You may have read in the news that a faculty member of the Gallaudet University in Washington DC has been placed on “administrative leave,” due to the fact that she signed a petition requesting referendum on the issue of gay marriage in Maryland.

Angela McCaskill is “Chief Diversity Officer” at Gallaudet University in Washington DC. She was at church one Sunday, and requested to sign the petition that would permit the voters of Maryland to vote on the issue of gay “marriage.” She signed the petition and says she did so because she favors democracy and allowing citizens to vote on such controversial issues, as opposed to having legislatures and courts force so-called “gay marriage” on the populace. (More HERE)

But the administrators at Gallaudet University consider her signing of the petition to be unacceptable. Apparently, as “Chief Diversity Officer,” they don’t consider her kind of diversity the right kind of diversity.

To be sure, it is refreshing and surprising to hear that a “diversity officer” would have signed a petition opposing Gay “marriage” and insist that gay marriage be brought to a vote, instead of merely being imposed. As most social conservatives know, and have experienced, the usual “diversity office” at a campus is anything but diverse in its views. And, that a diversity officer might actually understand that there more than one side to the issue of Gay “marriage” surprises not only social conservatives, but also (apparently) social leftists. In effect, the leadership at Gallaudet University sees Ms. McCaskill’s actions as incompatible with their notion of diversity, and are saying, in effect, “How could you!”

But merely expressing surprise is not usually enough for radicals on the left. Thus, they have placed her on “administrative leave.” Never mind all the usual calls for tolerance from the radicals, never mind the “free exchange of ideas” that they so often extol on college campuses. Never mind all that, according to them, Ms. McCaskill has to go.

The reaction well demonstrates that when leftist cultural radicals speak of “diversity,” they don’t mean it in any fair minded or straight forward definition of the word.

The word diversity comes from the Latin word diversus: di (two) + versa (turns or sides). Thus, the true meaning of the word “diversity” means “two sides.” Or by extension, “more than one side,” “more than one viewpoint” or just “different.”

But the cultural radicals mean no such thing. In their lexicon “diversity” means you have to accept anything they propose. But it does not that they should accept you, or that they should even consider the fact that you might be troubled that they propose anything, no matter how deviant the behavior has historically been seen to be. In their lexicon, being “open-minded” means that you agree with them. “Tolerance” is your obligation to agree with them, but not their obligation to accept you, or your deeply held Christian beliefs, no matter how ancient or how well attested.

And, in their form of diversity, tolerance and open-mindedness, if they can punish your non-compliance or even just your non-placet, they will do so with a sense of righteousness, and they will do so firmly and swiftly.

The central point is, when cultural radicals use these terms, they mean no such thing.

To be sure, I am not hereby articulating a position that diversity is an absolute quality or virtue. There are certain diversities to be celebrated and/or tolerate. But there are certain behaviors, which ought not be tolerated, illicit sexual union and Gay “marriage” among them.

The intent in this post is merely call the cultural radicals on their bluff. When they talk about diversity, they don’t really mean it. When they try to parade around in clothes of openness, tolerance, and diversity, they are misrepresenting themselves. When they celebrate “diversity” they don’t mean you, especially if you are a traditional Christian. Their ‘diversity” doesn’t include the Scriptures or the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition, or Natural Law. And don’t even think about mentioning the Catholic Church to them, you’re certain to be shown the door out of their “diverse” world.

To them these things are not something to celebrate or tolerate. They are something to abhor, to legally block, and for some of them, even something to destroy.

Just remember, when they speak of diversity they don’t mean it. And if they mean it all, it is only for them and their favored groups. But they certainly don’t mean it for you, especially if you are a traditional, Bible believing Christian. No, you are not part of the rainbow, you are not part of their tapestry, or their mosaic. You have no place at their table, no place in their celebration.

The views of diversity officer Angela McCaskill regarding (so called) “gay marriage,” are not clear. But one thing is clear, she has (wittingly or unwittingly) called the bluff of the diversity motif of the cultural radicals, and has incurred special wrath because she has done so.

To them she is “off message.” She actually took the word diversity to me what it says. How wrong was that! And now she is cast out of the “hallowed halls” the radicals think they own. She is proof that when cultural radicals speak of diversity they don’t mean you, they only mean themselves.

