In support of discrimination

That's probably as provocative a title as one could ask for, isn't it?
We regularly hear the 'proper' declaim against the innate evil of discrimination, of any kind, at any time, for any reason. Well, sorry, they're wrong.
Look, how many of these loudmouths know what the word means? Go look it up. Go ahead, do. Try here, at dictionary.com. Or there are others. It's not the best source, but it will do. Once you get past the political crap, here's what it comes down to. ''the power of making fine distinctions''.
Can you tell the difference between beef steak and cow manure? If you can, congratulations - you have just discriminated. Aren't you ashamed? (oh, and by the way, if you can't tell the difference, I'm not coming to your house for dinner. These distinctions are important.)
Now I can hear someone saying, ''Oh, but that's not what we meant''. OK, fine. Then what do you mean? Do you mean that we can say that some distinctions are OK, but others, the vast majority of others, are not? So a belief that, say, ''organic'' food is at least different better than non-organic is legitimate, but that type of distinction is about the only legitimate kind. Is that the politically approved belief now?
There has grown up a body of belief, a belief that is so ingrained by classical methods of propaganda that most people don't even think about it, that most distinctions are inherently wrong. Immoral, though most would recoild at the use of the term, but the reaction is the same. By this belief, one person is no better than another, one belief system is no better than another, one nation no better than another, and so on. In fact, according to this, the belief that one system or person or belief is better than another, is just about the ultimate wrong, and it immediately marks such a person a, well, not quite right in the head, and perhaps a danger to society.
That rather finesses history, does it not?
If all cultures, for example, are equally valid, then why did some develop antibiotics, and others did not? Why did some not even invent the wheel? It's not the terrain or the climate, not always. Why is there so much more corruption in Quebec than there is in Ontario, or in New Hampshire? It's not the terrain or the climate.
I started thinking about this again during the Bible study. Why? Well because, contrary to modern-day revisionism, God does make distinctions. Bluntly, God discriminates. He regards some behavior as worthy, and other not. He regards one culture as superior to another. He blesses one group, and either ignores or curses another. Look at the run-up to the Exodus, for example. There was darkness all over Egypt. Except around the Israelites. Boils? Ditto. Plagues of frogs and lice? The same. One group gets darkness, one gets light. One group loses their first-born, one does not. Sounds like discrimination to me.
Now, I would agree that, lacking any other reason, for me to treat a man from one side of town better than one from another side of town, is probably wrong. But not necessarily. It is the basis for those distinctions that can be scrutinized. But to say it is never wrong to draw the distinction is ridiculous. Too often the burden of proof is on the wrong side these days. Examples are not hard to find.