What’s Wrong with the World

In my opinion you’re correct Dr McGrew.

Starting with the topical example - the naked aggression of the Leiter organised petition.It amounts to the dropping of nearly all pretense to respect of, and engagement with, Christian truth claims.

Being present at the performance that is this APA petition and Leiter blog gave me a concrete experience of what I knew in the abstract – secularisation doesn’t just happen. It takes particular agents with a hatred for Christ using political force to achieve their ends. The pretense that it is a search for truth has almost completely fallen away.

I read Eve Tushnet’s post [Feb 27] http://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/
wasn’t published in Leiter’s blog.

I notice Leiter did not deny his hatred of Christianity or that he was, or still is, an idiot apologist for that blood soaked regime of Communism.

All are completely ignorant of Christian anthropology and virtually all fail GK Chesterton’s “It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how possibly we might have gone wrong.”

For example, Dr Pavlischek highlighted this zinger:

“(1) Belief in a personal god is, at the very least, not irrational.”

Mark Lance: “(1) is false.” That pretty much sums the whole thing up but it goes on.

Lance again “[The Bible] says ‘men having sex with men is evil.’ It also says that cross-breeding cattle, crop-rotation, sex during a woman's period, and mixed fabric clothing is in the same category of evil. . “

What can be said for the kind of person who confidently pronounces on the atavism of the Bible without ever bothering to find out how to read it from the great geniuses and holy men and women of our Christian civilisation who for two thousand years have invested their lives preserving and explicating it?

It has confirmed in my mind that in their understanding of history, as a group, they are just autistic.

Lance “I have no idea what good reasons there are to think that Jesus was divine. Similar texts say so concerning hundreds of other people, and undoubtedly if we just had ones that have not survived, the numbers would be well into the thousands. But I guess the idea is that you think it obviously rational to believe on faith that the Gospels are accurate.”!!

Read a book mate.

We’re talking about the sexual ethics of a religion that is the basis of our culture. A religion that has been public for two thousand years yet they know nothing about it. These individuals are supposed to be a kind of elite.

APA members getting all petitiony under the guise of rights protection belies a deep anxiety at the course of recent history.

Two perspectives on this irrational fear of Christianity. One from an atheist and the other a Christian.

Austin Dacey: How Secularism Lost its Soul. (And his book A Secular Conscience)
http://www.mukto-mona.com/new_site/mukto-mona/Articles/austin/secularism_soul.htm

Prof. DB Hart: Christ and Nothing
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=533

Two analyses on the empirical evidence of the fall of a self-confident secularism. One from an atheist and the other from a Christian.

-Phillip Longman: The Empty Cradle
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI08Aa01.html:
(Monotheism gives an evolutionary advantage against modernity)

-Mary Eberstadt The Vindication of Humanae Vitae http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6262
(The sexual revolution has devastated families.)

Until secularists acknowledge that without stable institutions (the primary one being the family) at home, there is no solid foundation upon which to build stable economic and international institutions at large.

The horrible anxiety over, and obsession with, sex - is the secularist's achilles heal. It is here where an honest engagement with the Christian tradition is so dangerous. Honest debate here by the APA threatens an idol.

“Sex is the new religion, and the gay-liberation movement is the new Caesaropapism” Eve Tushnet

“What a society has, that, be sure, and nothing else, it will hand on to its young. The work is urgent, for many perish around us. But there is no need to be uneasy about the ultimate event. As long as Christians have children and non-Christians do not, one need have no anxiety for the next century. Those who worship the Life-Force [sex] do not do much about transmitting it: those whose hopes are all based on the terrestrial future do not entrust much to it. If these processes continue, the final issue can hardly be in doubt.” CS Lewis

“Virtue – even attempted virtue bring light; indulgence brings fog.”

They have some inkling that they are passing away - it presents to consciousness as an anxiety for which the Light of Christ is the unbearable cause.

