Judge Plays God to Ban ‘Unimportant’ Bible Verse

By Andrew Shirley/Shirley & Banister Public Affairs. This article was recently published at CharismaNews.com and makes clear just how dangerously brazen the enemies of liberty have become.

The military’s highest court ruled yesterday that men and women serving in the U.S. Armed Forces can be punished for exercising their religion if judges deem the practice not religiously “important.” The ruling upholds the government’s criminal prosecution of a U.S. Marine for refusing to discard personal notes that had Bible verses on them. The case may now be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Marine Lance Cpl. Monifa Sterling

In 2014, Marine Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling was ordered to remove from her workstation three pieces of paper with a paraphrase from the book of Isaiah, “No weapon formed against me shall prosper,” even though co-workers were permitted to keep nonreligious messages on their desks. She declined and was court-martialed. A lower court upheld Sterling’s court martial, rejecting her argument that her faith was protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“This is a real-life example of why judges shouldn’t play theologians,” said Daniel Blomberg, legal counsel of the Becket Fund, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Lance Corporal. “Here, a few judges concluded that keeping Scripture nearby isn’t ‘important,’ even though more than half of the world’s population belong to religions that teach the exact opposite. Avoiding obvious errors like this is why RFRA protects all religious beliefs, not just beliefs that government officials deem ‘important.’’’

Read more at Charisma News.

Call For Western Civilization Courses at Stanford Gets Backlash

By Chris Nuelle. This article was originally published at Campus Reform.

The Stanford Review’s petition to bring Western Civilization courses back to Stanford has been met with some backlash.

Socrates

Western Civilization courses have been absent from Stanford’s curriculum since the 1980’s when, according to a New York Times article, Rev. Jesse Jackson marched with students to remove the courses. Jackson, along with students, chanted “hey hey, ho ho, Western culture’s got to go.” Protesters complained that the Western culture course had “European-Western and male bias,” and “sexist and racist stereotypes.”

Seeing the importance of Western Civ courses, The Stanford Review released a manifesto and a petition to bring these courses back, arguing that “interrelated trends at Stanford, both recent and long-term, compel us to act now to reinstate a Western Civilization requirement.”

The manifesto that precedes the petition covers a multitude of ideas and puts the necessity for Western Civ course in context of the recent events at Yale and Mizzou, noting that “the West’s history of colonization and racial oppression is also essential to understanding why the events at Yale and Mizzou arose in the first place.

The Review’s manifesto acknowledges issues with Western civilization in general, noting that “Some students object that a singular focus on Western Civilization would glorify the blights of Western history like colonization and slavery. These blights are undeniable and cannot be neglected on a syllabus.

Read more at Campus Reform.

Are White Oscar Nominees Worthy?

By Kimberly Bloom Jackson

Have you heard the news? All 20 Oscar nominees in the acting categories are white! There’s even a Twitter hashtag called #OscarsSoWhite. Now Spike Lee, Jada Pinkett Smith, Viola Davis, Michael Moore, and other race conscious glitterati have announced that they will not be attending Hollywood’s most prestigious ceremony on February 28.

#OscarsSoWhite

What message does this send to the nominees whose exceptional work is supposed to be celebrated by all? Is everyone else at the awards ceremony now expected to take their cue from race-baiting crybabies and forego congratulating this year’s winners?

To make matters worse, the president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences Cheryl Boone Isaacs, who is black, had the audacity to say that she was “heartbroken and frustrated” over the lack of diversity among this year’s nominees. For the second year in a row, too many whiteys were voted in by the Academy’s reported 6,261 voting membership, of which the majority is supposedly white, though it’s overall composition remains unclear. Because of this, the Academy members have already been called a bunch of racists. But is this really all there is to the story?

As is the case with all propaganda, especially in Hollywood, you have to read between the lines.

Are this year’s nominees worthy of Oscar nods? Of course they are, as long as you take into account the fact that each year somebody has to win regardless of how good or bad the choices are. But that’s not the question everyone should be asking. The right question is, “Why isn’t anyone crying foul over the lack of quality performances overall, which is the real point?” Nevertheless, race conscious elites can’t help but to just hold up diversity (aka color) as a moral virtue, even though their diversity is based on a superficial attribute that has nothing to do with the value of an individual’s talent.

Policing Culture at the University of Washington

By Kimberly Bloom Jackson

There’s a new wave of hard core political correctness sweeping college campuses. It’s called cultural appropriation. As explained by a University of Washington student, it’s when “you take something from a culture that isn’t yours and basically use it for your own purposes. A lot of times this involves a majority culture taking bits and pieces of a minority culture in a way that trivializes it, in away that misrepresents it and pulls it out of context, or in a way that stereotypes other people.”

Cultural Appropriation at UW

If this leaves you scratching your head, don’t worry. There’s a whole group of UW students who, having crowned themselves with a certain level of elitism, have put together a video instructing the rest of us Cro-Magnon types on how to avoid cultural appropriation. As one might expect, they make fools of themselves in the process.

Nevertheless, as you watch the video, you can almost imagine yourself in a museum walking from one “cultural exhibit” to another as you’re immediately hit with a sense of separatism and victimhood. Of course, it would have been more helpful had the students actually known something about culture before starting their little grievance project.

Still, as an anthropologist who escaped the grips of leftist academia before my own brain could turn to mush, I am somewhat sympathetic to those afflicted with critical thinking attrition, a common byproduct of today’s higher education. Perhaps these students deserve a refund.