Disclaimer: I have chosen the words “cultural radicals” carefully. I am willing to admit that there are many who oppose the Church’s teaching on Biblical marriage who are far less radical, who are of good will, and may also be shocked at what happened to Angela McCaskill. There are some who are willing to allow the cultural debates of our time to be conducted in an open and honest way, and accept that varying groups, including Christians, have the rights of any citizens to engage in the political process, and to seek to influence the discussions in the on-going cultural shifts of the West.

But the radicals have no such room in their world for opposition or even discussion, and they want to silence any questioning of their agenda. They are growing in number, especially in university and government settings, and it is to them that I address the concerns of this blog.

34 Responses

  1. Rick DeLano says:

    Excellent post.

    This part is particularly spot on:

    “I am willing to admit that there are many who oppose the Church’s teaching on Biblical marriage who are far less radical, who are of good will, and may also be shocked at what happened to Angela McCaskill.”

    Those are the people we have to reach in time.

    They simply must come to understand that the cultural radicals are fascists, and they fully, willfully and implacably intend to use same sex “marriage” as a legal tool by which to impose fascism on this nation.

    Simple as that.

    • Robbie J says:

      +1. My thoughts exactly. In a democracy, the majority is supposed to rule. But increasingly, we see certain (minority) factions calling the shots. The SSM proponents is one of them. They act as if they were the majority, but they’re not. Put it to the vote, and vote them out.

  2. Annette Strachan says:

    America is the land of the free…signing a petition is a freedom, for the right to vote on an issue that is voted on in other countries is a basic freedom. This is another example of Jesus Christ crucified to please sinners.

  3. Proteios1 says:

    I know. I work in a university. This pretty much nails it. My favorite moment (and i say that sarcastically) was in the university senate, when someone put fortha statement showing support for alternate lifestyles. It passed. The curious part was about half the people voted for it. The dissenters like myself felt we should not oppose this for fear of reprisals, but yet didn’t vote at all. Many of the aye votes were mumbled. I suspect from this, no one want to stand up for traditional glues because we know the deal at the university. Meanwhile, how many of us in this silent majority are comic it in this from fear. How many of the tolerance tyrants are there among us? I don’t know the answer here, but it creates a toxic environment. And the author is correct. The gay groups promote and recruit very aggressively, which I suspect is required when you aren’t reproducing. I have only seein a few sparse Christian activities. Fortunately, amongst students the appears to be no discrimination. But I can’t tell you how much money with diversity coordinators and all that we must spend on things that have no benefit to educating tomorrows leaders. To much tuition is wasted on non education activities.

    • Robertlifelongcatholic says:

      And this is how societies and governments are overthrown. It starts with the radical intellectual academicians implanting their agendas in the minds of the student bodies and intimidating those who disagree by the fear of reprisal? Welcome to the brave new world. Those who are not willing to defend the laws of God and the constitution are destined to lose their freedom and the kingdom of heaven.

    • Howard says:

      I also work at a university. I fully expect that one day this issue will cost me my job.

  4. Historian says:

    1. A Catholic university should extend an employment offer to Miss McCaskill today.
    2. Remember, those in power have the guns and goons of the State to enforce their views. We need to start pushing back whenever the fascists try to force these kind of politics down our throat. Talk is cheap. Cracked heads and spilled blood speak volumes. (As Winston Churchill said: It’s no use to argue with a Communist, or to try to convert him or persuade him – You can only deal with them on the following basis … you can only do it by having superior force on your side on the matter in question – and they must also be convinced that you will use – you will not hesitate to use – these forces if necessary, in the most ruthless manner. You have not only to convince the [Amerikan] government that you have superior force – but that you are not restrained by any moral consideration, if the case arose, from using that force with complete material ruthlessness. And that is the greatest chance of peace, the surest road to peace.”)

  5. TaillerHuws says:

    Diversity should encourage tolerance, patience, understanding and counsel. It should not require that one, even a Diversity Officer, give up her integrity which is based on Natural Law and her religious upbrining. It should not require that one, in her love for children, not stand up for protecting that child from a disordered future by expressing her opinion on matters of Government and law. Every citizen has a voice – period. If they are fired for speaking up according to their Constitutional rights and expectations, then we have a “dictatorship of relativism” as Pope Benedict XVI prophesied.