-Phillip Jenkins: The Coming of Global Christianity
http://www.amazon.com/Next-Christendom-Coming-Global-Christianity/dp/0195146166:

-Dawn Eden’s blog Fr Cavanan: “You Guys Can’t Lose”

With the rise of the EAAN they are even losing their creation story!

The demise of the secularisation hypothesis must be a deep shock to people with such a shallow understanding of history. So too, the threat of the withdrawal of material rewards from a culture they have so diligently worked to provide intellectual support for.

So I suppose it is prudent to plan for a Battle of the Bulge kind of scenario - a last ditch liberalism - an anxious enforcing of Orwell’s ‘smelly little orthodoxies’ of political correctness and the violence and intimidation that attends a regime in its death throes.

If God is stretching out his powerful arm in this economic crisis (through the secondary causes of human greed and arrogance) then the knowledge industry and all those within it who thought status and political power are the most real of things are in for some wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Evil oft does evil mar.

But ultimately economic tribulations might chastise a great many in the APA into turning from worship of the Self back to the wholly good God who is wholly good for us.

Lets hope this will produce soul searching, produce a re-evaluation of their philosophy.

The Lamentations of Jeremiah:

Ierusalem Ierusalem convertere ad Dominum Deum tuum

Thing is, though, I keep reminding myself that the reason we're so shocked about this in the academic professions is that they _claim_ to have freedom of ideas. The business world makes no such claim. There are certain corporations I can't imagine working for. They could pretty much strong-arm their employees into saying "shibboleth" to anything or face summary termination with no recourse. And now, looking for reasons to lay people off makes economic sense.

There is little doubt that with an economic pretext like this one, the corporate night of the long knives is well underway. And besides, PC tyranny is good for business.

I was hoping that rough times would purge us of worthless "X Studies" programs in the universities, etc. But I guess I'm just a Pollyanna. The wretched state of our universities really means that the worst will survive, that is, the "X Studies" programs will be the last to be cut.

Gintas, you are absolutely right. And I hate to say it, but a lot of this goes back to feminism. I said to someone in an e-mail the other day that the ruthlessness of feminism which started a long time ago should have shown us that liberalism is really totalitarianism. The feminists have essentially won, and now a hire in women's studies or a female hire is one of the only hires that a money-hurting university will still fund. Probably something parallel is true in the business world--sensitivity training and so forth will probably be one of the last things cut.

I am truly baffled by this Lydia. In the other thread, these are the things you indicated some employers are or should be allowed to discriminate against: sexual orientation, marital status, religion, drinking alcohol, smoking, and going to movies. Are you really going to suggest at this point that other employers don't have the right to discriminate against job seekers and employees for reasons they believe will cost them money or market share?

Did I say anything about "rights," Step2? Nope, not a thing. I'm not at all sure (contra Zippy, despite his far greater knowledge) that people's unPC opinions _will_ cost them money or market share. But regardless, I think unPC opinions are usually _true_ opinions and hence, as a holder of such opinions, I find it highly regrettable that people should feel scared into suppressing them by fear of job reprisals. I also think that it is unfortunate and ironic that ostensibly secular groups should be essentially developing into secular churches or church-owned businesses with religion-discriminatory job practices. I think this is unfortunate both because I think the opinions they are trying to pressure people to endorse are _false_ and also because their ostensibly secular nature means that this new religion of Liberalism will have far greater impact on the culture than the impact of similar practices on the part of a few religious institutions and employers scattered here and there. For example, I think that Mormonism is false, too, but there are a lot fewer Mormon employers and schools than PC secular ones.

I also think there is often near deception or even outright deception involved. A university, for instance, trumpets that it does not discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs and yet the university or some department therein actually does do so, sometimes via transparent ruses and proxies (such as discriminating against people from Christian schools) which would never be allowed for a moment if used to discriminate on the basis of race. I abominate this sort of public pretense and hypocrisy.

If PC in hiring is as bad as you say, people may watch what they say but they will also grumble about what they see as an additional barrier to employment.

