Exclusionary Multiculturalism

Exclusionary multiculturalism: seemingly paradoxical, it is, unfortunately, a doctrine widespread in liberal quarters such as here at UNC. Liberals lovingly adhere to multiculturalism, the idea that every culture is on equal moral footing, the logical outcome of moral relativism, which is the idea that there is no moral truth, and, therefore, morality is a personal preference. Both these ideas are odious, however.  Exclusionary multiculturalism is an interesting offshoot of the two, for if each culture and each person is moral according to themselves, why are religious people, Christians in particular, harassed?

There are numerous examples of this. In New York City, the Nativity was forbidden as religious, yet the Star of David and other symbols of religions were displayed prominently. In a school district in Minnesota, the term “Easter Egg” (which isn’t even Christian) became “spring oval.” In a school district in Maryland, no song that mentions the Christ-child is allowed. “Christmas” songs are ones that mention winter. However, “Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel, I made it out of clay” is sung, even though it is about the Jewish holiday Hanukkah. This past Christmas season, our very own university banned Christmas trees from both the Wilson and Davis Libraries.

Perhaps a good explanation of the basis of exclusionary multiculturalism is the recent ruling of the 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court with reference to the case Harper v. Poway Unified School District. It states that “There is, of course, a difference between a historically oppressed minority group that has been the victim of serious prejudice and discrimination and a group that has always enjoyed a preferred social, economic and political status. Growing up as a member of a minority group often carries with it psychological and emotional burdens not incurred by members of the majority.” Therefore, Christians are allowed to be excluded, their celebrations ignored, for Christians are the majority, enjoying the “preferred social, economic, and political status;” yet Kwanza is celebrated in public schools.  Why should society adhere to such a double standard?

Inherent within liberal thought is this sense of retribution for past errors; hence the support for affirmative action, and so forth (interestingly, Zionism is absent from this list). Presumably, in their quest for equality, intolerance for peoples who have been majorities and therefore “discriminated” against the minorities follows. So within liberalism itself we have this inner conflict: be tolerant of all, yet intolerant of the majority, most often the religious. Perhaps that is why most liberals are secular humanists.  Conservatives make no pretense at such contradictory tolerance; tolerance already has a definition, but “progressives” seem intent on proving their insanity.

One can see the inherent paradox of the modern multiculturalism. Accept all other “cultures” because each is morally equivalent. Yet while they claim this, they simultaneously condemn the Hindu caste system, the Islamic fundamentalist treatment of women, and any instance of a conflict with their secular humanist agenda. Whatever happened to multiculturalism? Finally the crux of the matter appears: proponents of multiculturalism only agree to moral equivalence when the culture is in accord with the secular humanists agenda. That is why Oriental religions are quite popular with secular humanists; no dogma, just inner “oneness” with the various deities.

Thus, these people that designate themselves multicultural are hypocrites. They respect only themselves. These self-righteous leftists are masquerading as something no one can be: respectful of every action and every belief of every single culture. Just like Carl Sagan, the choice between beliefs and death leads to the repudiation of one’s beliefs. Why cannot these secular humanists recognize their inherent hypocrisy?