  6. Peter Wolczuk says:

    This is so remaniscent of the Chick Fil A controversy in some ways. A clear violation of First Amendment rights that cannot withstand a firm legal challenge. Politicians of exceptional power siding with those who violate the rights. Surely these politicians rose to their position due to a much better perception than they displayed. A perception which would have evolved as they worked their way to their position.
    I’ve read that the Gallup poles show that over 50% of Americans are in favour of same sex marriage but, a further look will reveal that this majority is not as clear as it first appears.
    Over 40% percent (a minority but, a very significant minority) who almost certainly felt disempowered because of guilt tripping; fear of emotional based reprisals and other things.
    When they were able to take action by patronizing Chick Fil A they not only got to make a clear statement through taking action but, contributed significantly to the restaurant chains economic survival – a survival which was somewhat uncertain for a while. By empowering the 40% the ssm proponents seemed to have made a sacrifice and, I wonder, a sacrifice to what? Are the challenges to the Constitutional rights of the restaurant owner and to Doctor McCaskill an attempt to overpower the Constitution (maybe, probably in part) or something else in a strategic manouver?
    When setting up and enacting something hostile a leader can divert attention from that hostile something by launching attacks to a far away front of the opponents and that threat coming from a different direction.
    My knowledge of strategy and tactics is pretty limited. Three years as an infantry private in a peace time army over thirty years ago and a bunch of random reading since. Maybe some sympathetic readers who have a much better, and comprehensive, understanding than me can turn their attention from the “in the face” activities (still important to be dealt with but others will be doing so) and looking about for a pincher move or such. It’s not good to divert the total attention of the group to one part of the perimeter and not all members should be facing one conflict unless it’s an extreme threat in itself.
    Pray for help as you go. I’ll be praying for you as soon as I click on submit.

  7. Dan Brennan says:

    More and more these days I find myself wondering what the “average” German citizen must have experienced in the run up to World War II. It must have occurred to them that there was something deeply wrong with their National Socialist Party, but they must have been regularly been bathed in soothing terms that let them rationalize away the evil they couldn’t actually deny. I don’t think we’re much different anymore.

    • Howard says:

      To quote the PDQ Bach song, “Farmer on the Dole”:
      The moral to this story please attend to very well:
      Exactly who the Devil is is often hard to tell.
      He may be short and ugly and he may be fair and tall;
      He may just be the man for whom you voted in the fall.

  8. Charles says:

    The religion of secularism is totalitarian. As if their monopolist control wasn’t already so well known. There can be no tolerance for dissent. Dissent may inspire the people to break out of the deep sleep and addiction to sin the corrupt order has brainwashed them and incentivized them toward. Dissent may spark the revolution that the corrupt order fears.
    The corrupt order will eventually crumble. It must. It can only be sustained by more and more horrors. Eventually the horrors will be too repugnant to cover up or they will simply lack the means or people of damaged consciences to perform them.
    God promises us this. Have faith. Build up your love. Build up your faith. And share it.

  9. Clairol says:

    She should not have been disciplined. If she had discriminated against a gay student or something or that nature, then they would have had a reason to do this, but all she did was sign a petition. She didn’t even say that she opposes gay marriage. And even if she did, that doesn’t mean she hates gay people or anything like that.

    • Cynthia BC says:

      I think it unfortunate that signing a petition to have the issue placed on the ballot has been presented as opposing same-sex marriage. I would think that even those who support “marriage equality” would accept, and even advocate having the referendum on the ballot. The legislation was not passed by an overwhelming majority; although Democrats outnumber Republicans by 2 to 1 in Maryland there does not appear to be a strong mandate from state residents that same-sex marriage be recognized.

      Legislators have been elected to their seats because most of their constituents agree with most – not all – of their views. Putting this issue on the ballot calls the question as to what most residents really want.

  10. Emma says:

    The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 grants the military under executive direction the power to detain any person “suspected ” of being a terrorist : indefinitely, without charges, without legal counsel, and without notifying any outsider of their seizure and detention, granting the executive branch of the US government the authority to use Guantanamo Tactics against all citizens. A federal judge had issued an injunction against this because there is no definition of what action constitutes suspected terrorism. This grants the interpretion at the whim of “whoever ” heads the executive office. Oh, btw! ..the Obama Administration immediately requested and was issued a stay making this the law of the land. While so many have been distracted by diversionary tactics, we ‘ve all lost our right to due process. Let’s just pray that whoever occupies the oval office in the future is mentally and morally sound. I can’t believe there is no outcry over this.

