Generational Guilt and American Vision
Race, Grace, and the Crimes the Ninevah: God’s actions towards Ninevah, even after their war crimes against his people, is one of the best biblical cases against the perpetuation of generational guilt. In all the articles rebuking the sustainers of white guilt I’ve seen from you and all the comments about it from others, I have not seen anyone reference the following Scriptures. When this whole thing began to appear on the evangelical scene, these verses were the first thing that came to mind. They may have been referenced already and I missed it. I just wanted to put them out there in case they haven’t yet because I believe they address the issue head on. Deuteronomy 24:16—Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. Referenced again in 2 Kings 14:6, speaking of Amaziah’s righteous ruling—“Yet he did not put the children of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: ‘Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.’” Ezekiel 18:20—The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.”
Rope
Rope, thanks. Those passages certainly need to be part of the discussion, especially when it comes to penalties applied by finite judges and courts. God can visit iniquity to three and four generations (Ex. 20:5), but we need to be very mindful of the limits to our abilities.
I have a question for you Doug. Since only about 380,000 or 4-6% of the black slave trade came to the United States (a fact well established), why is it that black slavery in American history is vilified as the worst of all, something to be repented of in perpetuity? I realize it was largely Christians that established it, but the same could be said wherever it was established in those days, except for the Muslim slave trade, which incidentally still goes on today.
T
T, I think the answer to that one is that in our country slaves were used to help build a very wealthy country, while it other places they were used to build poor ones.
When dealing with the unfaithfulness of previous generations in Israel, can it be demonstrated that the Lord required subsequent generations to repent of their forefathers’ sins, or were the dead presumed to have faced eternal judgment for their own shortcomings after their own deaths? Sure, the current generation may be living with the consequences of the previous generation’s sins (such as invading armies or exile), but where are they exhorted to repent of their forefathers’ sins rather than to focus on their own? If a biblical argument is to be made for what so many of the cool kids are now attempting, this seems like an easy place to start.
Mark
Mark, I do believe that downstream generations do have a responsibility to repent of their forefathers’ sins, but I think this applies when the sins themselves are being perpetuated. “That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, But keep his commandments: and might not be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God” (Ps. 78:7–8).
Re: A Set of Brief Responses to Joel McDurmon. Great response to what has unfortunately become mainstream in evangelical circles. If I may, let me add to your thought here: “But one of the central negative consequences [of American slavery] is that our race relations are so inflamed that not one person in a hundred is willing to submit to the plain teaching of Scripture on the subject.” I’d suggest that the proximate cause of our inflamed race relations today is not slavery, or even the violent white racism of the 1950’s and 60’s. Instead, our inflamed race relations today are in large part a product of liberalism in politics and in the church. The civil rights act, the welfare state, affirmative action, the minimum wage, abortion, and seemingly unending confessions of white guilt and privilege contribute far more to black poverty and racial animosity today than white racism of the past, or the present. So, yes, the white church is complicit in black poverty and bad race relations today, but not because we are racist, privileged, or apologists for Lost Causers. The church, white and black, is complicit because it too often has surrendered to the culture and embraced liberalism. And it is complicit not just in the poor economic conditions of blacks and the state of race relations, but in the death of millions of blacks, both babies in the womb and young men on the streets.
Bill
Bill, right. And a big part of the problem in repenting of sins that have been in the grave for a century and a half is that it takes our hearts away from the needed repentance for our current sins. What are we doing right this minute?
Re: A Set of Brief Responses to Joel McDurmon. If you want to raise your kids where crime is low, you’re generally going to end up leaving black areas and moving to white areas (or Asian or Jewish). If you want to give your kids a first class education, the same pattern will generally follow. In all sincerity, how does the Christian man deal with these realities without becoming, in effect, a practical racist?
Steve
Steve, yes. That is a thorny problem, and a very practical one. In the hierarchy of duties and responsibilities, should parents prefer keeping their children safe, or properly color-coded?
I would like to express my immense gratitude for the life’s work of both Doug Wilson and Joel McDurmon. The both of you have encouraged me, increased my faith and expanded my knowledge of the Scriptures. In the full interest of Matthew 5:9 and Psalm 133, I offer the following bystander’s observation. I see the dangers which Doug warns about, and I also see the dangers which Joel warns about. I agree with much of what each of them have written on this topic in the past few days, while still mulling over the meaning of their disagreements. Unfortunately, the mutual challenges about biblical faithfulness, sanctification, gospel tenderness seem muddled and gray to me, so far. To shed more light, what I think would be helpful is a few short statements from both Doug and Joel reflecting on these questions; “What should the penalty be in the modern age for any Christian who buys a man?” and “What should the penalty be in the modern age for any Christian who buys a man who they have no plausible deniability of knowing had been a stolen man?” It’s not a rhetorical question; I don’t know the answer that well myself, so hearing the both of you expound would be very illuminating. I’m sending this letter to both Doug and Joel, in hopes of hearing more. God bless you both and thanks.
Judd
Judd, leaving aside the quirky exceptions (e.g. a man buying a man in order to set him free), I have no problem with a maximum penalty of death for slave trading. “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death” (Ex. 21:16).
Re: “A Set of Brief Responses to Joel McDurmon” It’s really unfortunate the drift that is happening with Joel and American Vision on libertarianism generally, and theonomy specifically. American Vision was probably the organization that introduced me to postmillennialism and theonomy. I will forever be grateful to them for teaching me the richness of these theologies. And then I found you and CrossPolitic and Apologia Studios. Maybe one day you and he will be able to grace each other’s presence in a private meeting to hash out your differences scripturally and honestly, and then maybe a public “family meeting” hosted by CrossPolitic or Apologia Studios.
Trey
Trey, thanks. That would be wonderful.
It certainly seems bad that Joel still completely argues like those who call for social justice for the crimes of their ancestors. One way he shows it is when he says something about how most of our laws are racist in origin. Law doesn’t see race unless it specifically says it does (same as in the Bible). So you might have a law against interracial marriages (bad law), but laws against drugs aren’t about race, they’re about a crime and a sin that destroys people and society regardless of race. Just because there is a disproportionate amount of one race or another being convicted of those crimes only shows us that there is a cultural problem that those individuals have that needs to be dealt with by Christian application of biblical principles. Is he saying that we shouldn’t have laws against murder, because there is a higher proportion of one race convicted of that? I will always be amazed about how biblical theonomy can lead someone to be part of the libertarian left.
Lance
Lance, thanks.
Regarding your back-and-forth with Joel McDurmon and slavery, I have a follow-up question. I understand your argument flowing from some “angular” texts in the Bible. I have not seen McDurmon, and many others, deal with those as you have (excepting Thabiti’s exchange with you). Granting Paul’s admonitions to both slaves and masters, it seems as though both could be members of the same church, enjoying Christian fellowship with one another. Given that situation, what would be the biblical impetus for a Christian master to release his slave unto freedom? What sort of exhortation (from the Bible) would a pastor give a slave-holding Christian that he should free his slaves? Second, is there any distinction to be made on the basis of ante-bellum slavery versus the basis of Greco-Roman slavery? Antebellum slavery was race-based, and (if my historical memory serves me correct, which it may not) it seems Greco-Roman slavery was based on something other than race (class, economic debt, etc.). Is there anything in the basis for enslavement that makes one more/less evil than the other? You may have written on this elsewhere; feel free to point me there. Your writing on this topic in general has been eye-opening and caused me to think long and hard about the connections to our current sexual insanity. Many blessings.
Kyle
Kyle, in persuading Christian masters to work for the manumission of their slaves, I would center my argument in the book of Philemon. The basis for American slavery was worse in its racist premises, but Greco/Roman slavery was worse in its arbitrary and capricious treatment of slaves, and in the actual treatment slaves had to put up with.
Race, Grace, and the Crimes of Nineveh: I assume you’ll have seen/read his direct response to you at American Vision by now. Absolutely beyond me that he could think he’s refuting your argument by citing standards for individual sanctification. This gets even more audacious with reference to Luther and “a life of repentance” (MrDurmon’s own admission that even Mohler maintains our inability to “repent for the dead” provides a particularly damning backdrop on this point). It’s not that I’m surprised at this stuff in general; I’m a little surprised he thinks it’s a rebuttal on your terms. Who is he insisting be sanctified in light of “the complicity of [their] heritage”? Who must live a life of repentance for sins they did not commit? “Of course all of this is nonsense,” he says. Of course. As far as sticking the refutation, swing-and-a-miss. As far as putting his finger right on real nonsense, however, he’s knocked it out of the park.
Gabriel
Gabriel, thanks.
Part of the problem there is that they have made microcaring one of their favorite forms of microaggression.
Iain
Iain, right.
Why would a wordsmith use “blackness” to describe someone’s decrepit soul in an essay attempting to paint themselves as racially fair-minded? Me thinks his hand has been exposed before his bluff could be delivered :(
William
William, it wasn’t by accident. The central battle in all of this is a battle over the dictionary, and I am not about to cede control of the dictionary to those who can be offended by anything. And as far as the history of this kind of usage is concerned, let’s take white for an example. God promises to make our sins as “white as snow” (Is. 1:18), and was He racist? He also made Miriam white with leprosy as a judgment, as white as snow (Num. 12:10), and should this offend white people? Is God comparing us to a disease?
Commenting on “Race, grace, and crimes of Nineveh” and “In which Al Mohler . . .” Thanks, these two articles are very clarifying and encouraging to me. As one who works in an African context where the racial tension lines aren’t a binary black and white thing but a complex Shelob web of 72 tribes multiplied by centuries of war and the normal tribalism schtick . . . the only thing I’ve seen that has the power to cut that web in two is someone who deeply understands the gospel. It’s one who has freely received forgiveness and thus free enough to freely forgive. Simply recognizing the past wrongs and then pronouncing forgiveness. I’ve seen plenty of examples of this. Otherwise, another form of racism will keep popping up. Wormwood’s racism hydra will always be sprouting another head or two if one allows the woke warriors to ignorantly swing away. Only the free gospel can kill the beast. Blessings to you and your family.
Adam
Adam, thank you, and a thousand amens.
RE: “Race, Grace, and the Crimes of Nineveh” This entire situation and the feelings and pain involved have provided an incredible relief for the preaching of the true gospel. To say that there would be bad blood from some race-motivated crimes of the past is the understatement of several centuries, so I can imagine a limited number of groups of people in history that would have the same pretext for grievance as African slaves and their descendants. To erase this tension and bitterness between the generically stated “aggrieved” and “perpetrator” parties would be an accomplishment of cosmic proportions—it’s just that dark. In steps Christ, His decision from eternity past to unite us into eternity future forevermore, not as debased slaves and aggrandizing torture-loving masters, but as brothers and sisters. Our present dilemma is not a dilemma really, it’s actually one more sovereignly orchestrated devastating backdrop that makes the light which shines out of darkness so stupefyingly wondrous. So I praise God, Pastor Doug, that He is giving you this awesome opportunity to declare His glorious gospel in the face of being shamed and maligned even by who we recognize as some of our greatest evangelical brothers and sisters. I’m praying with you that scales would fall off of eyes, and no matter how greatly each individual has been sinned against, that they would see the miracle that God can change the heart of even us Ninevites.
