Biblical masculinity vs. DEI masculinity

Chalk up another victory for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Alpha News highlighted the difference between 'DEI masculinity' and biblical masculinity by reporting on a federal lawsuit filed by Anthony Schmitt. Alpha's report said "Last year, Anthony Schmitt filed a lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) after the agency barred a class called 'The Quest for Authentic Manhood' from being taught at Minnesota Correctional Facility-St. Cloud. Schmitt had taught the course to over a thousand inmates between 2012 and 2023."

The question is simple. If he taught this course for 12 years without incident, what changed that suddenly made the class toxic? Alpha reports "Assistant Commissioner Robertus wrote, 'The program directly conflicts with the diversity, equity, and inclusivity values of the department by defining manhood, or the study of masculinity, through a biblical lens of what a 'real man looks like.'" Does this mean this application of DEI conflicts with the First Amendment? After all, the First Amendment protects the right to practice the religious beliefs of our choice.

I'm not a legal expert but I'm betting that DEI can't be used to prohibit the teaching of religious classes. The DOC saying that this class doesn't fit with this administration's agenda equates to this administration establishing an official religion. That's prohibited.

"Throughout all sessions reviewed, men were only identified as heterosexual, seeking ideal relationships and marriage with women. It is evident that throughout this curriculum, manhood can only be achieved through heterosexual relationships," Robertus explained.

The assistant commissioner also said the course "teaches participants about manhood through a lens of discrimination, exclusivity, gender biases, and stereotypes that not only contradict the DOC’s mission of providing transformational programming, but can be hurtful to participants, their families, and victims."

While this speech was delivered by Sen. Eric Schmitt during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, it's still applicable:

On Thursday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the lower Court’s ruling in a 2-1 decision. As such, Schmitt can resume teaching the course until the matter is fully adjudicated.

The two judges that ruled in Schmitt’s favor were appointed by President George W. Bush and President Donald Trump. The dissenting judge was appointed by President Barack Obama.

Schmitt has been represented by the Upper Midwest Law Center (UMLC) and True North Legal throughout the case. Further proceedings will take place in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota.

"The court’s decision is a clear victory against viewpoint discrimination," said Alexandra Howell, a UMLC attorney. "The [DOC] attempted to cancel a program based on its religious content simply because it didn’t align with a preferred political ideology. The Eighth Circuit correctly found that the First Amendment does not allow for such censorship."

I'm betting that the Supreme Court of the United States will agree with the Eighth Circuit, if they even accept the lawsuit. If they don't accept the lawsuit, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling stands as the law of the land.

Wherever liberal governments are found, DEI will flourish, whether by that name or by modifying the DEI name. To the DFL, they don't care what something is called as long as it restricts citizens' civil rights. Today's Democrats align with the DSA, aka Democrat Socialists of America. They don't have anything to do with the DFL except for ballot access.

Finally, DEI masculinity isn't real masculinity. DEI masculinity is best thought of as Tim Walz masculinity.