homogenized: to blend (diverse elements) into a uniform mixtureBack on Monday, the US Supreme Court agreed with the 9th
I’ve written before on the topic of groups and memberships in them. Any group defines itself by its membership criteria, and without such criteria a ‘group’ cannot exist. Groups are even labeled based on their memberships: bowling leagues, the PTA/PTO, Lion’s Clubs, the Republican and Democrat parties, the Sierra Club, the Rotarians, the AFL-CIO – every group I just named and thousands of others are all groups simply by virtue of their membership criteria and their ideologies, and the only reason they’re distinguished from other groups is that they, quite basically, discriminate against those who do not believe in their ideology.
One of the tenets of the modern progressive movement can be loosely called ‘Unity Through Diversity’. Read that a couple times, and you’ll probably hit the same thought I did – it’s a ridiculous statement. No matter how many points of concurrence you have between members of a group (any group), eventually you’re going to hit the wall of irreconcilable differences and the group falls apart. There’s really only one way to ‘unify’ through ‘diversity’, and that’s to minimize ‘diversity’, either through voluntary relinquishment of ideology or through forced relinquishment of ideology.
This is where ‘homogenization’ comes in.
Note that the above-mentioned groups are all, broadly-speaking, secular – none of them make a specific religious belief part and parcel of membership (so far as I know). Because of this, denying anyone membership based on their religion would definitely be discrimination, because religious belief has nothing to do with the operation of the group.
But what happens when a group has as part of its membership criteria a specific religious belief? If someone who does not subscribe to that belief system wants to become a member, does that religiously-based group have the right and privilege of denying that person membership? You’d think this would be a no-brainer decision, wouldn’t you? I mean, Justice Alito gets the concept:
It bears emphasis that permitting religious groups to limit membership to those who share the groups' beliefs would not have the effect of allowing other groups to discriminate on the basis of religion.But Ruth Bader Ginsberg and four other Justices didn’t see it that way, so they allowed Hastings’ nondiscrimination policy to discriminate against the Christian Legal Society, as well as any and all other religiously-based groups on campus.
[G]roups that are dedicated to expressing a viewpoint on a secular topic (for example, a political or ideological viewpoint) would have no basis for limiting membership based on religion because the presence of members with diverse religious beliefs would have no effect on the group's ability to express its views. But for religious groups, the situation is very different. This point was put well by a coalition of Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Sikh groups: 'Of course there is a strong interest in prohibiting religious discrimination where religion is irrelevant. But it is fundamentally confused to apply a rule against religious discrimination to a religious association[.]'" (emphasis mine)
So, what does this have to do with homogenization? What’s the biggest bone of contention among progressive post-modernists? Bring together all their complaints and talking points and distill their essence. What you get is a hatred of non-permissive belief systems. What’s the biggest non-permissive belief system in the United States? Christianity. Therefore, Christianity must be homogenized with the permissive post-modern worldview Progressives so desperately need to maintain their power. Now, as I said earlier, you can homogenize things in two ways – voluntarily or involuntarily. Since Christianity refuses to go gently into that good night, the only way to homogenize it is by force; hence, the numerous lawsuits based on ‘discriminatory policies’ that have been filed against Christian groups, the outright banning of groups with Christian ideologies (like the Boy Scouts), the snide and condescending attitudes of talkingheads when they ‘discuss’ (more like snipe at) Christianity (Bill Maher and others) … the list goes on.
But, as Eliphaz the Temanite commented in Job, "According to what I have seen, those who plow iniquity and those who sow trouble harvest it.” And the harvest is just a'waiting. Greg Baylor, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, tells us that, ‘The Hastings policy actually requires CLS to allow atheists to lead its Bible studies and the college Democrats to accept the election of Republican officers in order for the groups to be recognized on campus.’ James Bopp Jr., counsel for the James Madison Center, adds, ‘[U]nder the 9th circuit decision, a Republican would be fully qualified to be a member – even the chairman – of a Democrat student group. A proabortion group of students would be forced to allow someone who is vehemently opposed to the procedure to become a member and even lead.’ Even Leo Martinez, acting chancellor of the college, admits the following:
Asked if a Jewish Anti-Defamation League chapter would be required to admit Muslims, [Martinez] said, "It would."James Bopp Jr. adds, ‘This type of policy threatens the existence of any student organization that organizes to promote an ideology – conservative, liberal and everything in between."
How about a black group admitting white supremacists?
"It would," he said.
A black student organization would have to admit members of the KKK?
"Yes," he said.
To partake of another Bible quote: For they sow the wind and they reap the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7)