Patrick
Patrick, thank you, and thanks for the prayers.
For what it’s worth, this was sofa-incendiary-hotter, or at least as hot, as anything published in November. Thank you for not mincing words.
Bernard
Bernard, thanks.
This is deflecting. “who have been treating one another wickedly for a long time”—that’s colloquially saying my sin is just as bad. Ergo admitting and downplaying your sins.
Jonathan
Jonathan, it is not deflecting at all. It is preaching the gospel. Paul teaches us in Romans 1 how bad the Gentiles were. Then in Romans 2, he shows us how bad the Jews were. And then in Romans 3, he piles them up in the same box together. This is not blame shifting. It is gospel preaching. Why do we shut black and white up under sin together? “But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Galatians 3:22, ESV)
I just want to thank you for your response to Al Mohler. You have hit the nail on the head like no one else I know of. It gave me goosebumps as I read. I hope your piece gets a wide readership.
Richard
Richard, thanks.
Re: “In which Al Mohler” Thanks, Pastor Wilson. You won’t be treated well for this little piece of text, but millions of Evangelical souls are counting on somebody willing to write it, even if they don’t know it.
Joey
Joey, thanks.
This Sista_theology tweets “Reparations is a basic biblical concept and the gospel itself is a reparation. This is Christianity 101.” Begs the question . . . in the reparation, who is making amends and to whom? I think it’s much harder to see the horror of works righteousness in the tweet because of the acceptance of blame by Al Mohler. I still remember my father telling me his experience studying under the great A.T. Robertson at Southern. He graduated in ’34 the year A.T. died. Not only not a racial perp (he emigrated from Scotland in ’30), but one who rode in the back of the bus in Memphis for solidarity in the late thirties. Pastor Doug, thank you again. For cutting through the fog, and especially for the teachings.
Paul
Paul, thank you. And an article on real reparations is likely coming up.
RE: “Killing the fattest snake.” This is the kind of piece I love most when you write. My brother and I say things like “home run for Wilson today.” Thank you. I think you would find Jonathan Leeman’s piece at Mere Orthodoxy today very apropos, about what happens when the Christian life of discipleship gets separated from the local church experience. It’s ironic how much it describes both the way in which evangelical distortions like the current “race” fixation get traction, and what I suspect is the situation with many of those who read your blog in the absence of such robust scriptural teaching in their own local churches.
Michelle
Michelle, thanks very much.
Real Presence
I’m not addressing here a specific post. I just wanted to say thank you for sharing your posts with me! I’m a classically homeschooled high schooler who really appreciates your writing. I’ve been heavily influenced by your childrens’ books, and I particularly like your works God Is, Writers to Read, and Wordsmithy (which I, as a writer myself, own and have read numerous times). While I disagree with you on some points, I’m very thankful for your clear voice of reason. So again, thank you! I do have one question, though: what do you believe about the true presence in the Lord’s Supper? It’s not completely clear from your posts, and that’s something I love talking about. Grace and peace,
Maya
Maya, the shortest way to answer your question is by saying that I am a sacramental Calvinist. I don’t believe in the local presence of Christ’s body in the bread and wine, but I do believe in the real presence. For a detailed treatment, you can see Keith Mathison’s book Given for You.
Husbandly Authority
In “Take Me Instead” you once again claimed that husbands have authority over their wives . . . “Scripture plainly teaches that the husband is the head of his wife. This headship brings true authority with it, but it is an authority of a particular kind.” . . . but you once again did not define the word “authority.” Webster’s defines “authority” as “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience,” but you teach the exact opposite of that. In your “21 Theses on Submission” you stated that “The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives,” which means that a husband does not possess “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience,” which means he does not have “authority.” So, if you don’t mean what the dictionary means by “authority,” what exactly do you mean by “authority?” And, why not use a word that actually means what you mean by “authority” and avoid the confusion?
Oscar
Oscar, you are mistaken because you don’t know what I meant by “enforce” in my 21 Theses. What I mean by authority is something like this. A man receives a job offer in another state, which he thinks he should take. His wife differs. After extended discussion, they still don’t agree. At that point, as the deadline approaches, he makes the decision, and the whole family moves. That’s authority. It remains authority even if I deny him the right to lock her in the trunk and take her there by force.
Christology Questions
Been so blessed by your writing. I had a question about this statement: “He did all that He did because the Holy Spirit empowered Him to do so. He did what He did throughout the course of His ministry as a Spirit-empowered man.” I had a lengthy back and forth with some Christians some time ago regarding this truth. They were maintaining this very truth— and thus claimed that we should be able to do “greater works than these” works that Jesus did. Or at least in par. You know, healing people, having special knowledge, raising the dead . . . Because I don’t believe we should expect the same miracle working power as a norm in our own lives, I have always considered Jesus miracles proof of his deity. Isn’t that what John says—the things are written that we may know that Jesus is the Christ? Love to hear your thoughts.
Allan
Allan, no. My take is this. To say that some men (who were not God incarnate) could be empowered to do the sorts of things Jesus did (like Moses, Elijah, Peter, et al.) is not the same thing as saying that any given Christian should be able to do them. These things are a sign that someone is a messenger from God. “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds” (2 Cor. 12:12). In this case, the identity of the messenger should be determined by the content of His message.
Regarding “Christmas with Both Feet on the Ground”—Can you run this by some trusted friends? There are enough bogus complaints held against you, and I’d rather not see a justified one added to them. If “Jesus did not do the great miracles that He did, and He did not know what He miraculously knew, because He was ‘God inside’” then nothing he did or taught shows his divinity. But the glory manifested at Cana was not merely that of a Spirit-empowered man. His messianic authority over demons, sickness, and the sea was not grounded only in his anointing with the Spirit. He knew people’s thoughts, and healed at a distance not simply as a human endued. We (as some teach today) would need to be pursuing the same power, since his example would show what human nature is capable of by the Holy Spirit. We should literally be doing even greater signs! The Bible gives glimpses, but no full accounting of the psychological import for Christ of his two natures. His human development, his messianic consciousness, and the interplay of the finite and infinity in him remain largely an enigma to us. Did he really act as messiah only by faith in the word of his mother, of Scripture, and of demons (or in the internal witness of the Spirit) that he was “Immanuel,” the Holy One of God? Was an experience of that reality never in his consciousness? When he spoke of heavenly things, was it only as revealed to him by the Spirit, and not from knowledge as the one come down from heaven? (Again, no, no, and no.)
John
John, the difficulty is that all the miracles of Jesus are miracles that are matched in some way elsewhere in Scripture by other prophets sent by God. The signs confirm the message from all of them, but the thing that distinguishes them is the content of their respective messages. Peter walked on water, Elijah raised the dead, and Moses transformed the nature of matter. But Moses said, “A greater prophet than I is coming,” while Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life,” and “I am the resurrection.”
“That is a thorny problem, and a very practical one. In the hierarchy of duties and responsibilities, should parents prefer keeping their children safe, or properly color-coded?”
This is not a thorny problem at all. To insist, or even suggest, that parents put their children in unnecessary danger in order to have a particular (arbitrary) quota of diversity in their lives is simply immoral. In fact, I would say that those of us who reject the god of racial egalitarianism have a responsibility to educate those within our sphere of influence who may be considering such a foolish move.
I would suggest that there is more Biblical evidence that placing your trust in safety and security in man, and especially in the color of the men who happen to live around you, is a far greater moral danger than any overblown suggestions that the scary Black men are going to get your kids. It’s probably much more likely statistically that your children will have a life-disrupting crime committed against them by a relative they know and trust than by a Black stranger. I have many, many friends who have purposely chosen to relocate to communities different from their own,… Read more »
“I would suggest that there is more Biblical evidence that placing your trust in safety and security in man, and especially in the color of the men who happen to live around you, is a far greater moral danger than any overblown suggestions that the scary Black men are going to get your kids.” I’m talking about physical danger, not moral danger. If someone chooses to live in a black neighborhood for motivations that override concerns for physical safety, that’s their business. But for most people, the safety of their children is one of the most important factors when deciding… Read more »
Armin, “So if you had a an all-white community of 1,000, and you add just 150 average blacks to that community, the homicide rate more than doubles.” This is too simple by half. Not all blacks are to be treated equally in the crimes stats. The homicide problem in black communities is driven not by blacks as a whole, but by poor, black, urban males without a high school diploma between the ages of 15-29. The stats you are leaning on to slander blackness are determined by looking at dense black urban areas, which fails to distinguish the other factors… Read more »
BJ, “The homicide problem in black communities is driven not by blacks as a whole, but by poor, black, urban males without a high school diploma between the ages of 15-29.” You said correlation does not equal causation, yet you treat being poor, urban, and uneducated as a cause of black crime. But what if this is merely correlative? Or what if it’s actually crime that causes poverty, contributes to urban blight, and makes obtaining an education difficult? “The stats you are leaning on to slander blackness are determined by looking at dense black urban areas, which fails to distinguish… Read more »
As many in discussions like this often do, you are falsely correlating income with economic situation. Because of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, the median White family inherits around $150,000 while the median Black family inherits almost nothing. Black families on average have more costs across the board than White families at similar income levels – they rent rather than own their property, they need to pay higher medical costs to get the same standard of care, on average they have higher food costs to access the same amount of nutrition, and they often have to pay for… Read more »
And, as BJ notes, your claim that adding 150 Black people to a White community of 1,000 would double the homicide rate is just ridiculous. Black people stuck in a redlined inner-city neighborhood with failing schools, discriminatory police presence, prevalent gangs and prevalent drugs do NOT have the same homicide rate as 150 Black people in a random suburban or rural White community somewhere.
Armin, Demanding a dozen citations is missing my point. You and I likely agree with what the stats say, but I am disputing what you imply they mean. Let’s take them point by point. Of the crime committed by blacks, the vast majority of it is committed by a very narrow demographic of blacks, not blacks as a whole. This is indisputable. So, when 150 blacks move into your neighborhood, you need more information than their skin color to determine if that is a problem. The stats that indicate a high murder rate among blacks (which are factually accurate, I… Read more »
Of the crime committed by blacks, the vast majority of it is committed by a very narrow demographic of blacks, not blacks as a whole. This is indisputable. So, when 150 blacks move into your neighborhood, you need more information than their skin color to determine if that is a problem. To claim that you need more information about “them” is missing the point, as the very community that they are in dramatically changes the equation completely as well, which you are ignoring. And you also continue to ignore that those murder rates are not murders against White people or… Read more »
Jonathan,
You quoted me, but you are arguing against Armin. You seem to have gotten your posts twisted up.
