Sounds absolutely sacrilegious in 2016 America, doesn’t it. In fact it is sacrilegious in its transgression of our national religion of unconditional acceptance. When I sent an e-mail to Lowes Home Improvement CEO expressing my objection to their objection to our state’s policy related to biological men in girls’ shower rooms, I was informed in response that they are opposed to discrimination.
Of course, some types of discrimination are wrong. For example, discrimination based on race. However, our list of groups against whom we are prohibited from discriminating continues to grow longer But the further we go down the anti-discrimination road, the more ludicrous this concept becomes and the more harm we do to individuals and to our society.
The Left continues to enlarge the circle of anti-discrimination policies and laws by equating any opposition to racial discrimination, a strategy to which many African Americans object but which nonetheless succeeds because of media support.
This irrational rationale exposes the underlying flaw of identifying all discrimination as immoral and unacceptable. The problem is that while human beings still have the same inalienable rights regardless of their race, people differ in other ways, and those differences make discrimination necessary. Failing to discriminate in those cases results in countless problems.
The first problem has to do with practical outcomes. When I applied for West Point, as I recall the physical required 10 pull-ups. When they began to admit women, they changed the requirement from pull-ups to hang time. Now they are talking about putting women in combat where upper body strength can make the difference between life and death for a soldier and those around him (or her). Of course, the opposite is true as well. Women are much better qualified than men in other areas. But any reasonable person would conclude that when it comes to combat, men are better qualified physically and emotionally. All the TV shows showing women beating up on men are for the most part politically correct made-for-TV fiction. In this particular arena, for the sake of women, males who they would serve within combat, and our nation it is essential that we discriminate against them. Anti-discrimination will get people killed.
Differences also require discrimination even in areas where qualifications are not a factor. Having men and women together on ships at sea has proven to be disastrous. Any sensible person who has considered obvious traits of human nature could anticipate that outcome.
While I have focused on gender differences, discrimination is also essential for practical reasons in many other areas. In the selection of brain surgeons we discriminate on the basis of intellectual capability, or at least grades produced by that capability. The same is true of engineers of all types.
Discrimination is not only essential for practical reasons, but it is also necessary for rational reasons. I already alluded to this in West Point changing its admission physical from pull-ups to hang time. In so doing West Point in essence discriminated against males who are more physically fit than females. In other words, because of differences one has to discriminate either on the basis of gender or qualification. Rationally it can’t work both ways. Therefore, maintaining a discrimination-free position is a rational impossibility.
Another problem with the attempt of the Left to make antidiscrimination an absolute is found in their own hypocrisy. Those on the Left show indications of being some of the worst at discrimination. It is very difficult, bordering on impossible, for a creationist to get a teaching job at a major university. The news media systematically discriminate against conservatives.
If Hillary’s exoneration of charges for her email scandal had instead involved a Donald Trump or Mike Pence, the media would talk of nothing else for months on end until they were driven from the public arena in disgrace. “Mr. Trump, how would it be possible for you to serve as President when most of the American people see you as a cheat?” “Mr. Trump, how can you ask for support for your candidacy when most Americans feel you should be in prison?” “Mr. Trump, most people believe that you are only a free man because of dishonest political maneuvering. Don’t you feel that disqualifies you for office?” The same would be true of Benghazi or ObamaCare or a host of other Democrat disasters. When it comes to discrimination, liberals have written the book.
The ultimate problem with anti-discrimination resides in its eradication of morality. We have seen this in the acceptance of cohabitation, homosexuality, and other forms of sexual immorality. It is also seen in the general acceptance of a President who displays infidelity to his oath of office by failing to uphold the Constitution, and who systematically lies to the American people. We have become so committed to not discriminate against illegal immigrants that we are bankrupting our country. To enforce our immigration laws is viewed as discriminatory. We have abandoned the morality related to law enforcement.
The bottom line is that when the Left assaults Christian morality in the name of anti-discrimination, viewing themselves to be morally superior, their anti-discrimination position is impractical, irrational, and hypocritical. They do not stand on the moral high ground that they claim to occupy.