‘Scholarly’ Hate at the Daily Bigot
It’s a fun exercise to keep track of all the universal truths belonging to the academic humanist crowd that claims there aren’t any universal truths. And here is one they cling to with certainty: it is not fomenting hate to foment hate towards those you have decided foment hate.
The most recent example of this kind of un-ironic asininity comes from the “visiting scholar” at Brown University, the Daily Beast’s self-professing “BuJu” (Buddhist Jew), Jay Michaelson. The Ivy League scholar decided to make the world a better place by proffering up a little literary hate fest directed at the evangelistic outreach group formerly known as Campus Crusade for Christ. Now called “Cru,” Michaelson took it upon himself to notify everyone how this group of nutty Bible-bangers are really an insidious threat to world harmony (yes, this man actually gets paid by someone). He wrote:
Like many a Daily Beast reader, I found Campus Crusade for Christ to be somewhere between annoying and amusing. You remember them from college: the Jesus freaks, intent on spreading the ‘Good News,’ somewhere between quaint and creepy.
Yes, because BuJus don’t even register on the creepy scale, do they? But after completing the requisite condescension and mockery of Bible believers mandated by the membership oath of all academic ‘scholars,’ Michaelson got down to leveling the hard-hitting accusation against this sinister group of Christians:
Its members are supposed to be the earnest Christians, preaching the Gospel but not fomenting hate around the world.
It’s amazing how supposedly intellectual folks on the left can’t seem to figure out that “preaching the Gospel” and “fomenting hate around the world” will always be identical to them given their jacked up worldview. The message of Christ that He is the exclusive way to heaven is naturally divisive. It’s why Jesus said Himself that He “did not come to bring peace on earth but division.”
Jesus was a pretty divisive fellow. It’s why 2,000 years after He walked the earth the mere mention of His name can get mouths frothing over at the ACLU and get the panties of alleged academicians like Jay Michaelson all knotted into a ball.
See, for BuJus like Michaelson who willingly choose a life of rebellion to God, anyone who preaches the need for repentance and acceptance of salvation through Christ alone – not to mention who follows the Great Commission of Christ to “go throughout the world” and teach non-believers to “obey everything I have commanded you” – is going to come across hateful.
The pretty simple, straightforward truth that somehow evades the brilliant intellects of leftist scholars is that truth is divisive. And when they stand, as Michaelson does, opposed to truth, its proclamation is going to appear hateful. The Gospel of John is pretty clear as to why: “Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.”
And that exposing of evil, specifically the evil of sexual immorality, is what Michaelson resents. He blasts Cru for hosting an event in Africa that featured a presentation of Dr. Seyoum Antonios, where the speaker warned against the deadly embrace of homosexualism as natural. Michaelson sneers:
Among the takeaways from Antonios’s presentation: Thirty-three percent of homosexuals are pedophiles, gay couples are coming to Africa to steal children and turn them homosexual, homosexuality is a Western plot to kill Africans, and gay people are 15 times more likely to be murderers than straight people….
Now, there are homophobes everywhere. But Antonios is a powerful homophobe.
What is interesting about this rant is that Michaelson merely taunts. He doesn’t refute. If his assessment of Antonios’s presentation is accurate, does Michaelson disagree that 33% of those practicing homosexuality have tendencies towards child sex? Keep in mind that we know in the United States that nearly 33% of all sex-crimes against children are committed by those who practice homosexuality (about 3% of the population committing 33% of the crime).
Does Michaelson deny that couples that practice homosexuality are looking to Africa to adopt children? And does he deny the academic research that indicates children raised in homes where homosexuality is practiced are far more likely to experiment in the lifestyle themselves?
And further, does Michaelson deny the statistics published by the medical journal The Lancet and reported in the BBC which reveal that, “HIV rates among gay men in some African countries are 10 times higher than among the general male population”?
If so, why doesn’t he refute them with evidence rather than merely reciting the claims in an inflammatory manner in a desperate attempt to disprove them by his emotional contempt alone? And if not, if he acknowledges the claims presented by Mr. Antonios are true, why does the recitation of fact constitute “homophobia” and hatred? Is this what counts as academic analysis these days?
Of course there’s one other somewhat uncomfortable reality to note here. Let’s suppose for a second that Antonios’s arguments were as radically untrue as what Michaelson wants us to believe. What does it say about Jay Michaelson’s view of dark-skinned Africans that he thinks they are too stupid to discover the truth on their own? Why does this lily-white liberal academic from the Ivy League think the poor black folk in Africa need his brain power to protect them from their ignorant naiveté?
I wanted to ask Mr. Michaelson all these questions, so I invited him onto my radio program for an interview. His response: “Thanks – I’ll pass.” Funny how easily intimidated visiting scholars from prestigious universities can be when someone in media actually challenges their anti-Christian bigotry wrapped up in pompous gas-baggery.
There are Christophobes everywhere. But Jay Michaelson is a powerful Christophobe.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.