The Cancel Culture Movement; Another Supreme Court Failure
A recurring evil has resurrected itself in America today. It is known as the "Cancel Culture" movement. We witness its presence with the defacing and even destruction of statues and monuments representative of America's past. There is seemingly no one who is beyond the vilification of this leftist movement. Christopher Columbus - no longer the one who discovered the Americas; now he is the villain who brought death and disease to the indigenous Americans living here. Thomas Jefferson - no longer the one who wrote the Declaration of Independence, one of the greatest documents in the English language and one, under whose administration, our nation nearly doubled in size; now he is the villain because he happened to own slaves. Abraham Lincoln - no longer the one who emancipated slavery and led our nation through one of its darkest hours; now he is just another "white bigot" who did not fully accept the equality of the blacks whom he had liberated. Robert E. Lee - no longer recognized for his brilliant military leadership; now he is the symbol of slavery's oppression. Finally, even George Washington is not beyond being considered a villain because he, too, owned slaves.
Douglas Andrews wrote a powerful article which was published by The Patriot Post this past Tuesday. You can read the article in its entirety at: www.patriotpost.us/articles/71435-canceling-our-history-2020-06-16. He begins: "Buried beneath news about sorry Supreme Court decisions and rebranded autonomous zones was this clear-cut sign of a sick society: a new Gallup poll indicating that U.S. national pride has fallen to a record low. Most alarming of all is the poll's finding that our young people - our future - are today less patriotic than ever, with just one in five adults between 18 and 29 declaring that they're 'extremely proud to be an American.'" Friends, that is an alarming statistic. Only 20% of those who have either just entered into college or have finished and have become part of the nation's workforce are "proud to be an American." That means that for the other 80% there is total indifference.
Andrews continues: "So it's no wonder that we find ourselves in this dismal spot. After all, we've spent the last three weeks deifying thugs, demonizing cops, and denying our shared past. We've been overcome by a Cancel Culture that sees 'white supremacy' and 'systemic racism' behind every tree and around every corner; a culture that declares our Founding Fathers irredeemable, and even our abolitionists unworthy." He then cites the example of the graffiti-sprayed statue to John Greenleaf Whittier - the Quaker poet and strong abolitionist. Here is what Swarthmore College archivist Celia Caust-Ellenbogen said of the defacing: "It is important to acknowledge the reasons why the protesters are so frustrated. While Whittier is celebrated for his poetry and his activist legacy, there are numerous African American poets and activists of his era...who have received too little recognition. The statues in this country over-represent the influence of White people and under-represent the importance of people of color, especially African American people, in our nation's history." Friends, did you see the logic, or should I say, the lack of logic in that explanation? Yes, John Greenleaf Whittier stood for the right things, but he becomes a target because he was a white man.
Andrews concludes his article: "Today, it's Robert E. Lee. But what about tomorrow? Will we rename our nation's capital because its namesake, The Indispensable Man, was a slaveholder? What about renaming that trendy state to the northwest, the one with that same slaveholding Founder featured foremost in its flag? Make no mistake: This effort to whitewash our nation's past by defacing and destroying its statues and monuments will do lasting damage. Indeed, it already has. As Matt Walsh put it recently in The Daily Wire, 'If we cannot be united around tradition, language, or heritage, and we also cannot be united around a shared belief in freedom and human rights, then what is left? We would appear to be, already, two different countries.'"
I have shared with you previously that we cannot erase history. We can expunge the stories from our history classes and text books. We can destroy the monuments that remind us of that history. We can even attempt to rewrite those historical stories to make them more palatable. But we cannot remove that history. It is forever there. But we can have a dialogue about that history. We can sit down and ask tough questions about that history - about what caused it? what lessons can be learned from it? how can we either celebrate it or prevent it from happening again? But, sadly, our culture today does not embrace dialogue. Instead, it embraces violence and destruction. And sadly, if the Gallup Poll is correct, only 20% of young Americans really care.
One more event happened this week that I need to reference. It involves a decision the Supreme Court made this past Monday. By a 6-3 margin, the Court ruled that employees cannot be terminated from their place of employment because of sexual orientation or gender identity. This decision was based upon an understanding of the word "sex" used in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As Matthew Vadum writes in his article published by The Epoch Times (www.theepochtimes/com/supreme-cout-find-illegal-firing-employees-for-being-gay-or-transgender_3389113.html), The landmark ruling that brings an expanded meaning to the phrase 'on the basis of sex' that appear in the nondiscrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is the court's latest foray into the culturally contentious realm of sex and sex roles. In 2015, the court gave same-sex couples the right to marry in the 5-4 decision of Obergefell v. Hodges." He then quotes from Tom Fitton, president of the conservative good-government group Judicial Watch, "There has been a years-long battle by [the] Left to change federal law to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and the court has undermined the rule of law...by legislating from the bench. Congress should reaffirm the Constitution and combat this judicial power grab by reaffirming the original meaning of the Civil Rights Acts. Only Congress can amend a law, not the Supreme Court. Today's radical Supreme Court decision shows that the threat to the rule of law doesn't only come from leftist rioters in the streets, but also from judicial activists on the bench."
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a scathing dissent of the majority's opinion. "If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation - not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time. ... Many will applaud today's decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court's updating of Title VII. But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not."
