At one of my doctoral studies classes this week at a Utah university, a visiting professor emphasized a need for social justice and then, almost in the same breath, expressed dismay at her LDS students’ feelings toward the academy, which she said they characterized as “oppressive.” The same professor, in addition, celebrated feminism in her discourse. What follows comprises what I wanted to say. Instead, I summarized the following in my response to the visiting professor:
…I explained to a colleague of mine that I really don’t fit in in the academy. Maybe it’s because of my “LDS-ness”, or maybe it’s because I tend to lean libertarian in my views. But I’ll try my best to explain why, for instance, Mormons, among other Christians, see the academy as oppressive even as I explore the various topics I discovered in this week’s readings:
When someone writes of the Treaty of Hidalgo Guadalupe and, in almost the same sentence, speaks implicitly of the need to rise up and destroy the ostensible white hegemony presiding over the establishment, I can’t help but ponder on the subversive goals she has in mind. Is she a Marxist? Why is she interested in stirring up race and class divisiveness? If the author of the articles mean to suggest that whites are to blame for the cession of former Mexican territory, they fail to enlighten their readers on the finer points to their moral pontification. In other words, didn’t Hispanic Latinos steal this land from the Pueblo Indians before the U.S. won it from them in a righteous fight for basic human rights? Wasn’t the Mexican war a result of Mexican aggression against Texas (D’Souza, 2014)? In light of the U.S. response to Mexican aggression under the despot Santa Ana, isn’t it generous that our forebears, after having taken the whole of Mexico, gave half of it back? If these activists want Mexico back, as the authors suggest, why don’t they go to Mexico rather than waste away in the United States enjoying the blessings of the country created by our “Euro-American” fathers? For that matter, if Mexico is so morally superior to the United States, why do we enjoy a limitless engorgement of immigrants from Mexico?
Many in the United States have oppressed Mormons, driving them out of their homes in three states, raping their women and murdering their children in the process. But, as Amy Chua seems to note in her latest read, The Triple Package: How Three Unlikely Traits Explain the Rise and Fall of Cultural Groups in America (2014), Mormons don’t appear to advocate for the dissolution of the U.S. government. And, incidental to the grievance culture amongst blacks and Hispanics, feminists and gays, Mormons whose ancestors were so victimized in Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri, don’t advocate for actions that would destroy the rights and liberties of some people in the way that Al Sharpton, Malik Shabbazz, Louis Farrakhan, or Armando Navarro, Angel Gutierrez, Rodolfo Acuna, and Charles Truxillo (D’Souza, 2014) seem to support. In fact, if these seditious supporters of unrighteous revolution have their way, they will dissolve the rights of many Mormons, who are white men. White privilege is a divisive myth designed by some in the academy to undermine the rights of some while creating special privileges for others.
For more on the dangerous “white privilege” movement, which the authors of the articles implicitly refer to and which forms an appendage to the progressive movement, read these
I appreciated that Dr. Casem expressed her feelings about Latter-day Saint students. Particularly poignant for me comprised Dr. Casem’s comment about the generosity of those students when compared with the omissions of her own family members when it comes to showing grace to her and her children while on a field trip to Mexico in the advancement of her studies. Additionally, I noticed Dr. Casem’s remarks about feminism and her shock at hearing Mormon students describe the academy as “oppressive.” I suppose Mormons are a minority in more than one way.
But the academy isn’t oppressive simply because those who subscribe to material facts (Dr. Casem referred to the creation as a “story”) have experienced hostility against a belief in the scriptural account of God’s organizing the earth. Many Christians, in general, view the academy as hostile to the Christian religion. Who wouldn’t, after the myriad rulings, which have eaten away at their rights by interested judges, lawyers, and lawmakers? Here is one example of many:
An interesting epic is unfolding before us. David Barton tells us rightly that before Emerson v. Board of Education (ca. 1947), SCOTUS interpreted the First Amendment correctly (it no longer does) (2007). Barton shows his readers that they can see the Congressional record themselves, in addition to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, for a confirmation on exactly what the Founders intended by enumerating this right into the supreme law of the land (2007). An incidental but important side to this comprises that fact that our Founders believed our rights come from God, not government. In fact, the first two clauses of the first enumerated, natural rights in the Bill of Rights involve the freedom of religion—both of expression and the barring of the government from endorsing a single denomination (2007).