Sorry about that, that was my mistake.
Jonathan, no biggie. Simple mistake.
BJ, “Demanding a dozen citations is missing my point.” I didn’t demand a dozen citations, or anything close to that. I mentioned three specific assertions you made and simply pointed out that they needed some kind of support. Otherwise, how can I know you’re not just regurgitating talking points handed down from the media? Also, if my facts are wrong, I actually want to know. “So, when 150 blacks move into your neighborhood, you need more information than their skin color to determine if that is a problem.” That’s why I said 150 *average* blacks. In the future I’ll make… Read more »
I am not regurgitating talking points. I hate the media, and they hate people like me and my kin. I am simply basing my thinking on my personal experiences and some cursory readings on the topic. I could certainly be wrong. You are talking to a fairly simple guy from the rural parts. The trouble I have is that talking about the average of any race or any factor that is outside of my volitional control is that it ceases to see people as individuals. This falls under the fallacy of stereotyping. I feel this personally, because it happens to… Read more »
Besides all the other problems here, like assuming that all Black communities in America are a monolith, you’re falsely assuming that national black homicide rates directly correlate to the risk to random White people in the neighborhood. The vast majority of victims of those murders are people who suffer the same systemic issues. The victims of Black homicide are almost always other Black people. To turn your correlation of Black homicide rates into a direct “risk” for White people moving into the neighborhood is ridiculous. Until you produce statistics for the actual risk to people who relocate into the neighborhood,… Read more »
Jonathan, “Black families on average have more costs across the board than White families at similar income levels – they rent rather than own their property, they need to pay higher medical costs to get the same standard of care, on average they have higher food costs to access the same amount of nutrition, and they often have to pay for private school or private tutors just to get the same education often available in majority-White public schools.” Citation needed. “The a Black family earning $100,000/year lives in a similar neighborhood to the a White family earning $30,000/year.” Citation needed.… Read more »
citation needed https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ Granting for the sake of argument that those 150 blacks would only harm each other, would you really be fine with a 100% increase in the risk of homicide in the community as long as the victims were only other blacks? I wouldn’t want to live in a neighborhood where that was happening You’ve already made pretty clear that you’re not interested in living around Black people. But you’re still assuming something ridiculous – the idea that 150 Black people moving to your community would increase the murder rate by 100% is obviously false, as I already… Read more »
You cite an article in The Atlantic entitled “The Case for Reparations?” Are you kidding me?
I think this is about as far as this conversation can go. I came here to discuss this important matter like an adult, and it’s obvious you’re not capable of that. Furthermore, I think you have real difficulty with basic statistical concepts, and I don’t feel it’s my responsibility to educate you about them.
Yep. Horrible article by a poor excuse for a race hustler. Coates was raised by a Black Panther (who made his living publishing radical tracts). His wonderful dad fathered 7 children with different 4 women. But instead of fighting against the awful culture he was brought up in, Coates blames “white supremacy” calling for reparations/handouts at every turn.
I wouldn’t bother responding to trolls who make a mockery of God’s design for the family and turn to critical race theory, victimization and other garbage for solutions.
Similarly to what I said to Armin, if you have to resort to ad-hominem attacks about someone else’s father, rather than being able to respond to a single point in the article in question, it shows not only your lack of standing on the issue. It also shows that you perfectly well know it. The article makes a large number of factual assertions about our recent history and current reality. Either they are true or not. That is what we were discussing. If the factual assertions are false, show that. If you can’t, then sure, keep making ad hominem attacks… Read more »
It’s not an ad hominem to point out that Coates’ dad was a black supremacist who fathered kids from four women. This is quite relevant when Coates doesn’t blame his poor upbringing on dad, but instead says nonsense like ““To be black in the Baltimore of my youth was to be naked before the elements of the world. The nakedness is not an error, nor the import of deviant culture. The nakedness is the correct and intended result of policy.” Yeah, blame whitey and his policy, not broken families, fatherless homes and all of the sinfulness that’s accompanied that. Never… Read more »
As Coates has been objectively successful in life by American standards, I can’t even tell what you want him to “blame” on his dad. His dad was a former Black Panther (before Coates was even born) and a philanderer, he also was a military veteran, small business owner and book publisher who raised Coates in his home and sent all of his children to college. You’re just pulling random aspects of his dad’s biography and pretending that allows you to completely ignore anything Coates writes even if it has absolutely NOTHING to do with his father or his own childhood… Read more »
Actually, I just realized there’s a far more direct analogy. At the same time that Coates’s father was involved with the Black Panthers, Wilson’s father was sending his children to Whites-only schools. So if Coates’s father can be labeled a “Black Supremacist” simply for being involved with the Black Panthers, obviously Wilson’s father can be labeled a “White Supremacist” for being actively involved in segregation, right? And that gives us the right to dismiss anything Pastor Wilson ever says, because he’s always blaming his poisonous racial statements on Black people and White liberals, and never giving proper credit to his… Read more »
Jonathan wrote:
Citation needed. What is the basis for this claim? I had just the opposite understanding, that Wilson’s father had refused to give in to the racial segregation that was culturally accepted, and that Doug Wilson was enrolled in racially mixed schools.
If Jonathan has this backwards, will he apologize to Wilson for such a “poisonous racial statement”?
First off, that’s not how the logic of my statement worked at all Katecho. I made quite clear that I don’t think the actions of Pastor Wilson’s father should reflect on him other than when he is participating in or specifically defending those actions. So whether Pastor Wilson’s father sent him to the White schools or not is not relevant to Pastor Wilson’s moral standing on race issues – his statements are still poisonous either way. (they do have a slight relevance to Pastor Wilson’s personal experience in the matter, of course). Anyway, on the question of accuracy, I remembered… Read more »
“Notably, the family’s decisions to move from the South to Idaho was not long after integration began.”
Super cheap shot. It’s been explained multiple times what Jim Wilson’s motivation for moving his family to Idaho was. If you’re just going to call them a pack of liars, then I repeat my question: what’s the purpose of being a “loyal opposition” commenter here, when you don’t bother to do it at Stormfront? You seem to regard them about equally, if not in intensity of their positions, at least in integrity.
I didn’t call anyone a liar. It is definitely notable that Pastor Wilson’s family spent very little time in the slowly integrating South. I don’t at all doubt that the main reason they left was to pursue a particular publishing opportunity, though with that timing it’s obviously possible that leaving during integration could have also been a factor, conscious or subconscious. Do you deny that White Flight of integrating communities was a massive phenomenon during that time? Do you believe that every family engaging in White Flight consciously declares, “We were leaving because of the integration of our schools and… Read more »
Jonathan, your analogy is very strained. Mohler observably does not “apply the gospel to white sins;” his essay does not say “these historic wrongs were wicked, but their perpetrators are now either forgiven by Christ’s blood or suffering the torments of the damned. Let’s move on.” That is what the gospel does to injustice – it says Go and sin no more, and then drops it. The idea of nebulous debts owed by an entire people-group to a different people-group because of crimes hundreds of years ago is nothing like the gospel, and to dress it up in gospel-light language… Read more »
Mohler observably does not “apply the gospel to white sins;” …. The idea of nebulous debts owed by an entire people-group to a different people-group because of crimes hundreds of years ago is nothing like the gospel, and to dress it up in gospel-light language is a perversion. This is all a matter of logic. Moreover, Mohler is a public figure making public theological comments – it invites scrutiny and debate. You’re conveniently leaving out the rest, where Pastor Wilson writes “And you know why? Because that would result in those sins being, first, forgiven, and secondly, forgotten. Can’t have… Read more »
I disputed the obvious and intended implication of your statement, that what the Wilsons have said their patriarch’s motivation for moving to Idaho was of questionable veracity, and you respond with, “Do you deny that…” general question about mass behavior that wasn’t in dispute.
Okay, I know what level this conversation is happening at now. Why do I keep trying with you and believing that you are actually interested in engaging with other people’s actual words?
Why do I keep trying with you and believing that you are actually interested in engaging with other people’s actual words? I hope that at some point you can recognize the incredible irony of this statement. One remarkable facet of this conversation is how y’all keep suggesting that my arguments much come from some illegitimate place, yet you are repeatedly incapable of dealing with the actual arguments. If my arguments really are false, then it should be EASY to counter my “actual words”. Instead, y’all bounce from one logical fallacy to another, incapable of hitting a single argument head on,… Read more »
Jonathan owes Wilson (and his father) an apology. From With a Bit of Menthol, Wilson wrote: I grew up in a segregated city, one that had one school system for blacks and one for whites. The 1964 Civil Rights case came down when I was eleven years old. I went to the white elementary school, and to the old black high school as a middle school after integration. A number of white families bailed as part of the “white flight” toward private education. My father refused to have anything to do that, a stand for which our family has always… Read more »
You just provided a second citation that backs up the exact thing I originally claimed, and you claim I owe someone an apology…why again? What claim did I ever make which you believe your citation disputes?
And I’m still interested in why you are providing citations here, but refused to provide citations for the four separate times in which you lied about my past statements in our other recent conversations on this board.
Also from More on Race, Wilson wrote: I grew up in a segregated town in the South, and when the Supreme Court struck down the separate but equal nonsense, I attended school in a racially charged situation, and my sister was one of one or two other white children in her entire elementary school. This was because we refused to participate in the “white flight” to private education. There are many good arguments for private education, but racism is not one of them. It is a point of honor that our household had nothing to do with such racism when… Read more »
Did you check the timing within those statements before posting them? The Supreme Court struck down separate but equal in the 1954 case Brown vs. Board of Education, when Pastor Wilson was only 1 year old. According to Pastor Wilson’s own words in the other statement you quoted, his father continued sending his kids to the “school for White kids” for at least another decade AFTER the Supreme Court had ruled such unconstitutional. According to Pastor Wilson’s own words, they needed not just the ruling of the Supreme Court but also an additional law forcing the South to accept the… Read more »
Not to mention that your statements introduce another interesting point. Pastor Wilson has made many arguments for why all Christian parents are duty-bound to pull their children out of public schools. But apparently blatant racism and oppression in the public schools isn’t one of them?
