a funny word. It usually has a negative connotation nowadays but has a number
of definitions, among them being “to choose some from among many.” We all
discriminate every day: when we shop, hire workers, choose friends, spouses,
watch TV, etc. I discriminated when I chose to submit this article to certain
periodicals and not others, and the editor did so when he chose this piece
and not others.
Based on how the word is usually used, however, you wouldn’t know that there
is such a thing as acceptable discrimination. That is, unless you analyzed
the behavior of those who complain most about discrimination.
A good example of such behavior is the most recent lawsuit brought by the
American Criminal Liberties Union against the Boy Scouts of America (BSA).
After failing to achieve their ends on the basis of a separation of church
and state argument, the ACLU won a huge battle last week in San Diego based
on the notion that the BSA is in violation of anti-discrimination laws.
In a move that should bring some transitory joy into the dark lives led by
the statist fascists among us, the San Diego city council capitulated and
agreed to ban the BSA from city property. To add salt to the wound, the city
legislators also agreed to infuse ACLU coffers with one million taxpayer
dollars, which, of course, will be used to tyrannize other, less willing,
What’s so ironic about all the ACLU’s sanctimonious posturing about discrimination
is that it and its enablers practice discrimination while purporting to fight
against it. Read between the lines in this case: the real message here is
that it’s inappropriate for a private organization to discriminate against
avowed homosexuals and atheists by excluding them from membership, but peachy-keen
for the government to discriminate against such an organization by excluding
it from the use of public facilities.
Of course, this is not the message that the ACLU and its ilk want us to get.
They like to parade around as champions of freedom and inclusiveness, when
all the while they impose their values on others and exclude those who don’t
march to the beat of their drummer. Their talk about tolerance, sensitivity
and inclusiveness is just that – talk. It’s only tolerance and inclusiveness
of and sensitivity to that which falls within the parameters they’ve established,
and this makes them no different than anyone else in that regard.
But, you see, like all social-engineers and demagogues they are well-versed
in the principles of marketing. They know that claiming to be defenders of
the disenfranchised and that they are fighting that wicked, invidious scourge
of our society – discrimination – is a much better sales pitch than saying,
“Choose our brand of discrimination over theirs. Ours is new and improved!”
They would like to believe that they occupy the high road, as warriors for
justice who break down barriers. But in reality they occupy the lowest road
of all: the one traveled by people who deal in hypocrisy and dishonesty as
they preach love and brotherhood, while being driven by a visceral hatred
that motivates them to destroy those who refuse to bend to their will.
But in point of fact discrimination is what they’re selling. The ACLU and
others in the vanguard of the left side of the culture war have set themselves
up as the arbiters of what kind of discrimination is kosher. In their book,
which could be titled “Brave New Word, Part II,” discrimination against groups
that are part of their political plantation is verboten, but visiting the
same upon those who haven’t donned the left’s chains and shackles is encouraged.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the folks in question would simply condemn those
they detest by calling them wicked – it would be more honest. After all,
you could be wrong about what actually is good and bad, but there is no question
that if your attack on something is legitimate it presupposes that the something
is bad. If it’s not, why attack it?
Moreover, I can logically maintain that my opposition to something is justified
on the basis that it’s bad, because we should always oppose that which is
bad. Simply saying that something is discriminatory doesn’t provide me with
adequate justification, however. This is because while everything that is
bad is bad, not all discrimination is bad. We should discriminate against
that which is bad, for instance. To put it differently, the practice of discrimination
is much like the use of force; to condemn someone simply because he practices
the former or engages in the latter would render you guilty of rash judgment.
For, a person could use force in self-defense or to thwart an aggressor who
would kill innocents. Similarly, he could practice discrimination for the
purposes of protecting innocents from those whose inclusion would pose a
danger. Having only the knowledge that certain people discriminate does not
tell you whether or not they are doing wrong. It simply is not enough information.
Implicit in the left’s words and acts but what they will never say is that
we must discriminate, only, we must do it rightly. And on this they are correct.
They go awry, though, because their failure to delve into themselves and
their passions renders them as unable to distinguish between good and bad
as they are blind to their own double-standards and discrimination. Yes,
there is acceptable discrimination. No, the left doesn’t practice it. And
yes, we should. We should discriminate against the ACLU, San Diego’s city
council and their philosophical soulmates, and endeavor to destroy them with
the same vigor with which they seek to destroy America’s cherished traditions
Selwyn Duke's homepage is The Truth Page.