An interested judge by the name of Biery in Texas recently ruled that a Christian valedictorian caught using any reference to the Christian God in the schoolhouse would face criminal sanctions under Biery’s contempt authority (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44358). Such a ruling, to my knowledge, serves as a precedent in a country that once believed in a Washingtonian brand of Christian tolerance (Lillback & Newcomb, n.d.). Imagine going to jail for speaking Christian words protected by the First Amendment!
Nearly concurrent with that case came another case out of New Jersey where Judge Charles had the audacity, in the apparent interest of placing Shariah law above even the Constitution, to deny a rape victim her request to a protective order on the grounds that Shariah law allows husbands to have sex with their wives whether the wife consents or not (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39965). (As a side, you should see what kind of fruits have grown on the multiculturalist tree: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/19/two-men-convicted-of-british-soldier-beheading.html ).
In a third row, a federal circuit court judge had the gall to inform the residents of Oklahoma, after popular ballot won them a ban on Sharia, they don’t have the right to forbid the practice of “international law” (Sharia) in their state courts (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fed-appeals-court-rules-against-okla-ban-on-islamic-law/). Each of these cases, and more, serve to prove my point: In the interest of special interests, like those implied in the readings and recent lecture, our establishment denigrates Christians’ rights while providing special protections to non Christians. How is such thinking working out for our European, Yazidi, and Coptic brethren?
Is it any wonder that Christians feel slighted, even persecuted, by the academy, which forms a central cornerstone of the American establishment?
As for feminism, what kind of ideology coerces six and seven year old girls to curse like a sailor to advance its political agenda (http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/feminism-has-nothing-to-say-but-it-still-wont-shut-up/ ) ? Feminism. What kind of ideology encourages wives to unabashedly and covertly cheat on their husbands (see the writings of renowned feminist Virginia Woolf)? Feminism. What kind of ideology encourages women to characterize men interested in heterosexual marriage? Feminism. (Wasn’t it Camille Paglia who urged women to abandon men entirely and become sexually interested only in each other?)
Feminism used to serve a legitimate purpose. During the 1960s, however, and continuing unto today, virtually every formerly legitimate civil rights movement, including feminism, transformed into the servile bastion of licentious living that they comprise today, including the race and grievance mongering of special interests representing some Latinos, blacks, gays, and feminists. Feminism, which once organized and agitated for suffrage, now agitates for so called sexual freedom and equal pay. The problem is, sexual freedom creates the very conditions for objectifying women that its contemporary purveyors pretend to despise (see Fifty Shades of Gray, for example), by exalting sexual misconduct, which sounds an awful lot like atheist Marxism (see Lenin’s thoughts on sex). Furthermore, recent economists’ analyses suggest that there are good reasons why women tend not to earn what their male counterparts do. Having spent my professional years in the public sector, I have yet to find a woman who works equal hours, who has equal qualifications who does not earn what I earned, whether in the Army, in police work, or in the schoolhouse. For more on this, read the following article.
And, for more on a study of the results of one of the sexual revolution’s corollaries, read this one:
Equality of talent, property, and industry has become the counterfeit replacement of the equal rights written of in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. That women may receive lower wages is a distraction from the central problem, which underlies the destruction of the family, which in turn, forms the principal cause of virtually all social ills.
When will the left stop agitating for more power, greed, and popularity—things that are becoming increasingly open in their hostility for all things Judeo-Christian (including our beloved Constitution)? While the progressive pundits pontificate from academy pulpits on the virtues of licentious living and Marxist revolt here and abroad, remember one thing: Gender, race, and class divisiveness comprise three hallmarks of historical and contemporary subversives who eventually gained their respective party’s right of passage by staging coups and toppling governments. When you hear or read the breathless combination of antagonism toward an entire race and gender of people (in this case, white men), coupled with a desire to follow Che, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Obama down the path toward a borderless and new world order spurned by Satanic envy (see Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals dedication), prepare for more oppression.
I hope my comments help illuminate the understanding of anyone who wonders why Christians see the academy as oppressive.
Powered by Facebook Comments