Jane, Jonathan’s statement about Doug’s family’s decision about where they chose to live doesn’t even rise to the level of cheap shot. It’s misleading at best, and a lie by omission at worst. According to “A Few Milestones”, the family moved from Annapolis to Ann Arbor, Michigan. They didn’t move to Idaho until after Doug graduated high school. Jonathan also claimed that Doug’s family “spent very little time” in the South. Again, this is very misleading, as Doug’s family resided in Maryland for around eleven years. If they spent “very little time” anywhere, it was the upper Midwest. You’d think… Read more »
You’re right that they left the integrating South even earlier than I thought, I had totally misread that part. As that obviously helps my point I’m grateful you made it for me. Now it’s clear that the family left the South only 1-2 years after integration started. Jonathan also claimed that Doug’s family “spent very little time” in the South. Again, this is very misleading, as Doug’s family resided in Maryland for around eleven years. You’re misquoting me, which I’ll assume is unintentional if you apologize. I said that they spent very little time in the INTEGRATING South. They did… Read more »
They left the “integrating south” much earlier than you thought for the non-segregated north in the late 60s/early 70s (not sure exactly when Doug graduated from high school), well after large numbers of blacks had made their way in the same direction. If their goal was to get away from blacks that was a terrible move. Jonathan is just getting worse and worse here.
my sister was one of one or two other white children in her entire elementary school. If their goal was to get away from blacks that was a terrible move. Hmmm….you do realize that the first quoted statement makes your claim quite unlikely, don’t you? It’s getting worse for anyone dealing with anything I’ve actually said. You’re still incapable of dealing with Armin’s original arguments, my responses to them, the article I posted, Armin and JP’s ridiculous reasons for refusing to read the article and the slander they posted towards myself, Coates, and Coates’s father in order to justify that… Read more »
Armin’s original arguments don’t need to be dealt with because Armin is a fool.
Jonathan proclaimed, matter-of-factly: Now it’s clear that the family left the South only 1-2 years after integration started. Wrong. Integration started in 1954 with the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Doug’s family moved from Annapolis in 1968, fourteen years after integration started. Unless you’re privy to the details of a) exactly how integration was implemented at Doug’s particular schools — beyond his statement that “As I grew up, so did the integration battles” — , and b) the reasons for Doug’s family to move from Annapolis to Ann Arbor, then your point, whatever it is, isn’t helped — your… Read more »
Wrong. Integration started in 1954 with the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Doug’s family moved from Annapolis in 1968, fourteen years after integration started. Unless you’re privy to the details of a) exactly how integration was implemented at Doug’s particular schools — beyond his statement that “As I grew up, so did the integration battles” — , and b) the reasons for Doug’s family to move from Annapolis to Ann Arbor, then your point, whatever it is, isn’t helped — your smarmy, self-righteous attitude notwithstanding. I guess the reason that Katecho typically refuses to provide citations is because he… Read more »
Sure, as soon as you publicly apologize to Doug and his family for implying they were a bunch of racists for moving from Annapolis.
I am quite certain, FP, that that formulation you just made does not find support anywhere in Jesus’s teachings. I am also not going to apologize for repeating facts. No one seems to care about the false claims that have been made about my statements of fact, nor the slander that JP Stewart began this diversion with, or even with the original discussion of injustice that is FAR more important than anything we’re saying here. You appear solely concerned with the fact that I pointed out that JP Stewart’s false logic could be used against other people too. Apparently hoping… Read more »
Jonathan opined:
I am quite certain, Jonathan, that this statement of yours is pure nonsense. Your weak attempt at a Jesus juke is amusing, though.
Then neither will I.
But you didn’t state facts. You claimed that Annapolis was integrated for 14 years before Pastor Wilson’s family left, and suggested I didn’t have the facts as to how the particular schools he went to were integrated. In fact Annapolis wasn’t integrated until the United States Department of Justice took them to court to force them to integrate in 1966, just two years before Pastor Wilson’s family left, and I had the exact details of which elementary school and middle school Pastor Wilson went to and when they did (or didn’t) integrate. You also misquoted me when you claimed that… Read more »
Jonathan bleated:
Nope, never claimed Annapolis was integrated for 14 years. Go back and read the thread.
So now are you going to try to suggest that you misinterpreted me, and that when I referred to them leaving only 1-2 years after their city began integrating, you thought I was actually referring to the start point of integration in other completely different communities that they weren’t living in? So you were just adding in the fact that other parts of the South were integrating for over a decade as a fun historical fact, while just happening to ignore that Annapolis’s schools remained resolutely segregated for over a decade after Brown vs. Board of Education? Of course, if… Read more »
Jonathan chortled:
Your original claim, and I quote, was:
Uh-oh. Looks like you’re misrepresenting yourself here. You said “integrating South”. Generally speaking, the South refers to the region below the Mason-Dixon line, not any single city.
I hereby demand that you publicly apologize to yourself at once!
It’s obvious that you’re not concerned with honest discourse here, but since I was contrasting the “integrating South” with the “segregated South”, it was clear that I was not treating the South as a monolith. I wish I hadn’t confused you so you wouldn’t have wasted all this time on a meaningless side-point when you still have the main point left unaddressed.
Jonathan crowed: I wish I hadn’t confused you so you wouldn’t have wasted all this time on a meaningless side-point when you still have the main point left unaddressed. This coming from the guy whose whole silly “analogy” was a meaningless side-point. But at the end of the day, I can understand Jonathan’s confusion; after all, if I read Doug’s clear and emphatic statement that his father refused to have anything to do with “white flight”, I would totally be compelled to spin crazy, racialist conspiracy theories as to why a family would move from Takoma Park to Annapolis, then… Read more »
This coming from the guy whose whole silly “analogy” was a meaningless side-point. Actually no, it wasn’t a side point, the guy I was talking to demanded a citation and then made an objection to refuse to read it (or continue the conversation). The point was crucial to the conversation to continue at all. But at the end of the day, I can understand Jonathan’s confusion; after all, if I read Doug’s clear and emphatic statement that his father refused to have anything to do with “white flight” The facts are the facts. You have frequently shown that you’re not… Read more »
Jonathan originally asserted that: “Wilson’s father was sending his children to Whites-only schools … obviously Wilson’s father can be labeled a “White Supremacist” for being actively involved in segregation, right? … never giving proper credit to his father’s own actions of willingly participating in a White Supremacist movement, right? At this point it’s clear there is no gutter Jonathan will refuse to wallow in if he thinks he can rhetorically malign the Wilsons, however, it is manifestly not the case that the Wilsons were “willingly participating” in segregation. Segregation was mandatory. As Jonathan concedes: … apparently integration of the schools… Read more »
Note that you have still not said a single word rebuking JP Stewart’s slander of calling Coates’s father a “Black Supremacist”, yet you rebuke me for supposedly “implying” far less. Hypocrisy continues to abound. At this point it’s clear there is no gutter Jonathan will refuse to wallow in if he thinks he can rhetorically malign the Wilsons You are in this moment acting as a dishonest conversation partner. You just deleted parts of the sentence to make it look like I had called Pastor Wilson a White Supremacist when I had done NO such thing. And you did it… Read more »
however, it is manifestly not the case that the Wilsons were “willingly participating” in segregation. Segregation was mandatory. Absolutely false. Now, from the beginning you could have just accepted the analogy and rebuked JP Stewart for his slander and his refusal to deal with the topic at hand. But instead you had to attack and slander me, which forced me to go to the facts, and this is going to start looking worse for whatever you’re trying to defend. Here is the exact timeline. 1954: Brown vs. Board of Education, school segregation is ruled unconstitutional. 1955: Maryland allows each county… Read more »
Jonathan claimed: They [the Wilsons] had the choice to move from an integrating community to an illegally segregated one. They [the Wilsons] chose to send their kids to the segregated “schools for white kids” rather than to the “schools for black kids”… … Maybe you say that they didn’t have a choice… but Pastor Wilson states that they DID have a choice to avoid integration, he says that his father chose not to do it…so why didn’t his father choose to avoid segregation? Why did he choose to move to a segregated community when he had already been living in… Read more »
You’ve lost the train of the argument completely. This entire line of the discussion had nothing to do with me disagreeing with Wilson. It was about whether JP Stewart can completely dismiss someone solely because of what community their father chose to belong to. I explicitly said, several times, that one CANNOT dismiss Pastor Wilson’s arguments based on his father’s actions. I’m not even arguing against Pastor Wilson at all in this line of argument, I’m arguing against JP Stewart’s refusal to engage the argument by falsely claiming that he can dismiss someone due to what their father did. Your… Read more »
You’ve lost the train of the argument completely. Nope. JP called Coates’ father a black supremacist (so what?), you got all huffy and self-righteous, then came up with your own fallacious “analogy” in a sanctimonious attempt to a) prove JP wrong, and b) take a gratuitous swipe at Doug and his family. Coates’ father may not have been a black supremacist, but he was something far worse: a Communist. Racial supremacism (in either the black or white variety) doesn’t hold a candle to a murderous ideology whose body count numbers in the nine figures. And it Coates’ case, the apple… Read more »
And additional ad hominem attacks aren’t making it look like you have a case.
Jonathan ad-hominemed:
Who cares what you think? In case you’ve forgotten, I’m not the one who made a cottage industry on this thread of spinning conspiracy theories around Doug’s family’s movements in the ’50s and ’60s.
A conspiracy theory requires both a conspiracy and a theory, neither which were spun here.
From your post I can’t tell if you know what a cottage industry is either.
You on the spectrum, Jonathan?
As for your silly trivialities, who cares? You are a classic example of straining at gnats while swallowing camels.
Thanks as always fp, for showing exactly who you are so no one is confused.
Ironically, even while attempting to furiously deny it, Jonathan has completely descended and is now fully engaged in the very same form of argument against the Wilson family that he rebuked JP Steward for using against Coates. Contrary to the evidence, Jonathan is out-and-out accusing Doug Wilson (and the Wilsons) of “willful” and “active” support of racial segregation because of the actions of Doug’s father. Jonathan’s hypocrisy seems to know no bounds.
