About the Author
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links

Leftists prove at Wilson speech that "diversity" is a fraud

By Scott Tibbs, April 20, 2012

As expected, the speech by Doug Wilson on Friday the 13th generated some heated opposition in a lecture hall on the ground floor of Ballentine Hall. Leftists showed how much they "respect diversity" by screaming obscenities at various points during the speech, including a "Mic Check" commonly used by the "Occupy" movement to tell Wilson to "get off our campus" immediately after a laughable claim that they respect free speech. You can see the video of that disruption on Facebook or YouTube.

An audience member was arrested by Indiana University police after refusing to stop disrupting the speech and refusing to leave. As the person was being arrested, hysterical Leftists screeched into the room that he was "being queer bashed" by the police. (See reports by the Herald-Times and the Indiana Daily Student.) This is laughable. No one was victimized for being homosexual. A disruptive individual was arrested for being disruptive.

After the "Mic Check" and as a woman was screaming obscenities at him, Wilson said that the "diversity" movement has two primary principles: "an absolute commitment to free speech" and "shut up." This was a perfect description of the shameful behavior by Leftists last Friday.

I am thankful that the IUPD was keeping order and ensuring that Wilson was able to exercise his free speech rights. Had the IUPD not been there, Leftists would have almost certainly prevented the speech from going forward though mob rule, and given the emotional climate the event may have degenerated into violence.

There was no need to try to shout Wilson down. If his theological commitments are indefensible and easily refuted, there was plenty of opportunity for discussion through a question and answer session after the speech. Wilson's message is contradicted on a daily basis on the IU campus, between academic coursework, various "diversity" offices and student groups. Why was a message of Biblical sexual morality so threatening, given the Left's overwhelming advantage?

In fact, the question and answer session was expanded to 10:30. IU had asked ClearNote Campus Fellowship to be out of the building at 9:30 and Leftists threw a tantrum when CNCF attempted to abide by the agreement. Under pressure from Leftists, the administration allowed CNCF to stay for another hour, so more discussion could take place. Wilson readily agreed to stay and answer more questions.

One of the questions was about bisexuality, to which Wilson had a logically coherent answer. Wilson opened his speech arguing against the postmodern position that any sexual activity is morally right so long as no one is hurt. Given this foundation, what would prevent someone from having two partners if that person is sexually attracted to both sexes? If we are going to say that there are no moral boundaries to consensual sex (the position of postmodernism) then there is no justification for prohibiting polygamy. (Wilson did say that not all bisexuals want more than one partner. He was making a philosophical point.)

To address a point raised in HeraldTimesOnline.com comments regarding Wilson's theological commitments (and mine, interestingly enough) - neither Wilson nor I believe every word of the Bible is to be interpreted literally, just as we do not believe that every word of the weather forecast should be interpreted literally. After all, the weather forecast uses terms like "sunrise" and "sunset" which are not literally true. The sun does not rise or set, as we all know. Those terms describe what we see from our position on Earth as the planet rotates.

In fact, Jesus rebuked His disciples for taking Him literally when He spoke of the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees. When Jesus spoke in parables, He was not saying these things literally happened, but He was using a story to teach a lesson about genuine faith and how we are to worship God. Finally, there are areas of the Bible where people of good faith disagree, such as whether infant baptism is an acceptable baptism.

During Q&A, one Leftist screeched that "This is a public university! There is no religion!" Really? Does that mean religion is not allowed, in public speeches or in private? Should the Religious Studies department be closed? You see, this is where the alleged "commitment to diversity" is proven to be a fraud. There is no such thing as "diversity" when there is an active attempt to use mob rule to silence viewpoints one does not like.

A week before Wilson's speech, Mike "The Liar" Leonard wrote a shamefully dishonest article smearing Wilson as a racist, purposefully ignoring Wilson's emphatic rebuke of racism in his writings - including the very book that Leonard the Liar took out of context in his hit piece. In his April 13 speech, Wilson repeated his emphatic rebuke of racism when he was accused of being a racist in the question and answer session.

Wilson laid out a convincing case for "creation sexuality" in his first lecture, but it was in his second lecture where he really drove home the point, in a way that I had never considered: That the entire Bible was the story of how God arranged for His Son to come to earth and marry a prostitute. (The book of Hosea is a direct allegory to Wilson's argument.) The prostitute is the Christian Church, which is described throughout the New Testament as the Bride of Christ. Christians (collectively and individually) are mired in our own wickedness when God showed mercy on us and decided to redeem us out of the bondage we could not escape.

This is a message sorely needed on the Indiana University campus, the home of notorious child rapist Alfred Kinsey. ClearNote Campus Fellowship should be applauded for bringing Wilson to campus to preach a message that we all sorely needed to hear, no matter how much Leftists used anger, hatred and lawless behavior to silence the gospel.