“…[T]those who oppose ENDA [Employee Non-discrimination Act] for religious reasons, is it not possible to believe that homosexual acts are immoral, but also believe that LGBTs are entitled to fair treatment in the workplace?”
~ professor Eric Martinez, National Paralegal College
Professor Eric Baime, my colleague at the National Paralegal College where I’ve taught for the past several years, is the quintessential leftist academic. I like Eric. He’s a true believer in liberalism, progressivism, socialism and in government remedies for every societal problem. I wouldn’t go as far as to call him a Marxist, but the doctrinaire leftist ideas he frequently expresses on our NPC Facebook page has him right at the door. Furthermore, he seems incapable of resolving the obvious paradox that increasing numbers of Americans are discovering about Barack Obama – that your president, for whom the majority of American people voted twice, is a pathological liar.
Here is how the cognitive dissonance of the left is manifested regarding their Obama messiah:
A) Barack Obama is a historical, transformative and revolutionary political figure, to speak against him or his policies means I’m a racist or a right-wing fanatic; and
B) Barack Obama is a bad or deceitful person who is spying on me and those I care about while stealing my doctor and destroying my health plan through Obamacare.
Below are a couple of recent Facebook postings of professor Baime and the dialogue it initiated, demonstrating cognitive dissonance on the left:
Professor Eric Baime: Do you think our Tea Party [House] will pass ENDA, ending discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation, like the Senate did?
Professor Ellis Washington: Eric, sometimes I don’t know if you are a true believer on the left, or you just love making outrageous comments to foster passionate responses. I’m prone to think it’s both but more of the former rather than the latter. The premise of your question is spurious, sophistic and often anti-intellectual (anti-logical). Same-sex marriage has no constitutional legitimacy whatsoever. If it did why didn’t the Framers make it plain? And please don’t insult the historical struggle of black Americans for equal rights by conflating Black civil rights with the radical LGBT agenda … just don’t do it!
Baime: Why can’t I do that, Ellis, and what about the struggles of women for equality and other minority groups, or are they “off limits” as well? Likewise, explain to me what there is inherently about LGBTs that prevent them from enjoying the same rights against discrimination as the rest of us.
Renée Hendrix (NPC student): Ellis, I notice a marked tendency in your posts to make assumptions and ascribe names or agendas to those who post. It appears to me that Eric has applied critical analysis to a relevant issue. His proposal is based on reason. I also challenge you, Ellis, to answer this question: Why do you believe that, unlike blacks, gay people are not entitled to civil rights?
Washington: Renée, why do I believe that, unlike blacks, gay people are not entitled to civil rights? First, I do not believe that gay people are entitled to civil rights to the same degree of blacks. Their historical struggle in America is totally different than the slavery and inhumane racial discrimination suffered by black people in America to this day thus necessitating multiple civil rights acts. Gays are not entitled to special rights above those of other American citizens under the rule of law and under a reasonable interpretation of the U.S. Constitution unless you first separate law from morality and separate church from state.
Historically, black people in America were subjected to hundreds of years of forced slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow segregation after slavery. Our second-class citizenship in America did not end with a perfunctory handshake and smile by LBJ and MLK at the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Was all of the marching, the vicious dogs, the lynchings, the water hoses, tear gas, the separate and inferior housing, restaurants, hotels and schools, the economic discrimination and racial hatred, the daily tortures perpetrated against blacks by white people and fought against by MLK and the civil rights movement done so that so-called “gays” can have the freedom to practice their sexual behavior?
Did MLK march and give his life for gay rights? Absolutely not! If you think that MLK did, Renée, you are in great need of relearning America’s real history, not the revisionist propaganda you’ve apparently been taught in the public schools. To equate black civil rights to gay rights is to belittle the struggle, the life, the deaths and the moral sanctity of all of those blacks who gave their lives over hundreds of years for us to one day be included in the “We” of We the People of the U.S Constitution based on God, Natural Law, liberty and truth.
Professor Eric Martinez: Performance is what employers should focus on. What people do on their own time should generally be their own business. As for those who oppose for religious reasons, is it not possible to believe that homosexual acts are immoral, but also believe that LGBTs are entitled to fair treatment in the workplace?
Washington: In a state of cognitive dissonance, people may sometimes feel “disequilibrium”: frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc., which surprisingly seemed to be absent here since professor Baime answered professor Martinez’s remark with “good point, Eric.” Therefore, I will hope against hope that perhaps professor Baime for the briefest moments was able to suspend his cognitive dissonance to allow a measure of intellectual clarity and critical thinking (which is the antithesis of cognitive dissonance) to just consider the reasoned views of others outside his existential progressive penitentiary.
Moral clarity is always greater than cognitive dissonance.