Ironically, even while attempting to furiously deny it, Jonathan has completely descended and is now fully engaged in the very same form of argument against the Wilson family that he rebuked JP Steward for using against Coates. That’s so obviously false it’s laughable, as JP Stewart’s whole argument is that he doesn’t even have to read or engage with Coates’s essay due to what his father did, while my entire presence here is built around reading and engaging with Pastor Wilson. Contrary to the evidence, Jonathan is out-and-out accusing Doug Wilson (and the Wilsons) of “willful” and “active” support of… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: The had the choice to move from an integrating community to an illegally segregated one. They chose to send their kids to the segregated “schools for white kids” rather than to the “schools for black kids” or an integrated private school or home school or an integrated school in another community. They chose to stay in those segregated schools for nearly a decade, and then chose to leave just one year after integration happened. As was noted, segregation was ILLEGAL while this was going on … At this rate, Jonathan is going to have to apologize to JP… Read more »
At this rate, Jonathan is going to have to apologize to JP Stewart as well, since Jonathan has fully engulfed himself in the same form of argument that he rebuked JP Stewart for using against Coates. Ironic, isn’t it? I can only assume that you didn’t even understand the initial disagreement. JP Stewart refused to read Coates’s essay due to what his father did, attributed some degree of his father’s sins to Coates, and then slandered his father by calling him a “Black Supremacist” without any direct evidence. I have never refused to read Wilson, I have never attributed Doug… Read more »
Jonathan owes Wilson (and his father) an apology. From With a Bit of Menthol, Wilson wrote: I grew up in a segregated city, one that had one school system for blacks and one for whites. The 1964 Civil Rights case came down when I was eleven years old. I went to the white elementary school, and to the old black high school as a middle school after integration. A number of white families bailed as part of the “white flight” toward private education. My father refused to have anything to do that, a stand for which our family has always… Read more »
What statement am I apologizing for? You just backed up my claim.
Also from More on Race, Wilson wrote: I grew up in a segregated town in the South, and when the Supreme Court struck down the separate but equal nonsense, I attended school in a racially charged situation, and my sister was one of one or two other white children in her entire elementary school. This was because we refused to participate in the “white flight” to private education. There are many good arguments for private education, but racism is not one of them. It is a point of honor that our household had nothing to do with such racism when… Read more »
Again, also very much in line with what I said. Thank you.
It’s amazing he goes to such lengths and tangents to malign someone yet constantly accuses others of personal attacks and red herrings.
The ironic statements abound! This entire direction of the conversation started because YOU called Coates’s father a “Black Supremacist”, even though Coates’s father wasn’t even a part of this conversation in any way and you have continued to refuse to substantiate the claim. And then you made a random, unwarrented claim that I am a troll “who make a mockery of God’s design for the family”, without the slightest justification.
Jonathan owes Wilson (and his father) an apology. From With a Bit of Menthol, Wilson wrote: I grew up in a segregated city, one that had one school system for blacks and one for whites. The 1964 Civil Rights case came down when I was eleven years old. I went to the white elementary school, and to the old black high school as a middle school after integration. A number of white families bailed as part of the “white flight” toward private education. My father refused to have anything to do that, a stand for which our family has always… Read more »
What statement do you think I should apologize for? That quote proves me correct.
Also from More on Race, Wilson wrote: I grew up in a segregated town in the South, and when the Supreme Court struck down the separate but equal nonsense, I attended school in a racially charged situation, and my sister was one of one or two other white children in her entire elementary school. This was because we refused to participate in the “white flight” to private education. There are many good arguments for private education, but racism is not one of them. It is a point of honor that our household had nothing to do with such racism when… Read more »
Again, you proved me correct.
No, that’s moronic. In many parts of the country (including where I grew up), private schools (some Christian, some not) were simply much better than public schools academically. By the time I was in school, none of them were “whites only,” though detractors like yourself use that term. That’s like saying a black father who sends his family to a black-only church is the equivalent to a white father who goes to KKK meetings. Of course, you view race is completely skewed by “power relationships” that allow double-standards to happily exist–so I’m sure you’ll deny that as well.
It wasn’t “my term”, Pastor Wilson literally said that he attended “the elementary school for the white kids” before the schools were integrated, though of course long after segregation was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. And why is it ridiculous to compare participation with the Black Panthers to participation in racist Southern Segregation, but not ridiculous to compare the Black Panthers to the KKK? What stated principle or regular practice of Black Panther membership was worst that participating in enforced white supremacy as practiced by the segregated South? What stated principle or regular practice of Black Panther membership was… Read more »
Jonathan owes Wilson (and his father) an apology. From With a Bit of Menthol, Wilson wrote: I grew up in a segregated city, one that had one school system for blacks and one for whites. The 1964 Civil Rights case came down when I was eleven years old. I went to the white elementary school, and to the old black high school as a middle school after integration. A number of white families bailed as part of the “white flight” toward private education. My father refused to have anything to do that, a stand for which our family has always… Read more »
I’m confused as to why you felt the need to post this 4-5 times, especially since it supports the exact claim I made.
Also from More on Race, Wilson wrote: I grew up in a segregated town in the South, and when the Supreme Court struck down the separate but equal nonsense, I attended school in a racially charged situation, and my sister was one of one or two other white children in her entire elementary school. This was because we refused to participate in the “white flight” to private education. There are many good arguments for private education, but racism is not one of them. It is a point of honor that our household had nothing to do with such racism when… Read more »
Thank you for the citations proving my case, I’ve been able to make use of them well in the other arguments.
When you have made even holding the opposite position an automatic reason to dismiss the argument, it makes it perfectly obvious that you’re both not interested in a real discussion and that you don’t even believe you could hold your own.
Jonathan wrote: And you’re making it sound like a murder epidemic. Your example is beyond silly … as I pointed out before, that one murder would likely be due to a gang, drug, or domestic issue that would not directly effect anyone who was not doing one of those things. You are fear-mongering the possibility of ONE additional murder every 50 years, and that’s going by your false assumption that 150 Black people moving into an all-White community would commit murders at the exact same rate as is occurring in the far more oppressed communities they come from. Ironically, if… Read more »
You have lied about my past statements four times already this month, and every time I challenge you to prove your claim, you refuse. I have never made the sort of fearmongering claim that Armin is making there. In fact, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that I OWN guns, and that I think it is fine to own guns, I just don’t believe they make you safer. Gun ownership in the home has been repeatedly linked to higher incidences of suicide, homicide, and gun accidents in the home, and so those who insist that others need to keep… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Gun ownership in the home has been repeatedly linked to higher incidences of suicide, homicide, and gun accidents in the home, and so those who insist that others need to keep guns in their home in order to protect the safety of their family are promoting a false directive. As I was saying, if you replace “Gun ownership” with “Black people”, and “home” with “neighborhood”, Jonathan is using (and has used) the same reasoning in which he is here rebuking Armin. Jonathan has used statistics to fear-monger about firearms in precisely the way Armin has used statistics in… Read more »
Katecho: You said: “In summary, I don’t see a dime’s worth of difference between Armin’s statistical reasoning about the danger of the average Black in the neighborhood, and Jonathan’s statistical reasoning about the danger of the average firearm in the home. I reject both of their reasoning, for the record” Was my math off? I’d genuinely like to know so I don’t use that number going forward. I can show you how I calculated the 100% increase in homicide risk based on a ~14% increase in the black population if you want. But one way or another, I don’t see… Read more »
Armin wrote: I would be very interested to know what they were, and frankly, there would probably be many social justice advocates and policy makers who’d like to see them as well. What Christian wouldn’t want to know how to reduce black crime? I look forward to seeing your data on this. Unfortunately, the social justice advocates are not at all interested to know or see what the primary contributing factor is, because that factor is largely the result of their own meddling. That contributing factor is fatherlessness. Doug Wilson wrote: But in the meantime, if a black teenage girl… Read more »
Katecho, Your claim that my use of statistics was akin to “throwing a grenade” is unfair. I discussed the black to white homicide ratio at decent length with Jonathan, and even explained to him what he could do to invalidate my use of that statistic (he didn’t take me up on that offer). I understand that people often use statistics clumsily, in bad faith, to make a point, and that’s certainly dishonest. But I think it’s equally dishonest to write off any use of statistics just because people sometimes use them dishonestly. “This particular situation is exactly what we would… Read more »
Was my math off? I’d genuinely like to know so I don’t use that number going forward. I can show you how I calculated the 100% increase in homicide risk based on a ~14% increase in the black population if you want. Your logic was incredibly off, as homicide is the product of a great many factors which you are ignoring, and you can’t just move people from one neighborhood to another and claim that they have the exact same likelihood of being a victim (or perpetrator) of homicide. But beyond that, the part of the math you are refusing… Read more »
Jonathan, “…. even by your math, the incidence of homicide would only increase by about 0.02 homicides a year for the community of 1000 people ….” While I agree that the quality of Armin’s argument is questionable, it would appear that his math ability is far superior to yours. Let’s suppose the rate of homicides for whites is 1/1000/year and for blacks is 8/1000/year (8% greater). For 1000 whites, that is 1 homicide per year. For (850 whites + 150 blacks) it is (850 X 0.001 = 0.85) + (150 X 0.008 = 1.2) = 2.05 homicides per year, or,… Read more »
So Armin’s math works if you make up totally false murder rates? This is incredible. Not only are you showing yourself far more willing to defend the racist argument, you are doing so by literally making things up. The actual homicide rate for Black Americans is not 8/1000 (where do you get that????), it is closer to 1 in 10,000. You missed by a factor of 80. So EVEN if 150 Black people who get to move into a White community would still experience murder rates at the exact same rate as then did when living in a depressed, crime-ridden… Read more »
Jonathan, “So Armin’s math works if you make up totally false murder rates? This is incredible. Not only are you showing yourself far more willing to defend the racist argument, you are doing so by literally making things up.” It is absolutely incredible that you claim I made a “false attack”. You replied to Armin’s comment where he provided the murder rates I used in my arithmetic, and you made no statement at that time about them being totally inaccurate. For that matter, did you say that anywhere in these comments before now?). Now you have the gall to argue… Read more »
It is absolutely incredible that you claim I made a “false attack”. You replied to Armin’s comment where he provided the murder rates I used in my arithmetic, and you made no statement at that time about them being totally inaccurate. For that matter, did you say that anywhere in these comments before now?). Now you have the gall to argue that Armin’s math is wrong because it uses the wrong rates? His math is correct. You, however, failed to provide the murder rates that you used in your math until this comment. I think you need to take a… Read more »
Jonathan, Yes, I see that I got “confused between an 8:1 ratio and an 8/1000 to 1/1000 rate”. As far as I know, your math abilities are adequate. Please accept my apology. I also apologize that my confusion resulted in great time and effort on your part to counter my error. According to African-American Homicide Rate …., in 2015, the black (non-hispanic) rate nationwide (not just dense urban areas) was 20.9 per 100,000 (approximately 2 in 10,000) and the rate for whites (non-Hispanic) was 2.6/100,000, which is slightly greater than an 8:1 ratio. So, a more accurate calculation shows that,… Read more »
Thank you and I absolutely accept it. Please just remember that the issue isn’t really that you were wrong about me getting the math wrong, but the general things you said about my personal ability, attitude, and character. I’ve noticed that those generalizations when made on these boards are almost always inaccurate and never helpful. There was another instance on this board where Pastor Wilson and our two most prolific commenters really did get the math wrong, and failed to admit it, and as a result I said some things that I really shouldn’t have said. I ended up having… Read more »
Jonathan,
As I already said, I understand your general arguments. In this comment, I even generally agree on this point. However, I will point out that if the one additional murder victim was someone you cared about greatly, I strongly doubt you would consider the “actual direct impact” to be “almost zero”.