    • Yes, I remained troubled by some of the provisions of a number of bills enacted since 9/11. That anyone, terrorists included can be detained indefinitely without charges a trial or adjudication is highly troubling. I am unaware of the NDA that you cite. But I was concerned and many of the laws passed after 9/11 This blog is not generally focused on legal matters and the specifics of legislation, I am way out of my field. But I DO share your concerns as you have articulated them.

    • Howard says:

      Acts that violate the Constitution have no moral force. Guns, yes — like the Russian mob — but no MORAL force.

      • Aaron says:

        Not entirely accurate. Simply violating the Constitution does not equate with a lack of moral force, it simply belies incongruity between two legislative documents, which is common where human institutions are involved. Where this Act falls short is the rejection of Natural Moral Law and the Rights of Man.

        The Bill of Rights included due process because it is a right intrinsic upon every human being to be tried in a just manner for a crime allegedly committed against their fellow man (Sacred Scripture clearly shows this in both Old and New Testaments). This particular aspect of the Constitution reflects the Natural Moral Law, as well as Human Nature.

        To say that any thing that violates the Constitution has no moral force puts the Constitution on par with the Word of God, which is immutable, universal, and inerrant. The Constitution is a human document, (with much wisdom, yes) that seeks to construct a framework under which a civil, free, and law-abiding people can be governed.

  11. Annette Strachan says:

    In an e-book, [Wyatt North Publishing] `The weapon of war’ Edward McKendree Bounds, [he was a clergyman of the Methodist Episcopal Church South who fought in the Civil War] states “It must never be forgotten that Almighty God rules this world…He rules the world just as He rules the Church by prayer… God must help man by prayer. He who does not pray, therefore, robs himself of God’s help and places God where He cannot help man…The most efficient agents in disseminating the knowledge of God, in prosecuting His work upon the earth, and in standing as breakwater against the billows of evil, have been praying Church leaders. God depends upon them and blesses them.”. [WN gives their blessing].

  12. Annette Strachan says:

    Sorry, Correction re. Church leaders, …“God depends upon them, employs them and blesses them.”

  13. Jim no longer in Utah says:

    The diversity of the cultural radical is like regio-placet.

    Thank you Zapatero for designing our ‘student centered learning’

  14. Aaron says:

    Terry Mattingly hits at the issue here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2012/10/pod-people-digging-for-old-news-on-nones/ .

    Essentially, he points out that those who identify as “no religious affiliation” do so because of an antipathy toward traditional mores. The people who are interested in diversity are “modernists” in the sense of the heresy condemned by the Syallabus of Errors: they embrace anything “modern” and reject anything “traditional”. Such people are the true fruit of the so-called “Enlightenment”.

  15. Peter Wolczuk says:

    After a little reflection; When I think of this item, the Chick Fil A one and others which I’ve personally encountered; are the supporters of the so-called gay rights agenda inevitably sending a message that their agenda cannot co-exist with, be harmonious with, whatever with Democratic principles such as the Constitution of the United States?
    I’ve been a delegate to otherwise democratic bodies when their rules of order went out the window when ssm came up. Guilt trips, shouting down a speaker who was in order, more.
    Since I’ve said quite a bit, over a period of time, I feel that I should be open about having been a supporter of leaving those of alternate sexuality alone, as long as it was between “consenting adults in private” This is a phrase written into Canadian law under the direction of a now deceased Prime Minister.
    I began supporting an agenda to oppose harrassment in the 1970’s when it was still unpopular and reassured myself with my faith that God loves us all.
    I do not feel that my current contributions are not so much a switch as a belief that God loves us all even though we are all sinners but now includes a feeling of a betrayal by (is short circuited by?) the introduction of same sex marriage. Since I am not partial enough to judge my own case … I present these facts for the sake of honesty.
    Also, are enemies of democracy manipulating anti democratic things into existance in an arena of heightened emotions without caring who, or what, is right or wrong here? If so, why are they managing to do it so well?

