Tag Archives: tolerance

The dangers of diversity

We’ve been trained to react to certain words, like Pavlov’s dog. So we hear “diversity” and we are supposed to automatically think it is a universal good.

So says Thomas Sowell in this interview where he also outlines the other problems with the popular stance on diversity.

In a longer interview from the Fixed Point Foundation, we are given a more detailed presentation of How Cultural Diversity is Destroying America.

Here are the combined highlights from both Thomas Sowell and the Fixed Point podcast.

  • Diversity by its very nature is divisive
  • Far from being a universal good, diversity by itself is destructive without social cohesion (ie. multiculturalism is a deadly poison for any society that dares to drink it)
  • Humans from various races are not interchangeable. That is actually demeaning to the people involved.
  • It is often claimed that a population is not diverse through poor or deceptive sampling techniques. For example, diversity statistics often do not count

Diversity advocates are fond of creating and passing around posters like this one which are intended to show that America is still very divided racially. However what these advocates often fail to account for, as Thomas Sowell is fond of pointing out, is that the simplistic solution of “we just need to mix people up more” is not only not a suitable answer (never has been historically) but that it actually makes things worse. Without a central culture for people to adhere to, forced diversity only produces strife and animosity.

The chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, has made news recently for saying that Germany’s multiculturalism strategy has failed because it did not emphasized cultural integration. Rather, they accepted immigrants and foreign workers without expecting them to cohere to a set of centralized cultural values and customs.

In short, when Germans stop practicing German customs, then Germany stops being Germany.

I only hope America wakes up and learns this lesson before our mad dash towards diversity at all costs ends up destroying our once great nation.

Oh, and to my liberal friends: When people like Sarah Palin (whose very name manages to evoke an almost comical albiet visceral reaction from her opponents) talk about “real America”, they are likely referring to the set of ideals around which our society cohered for a very long time.


How are women portrayed in the Koran vs. the Bible?

[HT Answering Muslims]

Here are videos from an excellent debate between Mary Jo Sharp of Confident Christianity and Tabassum Hussain PhD. on the topic: “Women: The Bible and The Quran.”:






Greg Boyd on Myth of a Christian Nation

Here are a few videos Greg Boyd talking about his book, Myth of a Christian Nation that I’ve recently read.

Now I don’t agree with Boyd on everything he says (specifically his insistence on complete pacifism). But I do agree with his main premise that wedding Christianity too tightly to any political party of “version of ‘the kingdom of the world'” is detrimental to everyone, especially followers of Christ. In order to preserve the beauty of the kingdom of heaven, I agree with Boyd that we should make a clear and distinct separation between our Christian beliefs (what we believe to be true and right and wrong) and public policy (how we think those beliefs ought to be implemented in a diverse society which includes Christians as well as non-Christians).


On homosexuality

Our simple church group recently took up the rather controversial topic of homosexuality. It is a prevalent issue in the public square as well as among the Christian community1 and we decided that the topic was worth perusing in order to know where we all stood on the issue (and, more importantly, where we are supposed to stand on this issue according to the Scriptures) and how to respond to those inside as well as outside of the Church who are struggling with this issue.

Biblical case

The following verses refer either directly or indirectly to the practice of homosexuality which should serve as the basis of any discussion provided both parties agree upon the existence of God and that that God is described accurately by Scripture:

  • 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
  • Romans 1:26-27
  • Leviticus 20:13
  • Leviticus 18:22
  • Romans 1:24-27
  • Genesis 19
  • Leviticus 18:22
  • I Corinthians 6:9-11 The word for homosexuality here has an interesting nuance in the Greek not often captured by translators wherein it referrs to both active and passive participants in the act. The NETFree bible renders verse 9 as follows:
    “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,”
  • Galatians 5:19-21  The term “immorality” is from the Greek word “porneia” which refers to all illicit sexual activity, including adultery, premarital sex, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, and prostitution.
  • Ephesians 5:3-5 The same term for “immorality” is used here
  • I Timothy 1:8-11

Many proponents of homosexuality try to co-opt characters such as David and Johnathan as portraying a homosexual relationship or have tried to explain that passages such as Genesis 19 merely condemns inhospitality and intentions of rape rather than an imply that the homosexuality is the author’s way of expressing that the type of rape intended further emphasized how depraved these cities had become.

Careful exegesis and hermeneutics2 shows, along with the above passages, that we cannot escape the fact that homosexuality is considered a sin and never portrayed as beneficial or laudable in Scripture.

Teleological case

Men and women are, well, different. While this might seem obvious, it is something that, I’m afraid, needs to be reiterated in today’s gender-neutral climate where one can specify their gender when obtaining a driver’s license.

Teleogy is the study of how things ought to work. Their purpose in other words. While this is an area of study that is often overlooked in our post-modern culture, I believe it still provides a strong foundation for arguments against same-sex relations.

For example, there are many medical arguments to be made against the physical actions often involved with homosexuality. Many may accuse me at this point of succumbing to “the yuck factor” but the truth of the matter is that there are unique and specific medical conditions associated with putting things where they don’t belong.

For a more detailed explanation of the medical case against homosexuality, take a look at the resources below.

Political case

One of the most overlooked cases to be made against common acceptance of the practice of homosexuality is the political aspect. Specifically the basic fact that any culture without a population that is geared to the reproduction and rearing of children will eventually fall into decline.

One of the biggest problems we face as a society are the wide-reaching effects of feminism and how it has undercut the family unit, the foundational building block of any society. Homosexuality and the campaign to normalize it in our society is part of a larger social shift. One that has historically had drastic consequences in every culture that has tried it.

Resources for further study

Homosexuality & the Politics of Truth” by Jeffrey Satinover
Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong” by John MaCarthur
Uncompromised Faith: Overcoming Our Culturalized Christianity” by S. Michael Craven

Finally, here is Ravi Zacharias giving the best answer I’ve ever heard to the question “Can someone be a practicing homosexual and a Christian”:

  1. Here is an example of an entire denomination who is becoming more vocal about their belief that Christ not only accepts homosexuality but somehow promoted it. They are currently running an ad campaign using bilboards along highways in Texas to get their message across. Here is another example of a blog run by someone who honestly claims that homosexuality is compatible with Christ’s teachings. []
  2. The kind which take into account the ‘prejudices’ of the origional author and audience as central to the meaning of the text rather than, in Derrida’s deconstructionalist fashion, allowing our prejudices and prefrences to be read back into the meaning of the text. []