As I already said, I understand your general arguments. In this comment, I even generally agree on this point. However, I will point out that if the one additional murder victim was someone you cared about greatly, I strongly doubt you would consider the “actual direct impact” to be “almost zero”. Thank you. I want to point out though that the “1 additional murder victim” almost certainly wouldn’t even exist, as the assumption was that context was completely irrelevant to murder rates, which is almost certainly false, and the life situations of Black people who would be able to move… Read more »
Jonathan, ” And if the community actively embraced the 150 new residents, I would think it very unlikely that that dramatically higher murder rate would have any chance of coming to fruition anyway, and thus even that single murder over 50 years would be quite unlikely to happen.” While the conclusion seems logical (if “actively embracing”, whatever that means [and I don’t desire an explanation], is as wonderful as some seem to think), I consider the premise doubtful. However, I would have much more hope on hearing this: And if the entire community was genuinely Christian and the 150 new… Read more »
I not only agree with your premise, I am surprised that you see it as substantially different than mine. I would think there would likely be a lot of overlap in those two narratives.
Jonathan,
The substantial difference is that I specifically stated it depends on being Christian, not “the community actively embracing”. You may think the two are synonymous, but the latter is unlikely, if not impossible, without the first. I see this not
as overlap, but one is a subset of the other. Your phrasing leaves Christ out and opens the door to a myriad of other interpretations.
I’m not really frightened of those alternative interpretations being a real problem on this board.
Jonathan wrote: Your insult of my math ability was totally unwarrented, as not only did I not make any math errors, but it appears that you have completely misunderstood the math involved by trying to equate an 8:1 ratio with made-up 8/1000 to 1/1000 rates. I disapprove of Armin’s (and Jonathan’s) use of statistical averages without controlling for other factors, but OKRickety is entirely correct to point out Jonathan’s factual mathematical error. Jonathan wrote: Armin claimed an 8:1 ratio, he never claimed an 8/1000 rate, that would be ridiculous. To illustrate the 8:1 ratio, OKRickety could have used a homicide… Read more »
You just doubled down on an error that OKRickety has gracefully apologized for, solely to try to hurt me.
I hope this demonstrates something to you.
There are at least four factual errors in your comment, but I’m not sure what fruit there would be in continuing. OKRickety has shown that he is willing to acknowledge when he makes a mistake. If you can’t as well, then we have nowhere left to go.
As I was saying, if you replace “Gun ownership” with “Black people”, and “home” with “neighborhood”, Jonathan is using (and has used) the same reasoning in which he is here rebuking Armin. Jonathan has used statistics to fear-monger about firearms in precisely the way Armin has used statistics in regard to Blacks. Absolutely false. I have NOT said people should be afraid of firearms, I have repeatedly pointed out that I own them myself and am not against anyone legally owning firearms. Owning firearms is statistically more dangerous for your family than not owning firearms, but I do NOT believe… Read more »
I’m under the impression that a major issue leading to the Civil War was the balance of power between the Slave States and the Free States. Slave States wanted new states coming into the union to be slave states, while free states wanted more free states, because both sides were concerned with their power balance. In fact, this was a question from the beginning of the United States – how do we balance the power between large states and small, between rural and urban, between the North and the South? The differing constituencies of the Senate and the House, the… Read more »
I will ask the same questions Doug asked earlier: Until when? What would “equal opportunity” look like? What would end our responsibility for reparation? Who decides these things?
If you can’t answer those questions, all you have is a demand, not a plan.
Until when? When do you believe the apostles stopped involving Hellenists in the distribution to the widows? When do you think the church stopped telling Jews and Gentiles that they needed to accept each other in the body? Until Jesus desires that we stop loving our neighbor. And it is us who get to decide when we stop obedience, and accept the consequences of disobedience, of course. Your question doesn’t strike me as a legitimate argument against obedience in any situation ever.
Not quite an answer to the question I was asking. What should churches look like to satisfy, not God, who has clearly stated his intention of all nations and languages worshipping around His throne, but you? Do we need busing to achieve racial integration in our churches? A quota system that would make sure every church had 12.3% black, 6.7% Hispanic and 1.3% Asian membership and leadership? (note that those figures are entirely made-up.) A statistical analysis of musical style or theology to make sure we welcome people from various cultures? Do we need to tax historically white churches to… Read more »
I don’t know why churches would look to satisfy me. But I, personally, think that the example of the gospel is that we love our neighbor, and that doesn’t stop at some “satisfied” point. So long as the artifacts of racial bias and hatred are part of the burdens that our neighbors carry, then addressing racial issues will be a part of loving our neighbor. If racial issues cease to be a meaningful burden in our society and communities, then they will probably become a less significant part of loving our neighbor except in special circumstances. If we’re talking purely… Read more »
As a cause leading to the civil war, balance of power was at best an indirect contributing issue in the background, at worst, an excuse. The presenting issue was rejection of the Presidential election results of 1860; the reason for rejecting the results was that an anti-slavery (though not abolitionist) candidate won. It was not primarily about balance of power, but about protecting the wealth invested in slavery, no matter what secession apologists try to tell you. To the extent that balance of power *was* an issue, the fact that contributed toward a civil war hardly recommends obsessing with it… Read more »
“To the extent black Americans insist upon maintaining a distinct separate identity as a political block (or in any other way) they play into the hands of white ethno-nationalists.”
So are you saying blacks should just give up any sense of racial pride or ethnic solidarity? Should they no longer see themselves as a distinct culture and people with a distinct set of interests? I’m not sure how that’s playing into the hands of white nationalists. To not do so just seems self-destructive to me.
Armin,
Do you see the church as being able to provide the type of identity and group solidarity with a distinct culture and a distinct set of interests? Do you see that as possible with a multi-ethnic make up?
I do. Our identity as Christians should absolutely trump our ethnic identity. But those ethnic identities don’t just go away once we’re saved. In fact, it doesn’t appear they’ll be gone even when we’re in heaven. I don’t expect a black Christian to stop seeing his race as unique, beautiful, etc. I don’t believe that diversity is a strength in secular society; it appears that greater diversity is positively correlated with increased crime and reduced social cohesion. But in the kingdom of heaven, diversity IS a strength. I think the different ethnic groups in the kingdom of God will each… Read more »
Armin, Great! We have much common ground, then. No, our ethnic identities do not go away, and I openly resist the idea that our multi-ethnic faith means we must have some type of quota for our civil society. The church and the nation-state have different purposes and the relationship between the purposes of the institutions and the ethnic make up of those institutions means we treat them differently. I am happy to expound this more if you would like. My concern is that we begin to see our racial identities trump our brotherhood in Christ. That is a real problem,… Read more »
“So are you saying blacks should just give up any sense of racial pride….”
Yes. So should everyone else.
“..or ethnic solidarity”.
Considering the shallowness of such a basis for solidarity, yes.
“I’m not sure how that’s playing into the hands of white nationalists.”
It is seeing themselves the same way white nationalists see them; as a fundamentally and significantly “different” people who should be segregated from the mainstream of American society.
But why do you assume that their feelings of being “different,” of not quite being compatible with mainstream American society, are unfounded? What if they told you that a lot of the norms of white Western civilization felt foreign to them? (Notice how they vote nearly unanimously against Constitutional principles like limited government.) Would you just scoff and say, “Get over it, this is America. Learn to be American or get out”?
I assume their feelings of being different, and your feelings about them being inherently different, are feelings, not rational assessment. I would tell them they have been conditioned to think a certain way. I would tell them that it was not entirely their own doing that they have been, because it it understandable having often and long been treated as different, and that to their disadvantage, they come to feel different. However, I would also tell them they nonetheless bear some responsibility for what they choose to believe, that there is no reason to concede to someone else’s irrational notions… Read more »
I used the power dynamics of the Civil War because that is an issue directly cited by our host here and many of his supporters. If it doesn’t work for you, then you can use the obvious example of the American Revolution instead (both the imbalance between the colonists and England and the feared imbalances between the states). Or, of course, you can use Acts 6. Just waving your hands at it doesn’t make it go away. The Helleneists were being systematically discriminated against, and the reaction by the apostles was to place more Hellenists in positions of authority so… Read more »
What is the textual basis for thinking Acts 6 was solved by redistributing power along ethnic lines? I don’t recall ethnicity being among the qualifications for the office.
All seven have Greek names (Stephen, Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas). It was possible at the time for Hebraic parents to sometimes give their children Greek names, but the decision to explicitly name all of the seven and the fact that they are all Greek names is taken by most commentators I have read to signify that the men were all from the Hellenist community. From R.C. Sproul: “The Jewish converts who were in charge of passing out food to the needy and to widows were all from Hebraic synagogues. They were not familiar with the Hellenistic synagogues.… Read more »
Jonathan, “power imbalance” is simply not the language of scripture. It is a modern concept popular among progressives.
Of course, none of the five points of Calvinism are the language of Scripture either, nor are many phrases popular here like “victimhood” or the “threat of liberalism”. Many things can be derived from Scriptural concepts without being in explicit Scriptural language. It is repeatedly made clear in the Gospels that uneven power dynamics lead to bad things. From the Jubilee instructions insisting that land and debts are repeatedly re-equalized, to God not wanting to appoint a king in the first place, to the pleas of the proverbist to make him neither rich nor poor and the observation that the… Read more »
However, “power dynamics” is not derived from scripture, but is something you read into scripture, including the examples you cite. It starts with worldview you have adopted, then you baptize your bias, so naturally everything is interpreted as addressing power imbalance. I suppose obsession with “uneven power dynamics” is rooted in Marxism. I don’t know, but it sounds like it. It certainly isn’t rooted in the Bible. Scripture addresses how we should treat one another, and gives particular attention to how the powerful should deal with the vulnerable, the strong with the weak, the rich with the poor, etc., but… Read more »
I’m a Christian, not a Marxist, and my moral positions are deeply rooted in Christianity.
I gave numerous texts that pertain to the issue in question, you seem to be ignoring them.
