Multiculturalism, Christian Faith, & Ignorance Accommodation

Cyle Parker

History 444

Dr. Mancastroppa

December 11th, 2007

Term Paper

Multiculturalism, Christian Faith, & Ignorance Accommodation

(I.E.: Saving Committees, Exceptions, Bias, False Love, White Lies???)

Often times I sit and while objectively listening to the arguments of my peers there are few moments metaphysically that I can honestly place myself in their mindset. Actions, scholarly debates, and just an over arching dissatisfaction with myself as a human realist prompts me to write not for myself but rather to expound upon the well reasoned ignorant posited by the world in general. Perhaps my term paper is a satire of sorts, or is it? Do I really believe in the heap of garbage my feeble brain is about produce? Lets begin with a sketch of myself and assert that in the 21st century United apple pie States of America. I am God fearing, African American, and Gay. ( I think...still can't be sure, just going with what society tells me I am...personally I dig ladies equally on the dating stage but common ignorance impedes the progression of my dance card) With the notion that within the inner depths of my young impressionable mind resonates the notion that social religious reconciliation should be a top priority for every Christian within any sect or of any race or cultural background. However in the perfect Christian world (WSC campus) in which we live, does merely demanding for a "multicultural center of learning" produce a less prejudiced society? Multiculturalists insist on greater sensitivity towards, and increased inclusion of, racial minorities and women in society. Christians should endorse both of these goals. But the freethinkers of our vast region known as America advocating on the side of good (multiculturalism) grossly beyond these demands for sensitivity and inclusion leaving themselves susceptible to scathing criticisms' from with their religious sects.

Parker 1

One of the difficulties of accepting multiculturalists is that defining a multicultural society or institution seems to be determined by one's perspective. A commonly held view suggests that being multicultural involves tolerance towards racial and ethnic minorities, mainly in the areas of dress, language, food, religious beliefs, and other cultural manifestations. An influential group calling itself NAME, or the National Association for Multicultural Education, includes in its philosophy statement the following: "Xenophobia, discrimination, racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia are societal phenomena that are inconsistent with the principles of a democracy and lead to the counterproductive reasoning that differences are deficiencies. "(http://www.nameorg.org/ ). NAME is a powerful organization composed of educators from around the country, and it has considerable influence on how schools approach the issue of diversity on campus. The fundamental question that the folks at NAME need to answer is, "Is it always counterproductive to reason that some differences might be deficiencies?" In other words, isn't it possible that some of the characteristics of specific culture groups are dangerous or morally unsound?

It is not uncommon for advocates of multiculturalism like NAME to begin with the assumption that truth is culturally based. It is argued that a group's language dictates what ideas about God, human nature, and morality are permissible. While Americans may define reality using ideas from its Greek, Roman, Asian or African cultures see the world differently based on their traditions. Multiculturalists conclude that since multiple descriptions of reality exist, no one view can be true in any ultimate sense. Furthermore, since truth is a function of language, and all language is created by humans, all truth is created by humans. This view of truth and language has a spokesperson in Dr. Richard Rorty, humanities professor at the University of Virginia, who argues that truth that transcends culture is not available because "where there are no sentences there is no truth, and sentences and their respective languages are human creations." (name).

Next, if all truth is created by humans, it is all equally true. Cultural ideas or institutions, like human sacrifice or welfare systems, are equally valid if they are useful for a given group of people. In other words, we live in a universe that is blind to moral choices. We are the final judges

of how we shall live.

Parker 2

As Christians, we believe that ideas do have consequences. While being careful not to promote one set of cultural rules over others simply because we are comfortable with them, we acknowledge that Scripture reveals to us the character and nature of God, humankind, and our need for a savior. These truths can be communicated cross-culturally in a sensitive way, regardless of the people-group involved. If we didn't believe this to be true in a universal sense, then Christianity can't be true in any real way. In other words, in order to be what it claims to be, Christianity must transcend culture in a way that many multiculturalists argue cannot occur. In recent years, America has been attracting over one million immigrants annually. This has resulted in a country that is religiously, racially, and linguistically more diverse. Conflict arises, however, over the question of how our nation's institutions should respond to this diversity. Until recently, it was argued that America was a melting pot society, that regardless of an immigrant's origin, given a generation or two, his family would be assimilated into American culture.

Parker 3

Multiculturalists have challenged both the reality and advisability of this view.

Multiculturalists brand our culture as white, Western, male, Christian, middle-class and heterosexual. They declare that our schools have forced on students a curriculum that promotes only that perspective. The books they read, the ideas they consider, the moral and ethical standards they are taught, explicitly or implicitly, tend to be those of dead white European males. The problem, they argue, is that this leaves out the contributions of many people. People of color, women, homosexuals, and various religious traditions are ignored and thus silenced. As a result, they contend, what passes for knowledge on campus is biased. Their goal is to correct this bias. This charge of