So, what does this ruling mean? How could it impact you and me? Sarah Kramer writes, "The ruling could prohibit a religious employer from declining to recognize a same-sex relationship as a 'marriage' for purpose of benefits. It could subject a small business owner to liability if she discusses her beliefs about marriage while at work. It could even result in an employee being disciplined or fired for even mentioning her beliefs about marriage, as happened to Chief Kelvin Cochran, who was fired as Atlanta's Fire Chief after writing a small book about his beliefs in Christ and about marriage for his private, men's Bible study."
Friends, what a world we live in! So glad that God is in control! Aren't you?
Douglas Andrews wrote a powerful article which was published by The Patriot Post this past Tuesday. You can read the article in its entirety at: www.patriotpost.us/articles/71435-canceling-our-history-2020-06-16. He begins: "Buried beneath news about sorry Supreme Court decisions and rebranded autonomous zones was this clear-cut sign of a sick society: a new Gallup poll indicating that U.S. national pride has fallen to a record low. Most alarming of all is the poll's finding that our young people - our future - are today less patriotic than ever, with just one in five adults between 18 and 29 declaring that they're 'extremely proud to be an American.'" Friends, that is an alarming statistic. Only 20% of those who have either just entered into college or have finished and have become part of the nation's workforce are "proud to be an American." That means that for the other 80% there is total indifference.
Andrews continues: "So it's no wonder that we find ourselves in this dismal spot. After all, we've spent the last three weeks deifying thugs, demonizing cops, and denying our shared past. We've been overcome by a Cancel Culture that sees 'white supremacy' and 'systemic racism' behind every tree and around every corner; a culture that declares our Founding Fathers irredeemable, and even our abolitionists unworthy." He then cites the example of the graffiti-sprayed statue to John Greenleaf Whittier - the Quaker poet and strong abolitionist. Here is what Swarthmore College archivist Celia Caust-Ellenbogen said of the defacing: "It is important to acknowledge the reasons why the protesters are so frustrated. While Whittier is celebrated for his poetry and his activist legacy, there are numerous African American poets and activists of his era...who have received too little recognition. The statues in this country over-represent the influence of White people and under-represent the importance of people of color, especially African American people, in our nation's history." Friends, did you see the logic, or should I say, the lack of logic in that explanation? Yes, John Greenleaf Whittier stood for the right things, but he becomes a target because he was a white man.
Andrews concludes his article: "Today, it's Robert E. Lee. But what about tomorrow? Will we rename our nation's capital because its namesake, The Indispensable Man, was a slaveholder? What about renaming that trendy state to the northwest, the one with that same slaveholding Founder featured foremost in its flag? Make no mistake: This effort to whitewash our nation's past by defacing and destroying its statues and monuments will do lasting damage. Indeed, it already has. As Matt Walsh put it recently in The Daily Wire, 'If we cannot be united around tradition, language, or heritage, and we also cannot be united around a shared belief in freedom and human rights, then what is left? We would appear to be, already, two different countries.'"
I have shared with you previously that we cannot erase history. We can expunge the stories from our history classes and text books. We can destroy the monuments that remind us of that history. We can even attempt to rewrite those historical stories to make them more palatable. But we cannot remove that history. It is forever there. But we can have a dialogue about that history. We can sit down and ask tough questions about that history - about what caused it? what lessons can be learned from it? how can we either celebrate it or prevent it from happening again? But, sadly, our culture today does not embrace dialogue. Instead, it embraces violence and destruction. And sadly, if the Gallup Poll is correct, only 20% of young Americans really care.
One more event happened this week that I need to reference. It involves a decision the Supreme Court made this past Monday. By a 6-3 margin, the Court ruled that employees cannot be terminated from their place of employment because of sexual orientation or gender identity. This decision was based upon an understanding of the word "sex" used in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As Matthew Vadum writes in his article published by The Epoch Times (www.theepochtimes/com/supreme-cout-find-illegal-firing-employees-for-being-gay-or-transgender_3389113.html), The landmark ruling that brings an expanded meaning to the phrase 'on the basis of sex' that appear in the nondiscrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is the court's latest foray into the culturally contentious realm of sex and sex roles. In 2015, the court gave same-sex couples the right to marry in the 5-4 decision of Obergefell v. Hodges." He then quotes from Tom Fitton, president of the conservative good-government group Judicial Watch, "There has been a years-long battle by [the] Left to change federal law to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and the court has undermined the rule of law...by legislating from the bench. Congress should reaffirm the Constitution and combat this judicial power grab by reaffirming the original meaning of the Civil Rights Acts. Only Congress can amend a law, not the Supreme Court. Today's radical Supreme Court decision shows that the threat to the rule of law doesn't only come from leftist rioters in the streets, but also from judicial activists on the bench."
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a scathing dissent of the majority's opinion. "If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation - not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time. ... Many will applaud today's decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court's updating of Title VII. But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not."
So, what does this ruling mean? How could it impact you and me? Sarah Kramer writes, "The ruling could prohibit a religious employer from declining to recognize a same-sex relationship as a 'marriage' for purpose of benefits. It could subject a small business owner to liability if she discusses her beliefs about marriage while at work. It could even result in an employee being disciplined or fired for even mentioning her beliefs about marriage, as happened to Chief Kelvin Cochran, who was fired as Atlanta's Fire Chief after writing a small book about his beliefs in Christ and about marriage for his private, men's Bible study."
Friends, what a world we live in! So glad that God is in control! Aren't you?
Comments
Post a Comment