“I gave numerous texts that pertain to the issue in question..” No, you did not. You gave texts, but not ones that pertain the way you like to think they do. In fact, I referenced the fact that you cited examples, and I rejected your interpretation. You don’t get that, do you? Apparently you can only conceive of the possibilities of people agreeing with you, or of them ignoring you. It doesn’t seem to occur to you that anyone might read your numerous texts, and statistics, and other references and simply not find your conclusions plausible or convincing. Repeating them,… Read more »
I’m at a loss to understand why you think it’s helpful to spend so many words and comments claiming that my interpretation is wrong, but still haven’t been able to produce a single word even trying to show why.
In fact, this is the exact thing you did in our conversation one week ago. It’s frankly perplexing.
I’m at a loss to understand why you think your so many words are helpful. You simply have not made a case for anything. You assert a thing to be so, and seem to assume you are making a case by a piling on a multitude of references. Your interpretation has no chance of being right because it is anachronistic, but I have already pointed that out in other words.
The issue with your claim is that I really did make a case. It might be a bad case, but you need to actually demonstrate why. Meanwhile, the person who “asserts a thing to be so”, without even explaining why, is you. You don’t show in any sense how any of my references or interpretation of them is anachronistic. This is the exact thing you did in the property discussion. You just asserted that I was wrong, and stopped. You even repeated the false claim that I hadn’t based my argument in Scripture when I had quoted numerous relevant scriptures… Read more »
This pattern is more than obvious. Jonathan borrows heavily from critical race theory, cultural Marxism, #metoo or some other progressive idea du jour. When challenged, he gets defensive and says “I’m apolitical…I just get my ideas from the Bible.” They just somehow line up perfectly with HuffPo and the Daily Beast.
It looks a lot like “Step 4” from this article (yes, TGC still has a good article every now and then):
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/jen-hatmaker-power-deconversion-stories/
Again, more unproven attacks showing your inability to deal with any of the actual arguments. I don’t read HuffPo, the Daily Beast, or any Marxist writers, nor have I derived ideas from them. (I especially love being accused of borrowing ideas from #metoo when I’ve been posting on sexual abuse topics here long before #metoo was even a thing.) When we’ve had these arguments over months I have consistently cited Biblical texts, commentators, and Church fathers far more often than anyone else. Amusing to see Church Fathers keep borrowing from Marx, isn’t it? You can’t deal with those, so you… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: You may not like it, but the effects of racism, sexual abuse, and the dynamic between the rich and the poor are actual things that Christians are called by God to address. If Bible-based arguments keep going against your community’s firmly held positions on those topics, then it might be time for some introspection. Sure, God’s Word addresses all of these things, but it doesn’t call all of them crimes, and it doesn’t commit the resolution of all of them to the State. For example, wealth is not a criminal matter, and is not even a categorical sin.… Read more »
Sure, God’s Word addresses all of these things, but it doesn’t call all of them crimes, and it doesn’t commit the resolution of all of them to the State. Very confused as to why you make this statement – none of us are talking about “crimes” or what the “State” should do, we are talking about the Church’s responsibility. That makes your entire comment irrelevant to the discussion. And any “regulars” would know that the pivot to “statist solutions” is your calling card, not mine. Every time you find yourself unable to engage with my argument, you then pull the… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Very confused as to why you make this statement – none of us are talking about “crimes” or what the “State” should do, we are talking about the Church’s responsibility. That makes your entire comment irrelevant to the discussion. Apparently Jonathan has already forgotten that, in this very same comment section, he linked us to an article from The Atlantic entitled “The Case for Reparations”. This article is filled to the brim with talk about crimes and what the State should do. Maybe Jonathan should read it, and then begin to grasp why others would see him to… Read more »
He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty. Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.”… Read more »
Jonathan, If you’re going to quote Scripture, please provide the references directly with them (this general lack of citation seems to be typical of you). As you presumably are aware, it is very easy to misunderstand Scripture when taken out of context, and the references will make it much easier for others to make sense of the quotations. “And again, all of Leviticus 25 and the description of the Jubilee laws, along with much of Jesus’s instructions to the rich, go in the same direction.” As far as the Jubilee laws, you need to read that much more carefully. Most… Read more »
f you’re going to quote Scripture, please provide the references directly with them (this general lack of citation seems to be typical of you). We’re all adults here, I generally assume that anyone who really cares about my Scriptural will also be familiar enough with Scripture to be able to know where they come from. But even if they do not, we’re all on the internet and it takes less than 5 seconds to use copy-paste to immediately find the direct source of any Scripture quote I make. And the claim that this is “typical” of me is unwarrented –… Read more »
Jonathan, “We’re all adults here,….”. Although it’s disguised, that seems like an attack, either directly at me or indirectly at the general readership. Rather than simply admitting to failure here to provide citation (as you also did in your original quotation of Coates), you become defensive and claim it is not typical and then you double down with the idea that the reader should be responsible to find it. Since you presumably did a “copy-paste” of the Scriptures, why is it unreasonable to think you should also “copy-paste” the reference? “… you are unable to deal with a single idea… Read more »
To be honest, I only read and responded to your first paragraph. It was the last in a long line of responses I had made, and I don’t even remember at this point if I had failed to see the “read more” tag, or saw it and just forgot to keep going. But I hadn’t read those additional arguments of yours until just now. As far as the Jubilee laws, you need to read that much more carefully. Most specifically (and the author of the Atlantic article is likely guilty of this same misunderstanding when he quotes Deuteronomy 15: 12–15),… Read more »
To the extent black Americans insist upon maintaining a distinct separate identity as a political block (or in any other way) they play into the hands of white ethno-nationalists. To the extent that White Americans have insisted on forcing Black people into segregated communities, schools, and social spheres, of course they’re going to have a separate identity. Black Americans didn’t decide to segregate themselves off into the most disadvantageous neighborhoods and school system. That was the direct result of White segregation and White flight, which was participated in by the vast majority of White Americans. Unless you’re willing to integrate… Read more »
See my answer to Armin, above. “Unless you’re willing to integrate into their communities, schools, and social spheres yourself…” Now taken that far, this is a good point to make to white progressive Christians (generally, not talking about you personally) who lament the dearth of non-white people in their churches. They always wonder what they can do to attract black people to *their* congregations, they self-flagellate over Sunday morning segregation, or lambaste their fellow white Christians. If they really are so worried about it, what stops them from attending, and maybe joining, an existing black majority congregation? Why do they… Read more »
I’ve lived in Black communities before. One obvious barrier for my neighbors attending a White church is that they simply didn’t even exist within a reasonable distance, White flight has led to such distinct economic segregation that a LOT of non-White Americans live a meaningful distance from the nearest predominantly-White community. And to this day is is quite difficult for many people to move into a White community – both for financial reasons as well as the social issues that they know they will face. A second barrier is that there’s often no social connection. Again due to White flight,… Read more »
“Black Americans didn’t decide to segregate themselves off into the most disadvantageous neighborhoods and school system.” Jonathan
Jonathan, it appears that you are stuck in a narrative that has long since passed. If you have been reading about college problems, blacks are now insisting on segregation in housing and other college activities. It seems that blacks are the ones rolling back decades of civil rights work not to mention decades of affirmative action quotas.
Just a thought for the social warriors reading this blog.
While I disagree with racially segregated dorms (as do the large majority of Black college students – racially segregated dorms are relatively rare), to equate a desire by a teenager to spend at least part of their day in a space where they’re not in the extreme minority on campus to a situation where someone’s entire life is segregated is obviously ridiculous. There are direct longitudinal studies that have been running since the 1940s which look at residential preferences as directly expressed by interview subjects, and through the entire period it has been clear that White people’s preferences have been… Read more »
“I have a hard time believing that anyone who wants to claim that White Flight isn’t real or that Black people chose themselves to self-segregate into urban blight is taking the conversation seriously.” Jonathan When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, But he who restrains his lips is wise. Proverbs 10:19 Perhaps Jonathan, you should take a breath of fresh air instead of regurgitating a zillion stats. Your arguments don’t hold water no matter how many direct longitudinal studies you quote. Life isn’t as difficult as you make it out to be. The ground is level at the foot… Read more »
A breath of air sounds good…even for a tireless SJW. I have to wonder how many sites and blogs some of these SJWs post on daily…and how they get anything else done. I’ve only written a few replies and I’m ready to ban myself from “triggering” posts like this for a while.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBdnyrzq96s&t=131s
https://www.facebook.com/MattWalshBlog/videos/1379504598749313/
Outside of my own facebook account, I post on this board and one other. I’m not ashamed of time I spend actually defending Biblical concepts. I’d be much more ashamed if I was wasting time simply attacking other people and getting into arguments without even being able to speak into the concepts at all. In a sense that’s even warned against in Scripture. I would love for you to end the personal attacks and actually engage in a defense of your faith and the concepts you believe your faith implores you to. Look at the last two conversations we have… Read more »
Jonathan, pointing out that your stats and your points are off target isn’t a personal attack. Look at your own posts and observe the demanding manner in which you post. Perhaps none of us get anything positive from them. During Vietnam, McNamara and his whiz kids produced huge mountains of stats in an attempt to fight an asymmetrical war. In his book, McNamara stated that he knew that statistical analysis of some problems wouldn’t work and that they would kill Americans but he implemented them anyway. Your posts are similar in nature in that you pile on huge amounts of… Read more »
I’m absolutely confused as to what you’re responding to. None of the comments you’ve replied to have a “zillion stats”, and no one has been claiming that the existence of stats is the problem. In fact, the first person to start bringing in stats was Armin. I replying with exactly 2 other stats, but the rest of the conversation just revolved around the 1 stat that Armin introduced. But that’s a completely different part of the conversation and doesn’t seem to relate to what you’re talking about here. What comment are you objecting to where you think I piled on… Read more »
Jonathan,
“I would love for you to end the personal attacks and actually engage in a defense of your faith and the concepts you believe your faith implores you to. “
If I had a quarter for every time you have complained about “personal attacks” against you, I’d be much richer. Please consider the possibility that these “attacks”, as you call them, are in opposition to your ideas, not you. In other words, you perceive them as “personal” because they are the ideas you hold near and dear, so they feel personal to you.
If I had a quarter for every time you have complained about “personal attacks” against you Pretty much the height of cynicism to repeatedly make personal attacks against someone, then complain when they note it. Even in this very comment you are unable to deal with a single idea I’ve presented, you just attack me. Please consider the possibility that these “attacks”, as you call them, are in opposition to your ideas, not you. If they dealt with the ideas, and not me, that would be wonderful. I wouldn’t bother responding to trolls who make a mockery of God’s design… Read more »
“Again, I have not taken anything from Marxism, or ‘cultural Marxism’ (whatever that is), or HuffPo or the Daily Beast.” Regardless of what you read or don’t read, almost everything you say here could be published on those sites with no editing. You clearly use concepts and language from critical race theory and other Leftist nonsense. And you have no interest talking about rampant sins in our culture that would distance you from your Left Coast neighbors. Also, your constant 12-paragraph, multi-quote defenses of your anonymous online persona reek of insecurity, neediness and approval-seeking. I’d seriously suggest spending less time… Read more »
Guilt by presumed association isn’t a valid argument.
