Diversity is perversity.
“Diversity is perversity.”
And that includes diversity within families. It’s not the skin color so much that’s the problem. It’s the extreme cultural irreconcilable differences. The formerly strong family units are being weakened and compromised.
Diversity for the sake of diversity or for the sake of achieving diversity - is a form of socialism.
There was a time when the English viewed and treated the Irish as 2nd class and almost subhuman. Some may still have this mindset. In the not too distant past, intermarriage between Irish and English was tantamount to the unpardonable sin.
Also in the not too distant past intermarriage between blacks and whites was a crime in certain states.
I'm curious as to your thinking about diversity.
1. How do you define diversity?
2. If your definition of diversity is a distinction between races and/or cultures, how are you defining/separating what you see as different races and/or cultures?
Can Protestants and Catholics "mix"? Reading some of the FR posts, maybe not. LOL!
There was a time when southern Europeans, Jews, Orientals, American Indians and others were considered 2nd class here in the U.S. Some Americans still view these groups as 2nd class. How does your treatment of diversity handle these ethnic groups?
IMHO - The problem with absolutism is absolutism, except in the case of God's Word. Again, diversity for the sake of diversity or for the sake of achieving diversity - is a form of socialism. Conversely, when disparate groups or people come together for a common cause or in the case of personal relationship, love and understanding - it's not diversity for the sake of achieving diversity. It's a facet of being human.