In the interests of the Reality Check, have there been any studies of employers indicating what they are hostile to in new employees?

I'm positive an easily-googled record of anti-black or anti-Jewish remarks would make prospective employers far more wary than the ordinary traditionalist complaints which people (usually college students and journalists) accuse of bigotry.

Outside of academia, how far has PC advanced in the workplace? I don't know anybody who has complained about it at work. Surely some professions are worse than others. Which ones?

And isn't it likely that if hostile co-workers do end up commenting on one's internet writings and political views, it may only result in a little inconsequential office gossip?

We could be scaring ourselves into silence about PC, based only on a few awful but non-representative incidents.

I don't think PC in the business world is either all that isolated or all that harmless. What about all those mandatory "diversity training" courses and so forth?

I can name a business near my own house--Stryker--that is very liberal and pushes all the local liberal causes. If I worked there I'd sure be worried about what would happen if I came out against one of their pet causes.

There's also regional variation in the PC scourge as well.

I've noticed one or two job ads touting how Company X is a "progressive" company. These are companies based in or near Boulder, Colorado.

There's a tendency for progressives to decry the loss of community after implementing their tradition-dissolving ideology. Perhaps they are trying to recreate these bonds in a business environment, thus creating a loathsome chimera of careerism and moralism.

PC is alive and well and kickin' it up like clowns at a rodeo in the business world. The aforementioned diversity trainings, the constant looming "harassment" policies, the requirement that any document be made gender neutral. If you have a dissenting opinion from the "progressive" slant of the company, you learn to sit down and shut up. (I may be slightly biased by the fact I worked for a company very closely tied to education for many years, but my other experience hasn't been vastly different).

As a patron, I went into a business the other day and they had all of these posters on the wall showing happy clients and such, usually 2-3 people per poster. Probably 15 posters in total, maybe more. All ethnically diverse, more female than male, many showing religious garb (non-christian). The only thing I found even close to representing something both white and male was a Mickey Mouse themed custom stationary for sale. And a tacky Elvis thing.

...how far has PC advanced in the workplace?

Thank you, Zippy and Todd. That was very much the impression I was under. I live in a relatively conservative area of the country yet have been told anecdotally that there are certainly such issues at a large local company (Kellogg).

And isn't it likely that if hostile co-workers do end up commenting on one's internet writings and political views, it may only result in a little inconsequential office gossip?

In many situations the cohesiveness of teams, their capacity to accomplish their task as a team, has been badly compromised by incommensurate political and social views of team members leading to bad blood.

PC tyranny is good for business because cultural cohesiveness is good for business; and the McCulture in the market which is the most liquid, the most interchangeable and cohesive with the cultures of the majority of corporations large and small, is PC tyranny. PC tyranny is the cultural currency of modern industrial capitalism.

Sorry to hear about these horror stories. Perhaps my skepticism about such fears really is just wishful thinking.

(I don't want to regret writing under my real name.)

I guess I'm looking for quantitative stats. Maybe DiversityInc.com or somebody lists how many Fortune 500 companies have sworn fealty to their cause and paid tribute.

And surely there are stat-laden triumphalist stories along the lines of "How I made EvilCorp celebrate diversity!"

If traditionalist entertainment ever gets off the ground, there's great satirical potential in Sensitivity Training seminars.

Maybe DiversityInc.com or somebody lists how many Fortune 500 companies have sworn fealty to their cause and paid tribute.

How about this cute little video as a place to start.

I love the title (this is the real title of a real executive level person at Verizon) "Vice President of Workplace Culture, Diversity, and Compliance".

Favorite quote:
"We are trying to mimic that [the racial distribution of the community] in the workplace, yes, without saying 'quotas'".

Ooooh. Just don't say the oogah boogah word, and reality will conform to your will! It isn't quotas if we don't admit that it is quotas! Her title ought to also include "Chief Nominalist".

It's tough though, there are some other delightful quotes in there.