Liberal judges limit conservative “diversity” Reply


By Tom Quiner

Conservative "diversity" doesn't count

Conservative "diversity" doesn't count

How often have you heard liberals invoke the word “diversity?”

In the context of liberal-speak, diversity is automatically considered to be good.  The University of Oregon says it this way:

The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect.  It means understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual differences.  These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies. It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment.  It is understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.

I mention “diversity” in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, Christian Legal Society vs. Martinez, which I wrote about on June 29th  (A Triumph for Political Correctness).

Professor John Inazu

Professor John Inazu

Duke law professor, John Inazu, had an interesting take on the Court’s decision. Although he agreed with me that it was the wrong decision, he disagreed as to why.  He said the court should have supported the Christian Legal Society (CLS) in the name of diversity.

That’s exactly what an appellate court did 36 years ago in a similar case.  It weighed whether a student group “so far beyond the pale of the wider community’s values” that “university facilities [should] not be used by the group to flaunt its credo.”

In the name of diversity, the court back then ruled that Gay Students Organization of the University of New Hampshire should enjoy the right of free association.

In the recent Supreme Court decision, a similar standard applied.  The CLS embraced a philosophy far beyond the pale of the wider communities’ values, namely that sexual relations should be confined to a man and a woman within the confines of marriage.  Such a radical notion!

Alas, diversity is only applicable if it applies to liberal groups.

Professor Inazu wisely opined:

Christian student groups ought to be able to exclude non-Christians. Groups that object to homosexual conduct ought to be able to exclude those who disagree. Groups of Democrats ought to be able to exclude Republicans. Groups of environmentalists ought to be able to exclude people who don’t care about the environment. That leaves us with diversity.

Over at Yale Law School, professor Stephen Carter put it this way:

Professor Stephen Carter

Professor Stephen Carter

Democracy needs diversity because democracy advances through dissent, difference and dialogue.

Professor Inazu leaves us with a dire warning:

Expression presupposes existence. And the court’s decision doesn’t silence CLS – it destroys it.

Is the Bible true? 1


By Tom Quiner

Liberal comedienne, Janeane Garofalo, recently called the Bible a “work of fiction.”  Watch …

I don’t know how much Ms. Garofalo has read, studied, or even contemplated the Bible.  But I mention her quote because she will influence a certain segment of her audience with her dismissive attitude of the most fascinating book ever written.

Is it true, though?

Is the drama of God’s gradual revelation of Himself to man really on the level?

Can we trust that the texts are accurate;  that the four Gospels that talk about Christ aren’t agenda-driven works of fiction?

I believe that the bible is God’s revelation of Himself to man.  I don’t say that casually.  I’ve come to this belief through two paths:  revelation and reason.

I read a series of books by former Chicago Tribune reporter, Lee Strobel, who wrote about his journey from atheism to Christianity.  His first book, called “The Case for Christ,” was written as if he were a reporter.   He wrote the book in an attempt to disprove Christ’s existence and His claims.

Strobel was stunned to discover that there’s a mountain of evidence to support the miraculous underpinnings of Christianity.  Watch his video below to learn more.  Then go pick up your Bible.  Read the Gospel of John to whet your appetite for a message of hope that can change your life.

Promote humanity 1


By Tom Quiner

Abortion dehumanizes society.

Pornography dehumanizes society.

Increasingly, even political discourse is dehumanizing, vicious, and divisive.  It seems to me that the march of civilization should be in the direction of doing and saying things that make this world a more humane place.

Our march is slow.

Is Ann Coulter really advancing the cause of a humane world with rhetoric like this: “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to The New York Times building.”  I agree with Ms. Coulter on most political issues.  I’m concerned that her style, her rhetoric does more harm than good.

Did liberals advance the cause of a humane world with signs at Bush rallies that said:  “Save Mother Earth, kill Bush.”

The time has come for civil discourse

Did the late Senator Edward Kennedy advance the cause of a humane world with his speech condemning Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork, with these words: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.”

The answer in each of these cases is no.  Senator Kennedy’s rhetorical excesses, in particular, have poisoned judicial confirmation hearings to this very day.

I know ugliness and profanity are hip these days.  But intelligence is so much more interesting and effective.

Conservatives like me sometimes get fed up with liberals spouting what we feel are incoherent views.  And yet I know people with whom I disagree politically who are in the trenches helping people who need help.  I appreciate that.  I commend them.

Liberals are fond of saying that conservatives don’t care about people.  And yet I know conservatives in the trenches helping people who need help.  They’re not looking for attention, they’re just helping.  I appreciate that.  I commend them.

Abortion and pornography are two obvious dehumanizing poisons to our culture.  But so is our political discourse.

That doesn’t mean we can’t disagree.  It’s all in how we disagree.  When we disagree, let’s remember we’re disagreeing with people, and civility promotes the cause of humanity.

I’m certainly no saint, but I hope this blog makes the case for conservative causes with some intelligence and civility.

Common sense made difficult 2


By Tom Quiner

The “King of Pork” is dead.

[10byrd0628]

Senator Robert Bird of West Virginia died today.  I will leave it to others to honor (or pillage) his illustrious career.  I would, though, like to analyze the essence of Obamanomics in light of Mr. Byrd’s passing.

Mr. Byrd was an unapologetic supporter of pork barrel spending.  He considered his proudest achievement the billions of dollars he brought to West Virginia in Federal pork barrel spending.  He believed Federal spending was the ultimate stimulus to a state’s economy.  No one brought more “bacon” home to his state than Senator Robert Byrd.

So does federal stimulus spending really stimulate the economy?

No.  Read my post from June 21st (Is more big government really the answer?) for a discussion of federal spending as it applied to the Great Depression.

A new study by three economists from the Harvard Business School sheds new light on the impact of federal pork barrel spending on local economies.  Professors Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval, and Christopher Malloy were stunned to discover that pork spending hurt more than it helped.

A few specifics:

• When a Senator becomes chair of one the top three congressional committees, his/her state experiences a 40 to 50 percent increase in pork spending.  The average is about 20 percent in the House.

• Rather than boosting capital expenditures, the average firm in those states reduced capital expenditures by roughly fifteen percent once the pork began to flow.  The researchers based their findings on 40 years worth of data.

• Firms significantly cut physical and R & D spending.

• Firms reduced employment.

• Firms experienced lower sales.

How could pork-barrel spending hurt instead of help?  The researchers theorize that the federal stimulus dollars crowd out spending the private sector planned to do itself.  The Tennessee Valley Authority of 1933 is one example.  Federal spending creates uncertainty, too, because the dollars may not be there tomorrow if their powerful Senator retires … or dies.

You can read the entire study here: “Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?

The essence of Obamanomics is that government spending creates jobs.  They may create government union jobs, but it comes at the expense of the private sector jobs and economic growth.  New research from Harvard rejects the underpinnings of Obamanomics.

The joke goes that “economics is common sense made difficult.”  With Obamanomics, the joke comes at our expense.

***

My condolences to Senator Byrd’s family on his passing.