One of the most dangerous aspects of modern liberal dogma is its inability to accept any ideas that do not agree with it. Take the case of the sociologist Mark Regnerus, at The University of Texas at Austin.
Regnerus published a research article in the July 2012 issue of Social Science Research. His research showed that the adult children of same sex couples, or couples who had had same-sex relationships, had more social and emotional problems than those raised by heterosexual parents. His conclusion, of course, sparked a determined smear campaign to debunk his article and to destroy his reputation.
Regnerus' research was valid enough, no better or worse than any other conclusions drawn from sociological surveys. His methodology was sound. Yet his conclusions are wildly unpopular among the liberal elite. He was personally condemned in the news media, within academia, and within his own department, merely for reporting findings that don't support gay ideology.
Other sociologists, gay activists, and same sex marriage advocates took up the challenge not only to condemn the message, but to destroy the life of the messenger. This has become an all too typical response from leftists to any idea that conflicts with their particular point of view.
Which leads us to the obvious question: Why is liberalism so afraid of dissenting viewpoints?
The most obvious conclusion we can draw from the response to Regnerus is the liberalized power struggle stemming from leftist (and especially gay) ideology. In order to take political power, leftist dogma accepts the tactic that any means to an end is all right, as long as the end is achieved.
To anyone not blinded by political power, this is an extremely dangerous aspect of any ideology, let alone an ideology so destructive to the ideals on which our country was founded. Politics that use any means to attain an end run the risk of becoming authoritarian or totalitarian - both of which are anathema to liberty and freedom.
What's at stake in Regnerus' case? Opponents have limited his chances of being promoted to full professor, thus cutting him off from his chosen career. Even worse, the integrity of the social sciences is at stake (if there is any integrity left). If the social sciences continue to express only research that agrees with the party line, then the social sciences truly are dead. They only serve the purpose of providing one more dubious source to "prove" leftist orthodoxy and to overthrow any dissenting thought.
What's at stake for the rest of us? Remember that universities, such as The University of Texas at Austin, are where we and our children go to gain a "higher" education. If that education insists on telling students what to think, instead of teaching students how to think, our country will fall into the despotism of intellectual conformism.
Such a system would then tolerate only orthodox thought and belief, bringing America closer and closer into an Orwellian future where even thoughts can be a crime.
0 comments:
Post a Comment