.

Did diversity build and sustain America through world wars and economic challenges? No, it was a firm set of principles held by patriots of many races who were willing to pay the price in money and blood. These days, we seem to be increasingly confronted with people who are the political equivalent of shoplifters: They want the benefits without paying the price.

If you are unwilling to part with the money you earned while building a business, or a life, to fund a life for others who refused to do so, are you selfish? As a way of punishment, should your hard-earned money be given over to those who didn’t earn it?

If you have a particular faith (Christian), you are to be discriminated against and silenced. Your sacred symbols — from crosses on a desert mountain, to Nativity displays in public places — are banned. You increasingly are forbidden to pray publicly “in Jesus’ name,” but Muslims can speak of Allah and Mohammed anywhere they like and who is foolish enough to try to silence them?

Apparently, “diversity” is not for everyone and even if it were, what does it mean? To those who wish to impose it, it seems to mean that no one can any longer speak of truth, or even seek it out, because according to the rules of diversity, there is no objective truth. Thinking so makes you a fundamentalist, unless you are a fundamentalist Muslim, in which case you are to be accommodated, pacified and given special rights — like ritual footbaths, prayer rooms and prayer times at public schools and universities that would probably be denied and challenged as violations of church-state separation if a Jew or a Christian were to make requests unique to their faiths.

I grow weary of having to tolerate everything when none of those making such demands seem willing to tolerate much of what I believe. Shouldn’t diversity be a two-way street instead of a roadblock?

Comments

Left_handed 5 years, 1 month ago

Come on, leftwing moonbats, surely some of you have something puerile and hateful to say about Mr. Thomas' column.

geekin_topekan 5 years, 1 month ago

"Why do so many American leaders seem ashamed and apologetic about America?" +++++ Because we have so many un-American, fear mongering, racists who are feeling the pressure of diversity and they are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of an other-than-white president and the browning of America. There is no more shame than there ever was, just more classy leaders who are willing to take the responsibility of acknowledging the short comings of blowhards. No hate involved, that is a rightwinger's concept of America. Those of us who love our country are having to make double duty out of the separating real American values from Rush and Cal etc., who seem to belittle what America is supposed to stand for and the ideals upon which it was founded.

geekin_topekan 5 years, 1 month ago

"The notion that diversity is somehow good for a nation is dizzy hopeful crap." ++++ You share the same values as Saddam and Adolph, BS. And we both know what happened to them.

kugrad 5 years, 1 month ago

The metaphor of diversity as a street simply does not work. Diversity is a condition, a fact of life, not an outlook. What Thomas is really talking about is tolerance. Tolerance, by definition, does not include intolerance. So, if you want your intolerance to be tolerated, if you seek to justify intolerance by claiming it should be tolerated along with other views, your argument is flawed. It is the same argument that underlies the proposition that racist views are should be accepted if non-racist ideas are accepted because otherwise there is an injustice. It is the same argument made by those who feel that, if non-discrimination is government policy, it discriminates against those who prefer to discriminate. The basis of this line of reasoning is the logical fallacy that: Given a proposition that is true, it's opposite ought also be true. This proposition is widely known to be demonstrably false, yet here it is again, underlying the reasoning of Cal Thomas. 'If I have to tolerate viewpoints I disagree with, don't people need to tolerate the ethnocentric viewpoint from which I blame the impoverished for their condition, attack religions other than my own and generally feel morally superior to everyone, all justified by my religious beliefs? Doesn't my intolerant, discriminatory viewpoint carry any weight?' Cal whines.'Isn't intolerance just as valid as tolerance?' Cal wants to know. The irony here is that Cal's brand of fundamentalism, (and in fairness, Cal Thomas is NOT all the way to the right, but getting close), shares many characteristics with the extreme fundamentalism of Islamists he so fears. Chief among those is intolerance.

mickeyrat 5 years, 1 month ago

Re: your 9:17, BlessedSap, do remember that emigration is an option. Maybe you and Cal Thomas should go to a country that is whiter and more Christian.

geekin_topekan 5 years, 1 month ago

I am not up on my WWII history but weren't blacks restricted from the same duties as whites? Or do i watch too much TV? Native Americans fought valiantly in both world wars as well as Korea and Vietnam. I believe that the discrepancy in numbers is in direct relation to the population at the time. Statistically, Natives had the greatest number in voluntary enlistment in proportion to their population. More than whites or blacks. +++ BS said:"Saddam had diversity that is how we easily defeated him, Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd. Play one of the other." ++++ And you encourage the same divisive tactics apparently. BS learned nothing from his role model.

mickeyrat 5 years, 1 month ago

Love the "logic" here.

The exact same poster who posits that "we" won World War Two because we were a non-diverse (read: unified white Christian) country asserts that "we" easily defeated Iraq because it was "diverse."

So to take this to its "logical conclusion": we easily defeated a "diverse Iraq" in 2003 because (drum roll, please!) there were no African-, Mexican-, Native-, Phillipino-, Indian-, Japanese-, Chinese-American, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, or atheist soldiers in the U.S. military..?

Sorry the twenty-first century is so difficult and confusing. Maybe a job with the LeRoy, Kansas, school district awaits, teaching history and logic to Rep. Otto's grandkids.

ivalueamerica 5 years, 1 month ago

BlessedSap (Anonymous) says… There is no evidence that diversity makes a nation strong. In fact it creates fissures for enemies to pick at. The notion that diversity is somehow good for a nation is dizzy hopeful crap.


And this shows your failure as an American, a traitor to our values. There is plenty of evidence that diversity is strength, but you are right about one thing, enemies to pick at it..but you are wrong about what enemy..it is the enemy within..people like you that hate anyone not like you that try and defeat America, you have failed our country and brought shame on yourself.

geekin_topekan 5 years, 1 month ago

BlessedSap (Anonymous) says…

There is no evidence that diversity makes a nation strong. In fact it creates fissures for enemies to pick at. The notion that diversity is somehow good for a nation is dizzy hopeful crap. ++++ BS, may I use this in an essay? I need to illustrate why we need to continue AA/EO.

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 1 month ago

Diversity is a multi-lane roundabout. Merge! Merge!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.