It used to be that anyone could take a good Anthropology 101 class and get an honest lesson on cultural diffusion. This simply refers to the natural spreading of cultural traits, mainly through migration, trade, and war. Cultures adopt and tinker with traits that work for them and abandon those traits that don’t. It’s one of the key mechanisms of cultural change and advancement, and the primary reason isolated cultures tend to lag behind everyone else.

While it’s obvious the students never learned about cultural diffusion they do, however, seem to know plenty about cultural isolation. In case you haven’t noticed, college campuses are hotbeds of victim identities, where many students have aligned themselves with a special, separate culture of oppression. Victim cultures wear their victimhood as a badge of moral virtue. They see themselves as innocent and everyone else is out to get them.

T’was A Month Before Christmas

The following poem was sent to me by a friend. Author is unknown.

T’was a month before Christmas
When all through our land,

"Adoration of the Shepherd's" by Gerard von Honthorst, 1622

Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.

Why the PC Police had taken away
The reason for Christmas––no one could say.

The  children were told by their schools not to sing
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.

It might hurt people’s feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a “holiday.”

Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks, and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!

CD’s from Madonna, an X BOX, an iPod
Something was changing, something quite odd!

Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.

The New Totalitarians Are Here

By Tom Nichols. This article was originally posted at The Federalist. It gives clarity to what we’re witnessing in America.

Totalitarians want their rule, and their belief system, to be accepted and self-sustaining—even if it takes bludgeoning every last citizen who disagrees.

New Totalitarian Fist

There’s a basic difference in the traditions of political science between “authoritarians” and “totalitaritarians.” People throw both of these words around, but as is so often the case, they’re using words they may not always understand. They have real meaning, however, and the difference between them is important.

Simply put, authoritarians merely want obedience, while totalitarians, whose rule is rooted in an ideology, want obedience and conversion. Authoritarians are a dime a dozen; totalitarians are rare.  The authoritarians are the guys in charge who want to stay in charge, and don’t much care about you, or what you’re doing, so long as you stay out of their way. They are the jefe and his thugs in a brutal regime that want you to shut up, go to work, and look the other way when your loudmouthed neighbor gets his lights punched out by goons in black jackets. Live or die. It’s all the same to the regime.

Totalitarians are a different breed. These are the people who have a plan, who think they see the future more clearly than you or who are convinced they grasp reality in a way that you do not. They don’t serve themselves—or, they don’t serve themselves exclusively—they serve History, or The People, or The Idea, or some other ideological totem that justifies their actions.

Read more at The Federalist.

Thought Police at the University of Missouri

By Kimberly Bloom Jackson

University of Missouri officials have finally reached the apex of totalitarian-style thought. They’re not just silencing free speech, but policing free thought—just in case it might turn into offensive speech.

Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin

Starting in January, all incoming students, as well as faculty and staff, will undergo mandatory diversity and inclusion training that promises to cover all the cliché -isms, but with a particular focus on racism. Guilty or not, all freshmen must successfully pass the training to be eligible to enroll in regular classes.

Why such lunacy?  A single, drunk, white student shouted racial slurs to a group of black students. That’s one student out of thousands who literally had nothing to do with the incident.

Chancellor, R. Bowen Loftin is the bow tie poindexter behind it all. “Racism exists at Mizzou. It’s not everyone. It’s not necessarily even overt sometimes, but it’s there and we have to deal with it,” said Loftin

Deal with it? This sounds like a new pre-crime program inspired by the movie Minority Report (2002). Here, Mr. Loftin thinks he’s a morally superior pre-cog who can predict when a crime is about to take place, opting for his elite campus free speech correctional unit to punish the would-be criminal before the crime is actually committed.

Perhaps the Chancellor is trying to justify his $450,000 a year Mizzou salary at a time when tuitions are skyrocketing. Or maybe he’s filled with indignation over a pay cut. After all, he did receive a cool $1.1 million in 2014 when he was President of Texas A&M.

Dissecting Political Correctness

By Stella Morabito. This article was originally posted at The Public Discourse. It’s a brilliant piece that I believe sets the tone for everything I hope to achieve on SnoopingAnthropologist.com. Enjoy!

To resist the manipulative forces of political correctness, we must speak out and overcome the social isolation that breeds silence. Victory in the war of ideas often hinges more on the conditions of battle than on the quality of arguments. You know this instinctively if you’ve ever been shouted down, smeared, or ignored when you were simply trying to state a point. Truly civil public discourse becomes much harder when our dialogue is hijacked by thought policing—euphemistically referred to as “political correctness,” or PC.

No Free Speech Ahead

Political correctness has cultivated an illusion of support for laws that undermine fundamental institutions of society, including marriage and family. The only way to dispel this illusion, and to reverse the damage these laws will do, is to revive true civil discourse. To do this, we must motivate ourselves and others to overcome the reticence to speak our minds. It is a process that has to begin one-on-one and face-to-face. As people feel less alone in their views, they will be more inclined to speak out.

Political correctness feeds on the fear of speaking views that diverge from PC “truth.” Although the primary forces behind political correctness are those who develop and convey ideas—college professors and administrators, Hollywood producers and directors, celebrities, mainstream news anchors, and so on—we all perpetuate political correctness when we succumb to the fear of contradicting PC “truth.”

Read more at The Public Discourse.

QUESTION: How are you kicking PC in the butt? Share your thoughts on Twitter or on your favorite social media.