  16. […] When Cultural Radicals Speak of “Diversity” They Mean No Such Thing – Msgr. C. Pope […]

  17. Walter Welborn says:

    Jesus’s Church was built on the Blood of Martyr’s and it continues the building through sacrifice of self today and the gates of hell will not prevail against It. Thank you Angela and God Bless You ! JMJ

  18. Amanda says:

    This article misses the point so severely. Gay marriage being legal forces NOTHING on ANYONE. You still get to marry who you want, and people who don’t follow your religion can marry who they want. It means equal rights! You claim to want equal rights or diversity when it comes to religion, but that’s not true. You want to be able to force your religious views on everyone else. That is not diversity! You don’t really want diversity at all. Just because you think gay marriage is wrong doesn’t mean you get to ban it. THAT would be anti-diversity. Diversity means live and let live. You get to keep living your life, believing what you believe, and accept that not everyone wants to live your life or believe what you believe. Signing a petition to ban gay marriage is anti-diversity, because it means that you support taking someone’s rights away. I understand that this petition was simply to get this issue up for vote, not to ban gay marriage, but there doesn’t need to be any vote if we are for diversity and equal rights. This diversity officer can have whatever opinions she wants and whatever beleifs she wants, but attempting to put other human beings’ rights up for a vote is directly anti-diversity. I know, I know, your religion doesn’t support giving homosexuals the right to marry those that they truly love and want to spend their lives with, but it is YOUR religion. There are other beliefs besides Catholic beliefs. This is where diversity comes in to play. Trying to make the law follow your religion is the opposite of diversity.

    • Well remember Amanda, you are demanding a right that has never been accorded in 5000 years of recorded human history. Currently you are demanding a change in US Law. You, as a citizen have the right to attempt this, but others also have the right to resist you. This is the “Di” in diversity. We who differ from your view are not taking away something you have, rather it is you who are demanding something you do not currently have. I am aware of no legal precedent for what you demand and I am aware of no natural law or natural right for homosexuals to marry. Add to that the vigorous denunciation of homosexual activity in the Scriptures, and it is understandable at least at the intellectual level, why some may oppose your demands. This is the “di” in diversity.

  19. Mike Melendez says:

    Amanda: “Signing a petition to ban gay marriage is anti-diversity, because it means that you support taking someone’s rights away.

    This claim is little better than demanding to get one’s way because “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Persuasion requires understanding one another. The first thing you need to understand is that the other side sees this differently. They scratch their heads trying to figure out how do you ban something that doesn’t exist. For them “gay marriage” is an oxymoron. One can’t ban what doesn’t exist. You believe differently. That is your political right. But if you want to change things in a permanent manner, you’re going to need to persuade those who disagree with you rather than laying down the law in spite of them.

    As to the other half of your argument, “Trying to make the law follow your religion is the opposite of diversity,” it self destructs. If you truly believe that, then why are you trying to make the law follow your beliefs?

  20. Amanda says:

    I’m pretty sure none of my beliefs involve taking away your basic human rights. The only thing I support taking away is the right to force your religion on others. I will repeat that gay people having the right to marry forces nothing on anyone. It does not take away your right to marry whomever you love, or not marry if that is your choice. It doesn’t take away your right to vote, speak out, engage in activism. It doesn’t take away your right to worship, to engage in any rituals associated with your religion, it doesn’t take away anything from you. A gay marriage ban signed into law means that gay people have officailly been told that they are less deserving of rights you take for granted. You may think that gay marriage doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t stop it existing. If to you religious tolerance means forcing you beliefs, including the belief that gay marriage doesn’t exist, onto others, you have a long way to go in your understanding of what tolerance is.

    • But it does take away the “right” (to use your over extended notion of the word) to live in a world were some degree of common sense prevails and where words mean things and ancient traditions are not merely trampled underfoot by deconstructionists. Tolerance also does not simply mean you can up and demand something which is a radical departure of a fundamental structure of society and then expect a gleeful buy in by every one. As with the word marriage, you over extend the notion of what tolerance should be.

  21. Steve Compton says:

    At the college that I am attending there is a “Student Diversity Center”. The emblem has a rainbow under it. Unless I am mistaken, the rainbow is a sign for the homosexual. So really, it is a “Homosexual Student Center”, which is fine. But if the college had a “Heterosexual Student Center”… Hell would come down on them. Just seems weird to me.

Leave a Reply