And I already proved your claim about “abomination” sins false on multiple levels, which you apparently ignored and still haven’t apologized for.
The additional ad hominems aren’t helpful either.
“Even in this very comment you are unable to deal with a single idea I’ve presented, you just attack me.” Stop and think about that for a moment! By what I presume to be your definition, I would suppose that your statement is a personal attack against me. After all, you say I am “unable to deal with a single idea” you presented. You don’t know that, so, in essence, you are attacking my intelligence and ability to argue. In fact, I had absolutely no intention of dealing with your ideas, so your supposition was grossly mistaken. Put another way,… Read more »
Stop and think about that for a moment! By what I presume to be your definition, I would suppose that your statement is a personal attack against me. After all, you say I am “unable to deal with a single idea” you presented. You don’t know that, so, in essence, you are attacking my intelligence and ability to argue. In fact, I had absolutely no intention of dealing with your ideas, so your supposition was grossly mistaken. Put another way, you lied. You of course cut out that the statement started with “In this comment” you were unable to deal… Read more »
Jonathan, ‘You of course cut out that the statement started with “In this comment” you were unable to deal with a single argument I presented. ‘Then you happily admit that truth, and yet claim I lied.’ The intent of my original comment to you was simply to suggest that you take a different approach in the comments. I think it might be helpful in getting others to consider your ideas thoughtfully. Instead, you consider it an attack on you. So be it. If you are unwilling to listen and change, that’s your prerogative. These comments are not a formal debate.… Read more »
Okay, so my error was that I said, “In this comment you are unable to deal with a single idea I’ve presented” when by your admission the correct formulation would have been “In this comment you had absolutely no intention of dealing with a single idea I’ve presented.”
While using “unable” rather than “refuse to” is a common formulation in that situation, I agree that it is not strictly accurate, and I apologize for that. I will work to use “refuse to” or “fail to” rather than “unable to” in similar situations going forward.
JohnM wrote: The presenting issue was rejection of the Presidential election results of 1860; the reason for rejecting the results was that an anti-slavery (though not abolitionist) candidate won. It was not primarily about balance of power, but about protecting the wealth invested in slavery, no matter what secession apologists try to tell you. I generally agree with JohnM’s critiques of Jonathan’s anachronisms regarding Acts 6, but I want to add an important clarification. While the “presenting issue” was, without question, slavery, no serious etiology can stop there. Slavery really was a football in an ongoing war for political and… Read more »
Jonathan, The problem I have with this is that you are trying to move the diagnosis of the problem away from the personal to avoid having to assess the poor decision making at the root of much of this economic disparity. I deal with this type of excuse making all the time in my poor white family and my suburban church. “Its not possible for us rednecks to make it. The rich man is holding us down.” Blah, blah. Meanwhile, they have three car loans whose payments are worth 50% of their paychecks, spend $60 a week on beer and… Read more »
The attempt to move every from the communal to the personal is an Enlightenment-era value found nowhere in Scripture or Biblical theology. God addresses the communal repeatedly, from Moses to the Prophets to Jesus to the apostles. There are many issues that have both communal and personal roots. We shouldn’t ignore either one. In answer to your challenge, I’ve met NUMEROUS private persons whose ability to rise above poverty was massively hampered by forces beyond their own control. Were they perfect in all things? Of course not. But none of our, to demand that someone be perfect in all thing… Read more »
Jonathan, maybe you’re thinking of cases I’m forgetting, but as far as I can recall, when the Bible talks about corporate responsibility for oppression and such, the object of the discourse is always the personal responsibility of the individuals who make up the corporate rich. It’s never, as far as I can remember, in any way a means of shifting the responsibility away from the personal actions of the individual poor. The rich are egregiously sinning in harming but poor, and are condemned for it, but the duty of the poor to live out every word that proceeds from the… Read more »
And if I’m correct about that, you’re correct that the scriptural approach is not pure individualism, but there is no corporatism in any sense that allows any sinner to point at any other sinner as the cause or mitigation of his own sins, whatever they be.
Jane wrote: And if I’m correct about that, you’re correct that the scriptural approach is not pure individualism, but there is no corporatism in any sense that allows any sinner to point at any other sinner as the cause or mitigation of his own sins, whatever they be. I don’t think the pivotal disagreement is over the balance between corporate vs individual application. I think the root of the disagreement is whether the “corporate” application can refer to anything other than the State, and its policies. Jonathan seems to view the State as the great corporate equalizer, but it’s an… Read more »
No, that’s strictly false, we’re talking about the Church’s responsibility here. But you do try to make this pivot quite often.
Jonathan wrote: No, that’s strictly false, we’re talking about the Church’s responsibility here. But you do try to make this pivot quite often. Unfortunately for him, Jonathan has a significant history on this blog, and that history has been one of directly or indirectly agitating for civic policy (“social justice”). Even in this very comment section Jonathan linked us to an article entitled “The Case for Reparations”, for heaven’s sake. As I said, Jonathan may not be prepared to proudly wear the social-justice shoes in this forum, but it’s beyond silly for Jonathan to protest so much when people notice… Read more »
I linked to the article because someone asked me to provide a citation for a statistic and the article had the statistic in it. To omit that and pretend I did it for some other reason is blatantly deceptive. The fact that that’s the best example you can come up with for me being a “statist” is telling.
Jonathan, “The attempt to move every from the communal to the personal is an Enlightenment-era value found nowhere in Scripture or Biblical theology. ” This is both stupid and not what I did. The Bible never takes away moral responsibility from an individual, because they have been treated unjustly. That is what I fear you are doing. If you take away their moral responsibility by pointing to bad things others have done, you are doing tremendous damage to the individual. People who are convinced that they are dis-empowered to change their circumstances or are at the mercy of others moral… Read more »
The Bible never takes away moral responsibility from an individual, because they have been treated unjustly. That is what I fear you are doing. I at no point attempted to take moral responsibility away from anyone, so it’s nice that we don’t have to deal with that. In fact, I seem to be the only one in the conversation stating that we all have moral responsibility in this issue. Everyone else appears to be coming up with everything and the kitchen sink to absolve themselves of all moral responsibility whatsoever, while insisting that only “other people” (mostly Black people and… Read more »
When you blame poor outcomes on other people, you are taking away moral responsibility from people. When you blame those poor outcomes and the responsibility to fix those poor outcomes on other people, you have doubled your folly. The trouble I have with how you have framed this is the same trouble I have with Armin. You see stereotypes of black and white, not individuals. I don’t deny collective and group realities, but by moving the discussion to “average” skin colors, you will always miss the solution. I preach to urban black people, rural white people, snooty suburbanites, and everything… Read more »
To tell someone that their actions have an impact on other people in no way absolves those other people of responsibility. If you can’t admit that your actions and the circumstances tehy create have an impact on other people and the decisions they make, then you’re denying human reality. “Two things I ask of you; deny them not to me before I die: Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full and deny you and say, “Who is the Lord?” or… Read more »
I think that the author of this blog is not so absurdly oblivious as you give him credit for. I have always assumed that he considered it his mission to teach his Reformed, Christian, mostly middle class, mostly white readership that the way to help “urban black people in poverty” is not to encourage those who preach about how the problems of people in that situation *are* someone else’s responsibility to the exclusion of their own. If you don’t think there’s an audience that needs to hear that message, then so be it. But I wonder why you frequent this… Read more »
Jane hits the ball clear out of the park! It’s a home run folks!
I like to repeatedly expose myself to the arguments of people who disagree with me, even if I think they are wrong. Also, I was born in Moscow (well, in the hospital across the border in Pullman, but we lived in Moscow).
“In fact, I seem to be the only one in the conversation stating that we all have moral responsibility…” Yet you never seem to bring up a sin that God actually calls an abomination, and have little interest condemning a man who impregnated 4 different women. Everything you condemn here would have your Left Coast neighbors nodding furiously in agreement. “Yes, those evil, conservative, heterosexual Christians are ruining the country!” It would help if you could step away from your martyr complex and self-congratulatory talk on here. But everything is a “personal attack” and you appear to be hypersensitive towards… Read more »
It would help if you could step away from your martyr complex and self-congratulatory talk on here. But everything is a “personal attack” and you appear to be hypersensitive towards any criticism. If you wanted to engage in anything OTHER than personal attacks, that would be awesome. Literally the only contributions you have had in this entire discussion were either personal attacks towards me or towards Coates and his father, and then you get upset with me for responding to your personal attacks? I would love to focus on the topic of conversation, and not have to talk about personal… Read more »
am sorry to say that I didn’t read the whole post about Clyde Ross. I simply didn’t have time. But read enough and I will acknowledge that his case is likely very egregious, and very sinful, and very unjust. But it also happened in the early 1900’s. Life today is much different. If you had read the whole post, you would have realized that Clyde Ross is still alive today, that his experience was not the least bit unusual for Black people of his generation but was in fact the norm both in the South and in Chicago (and other… Read more »
I will try to find time to read the whole post.
Jonathan,
A “public” anecdote is still anecdote, and thus no more significant.
I believe you are an educator and would have thought you would have chosen to provide the source of your voluminous quotation. I wish you would realize that a greater number of words does not equate to greater veracity.
Note: I have no idea what copyright law says, but quoting 4,754 words (per Word) is my idea of excessive. Just link to the article and quote only especially notable text.
A “public” anecdote is still anecdote, and thus no more significant. I was explicitly challenged to produce an anecdote, I do so, and you respond by demeaning the significance of anecdotes. Of course, before the anecdote I had already provided statistics in support of my position as well as descriptions of the general historical progression, but those were ignored an an anecdote was demanded, so I provided it. I believe you are an educator and would have thought you would have chosen to provide the source of your voluminous quotation. I’ve posted more than long enough on this board to… Read more »
I also want to note, as pertains to my earlier complaint, that not ONE thing you said engaged with the actual facts of the story. And the story included numerous notable facts, not just one man’s anecdote. I would LOVE to see engagement with the actual situation that has been going on for Black people in this country. Look at the 100 or so comments that have been made here, and note how many of them demonstrate ANY level of compassion for Black people or any actual reckoning with the situation they’ve been in. It’s a small minority. Attacking me… Read more »
When claiming that every step you took was “available to Blacks”, I am very glad you mentioned specifically the military paying for things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_and_the_G.I._Bill African American veterans benefited less than others from the G.I. Bill. The G.I. Bill aimed to help American World War II veterans adjust to civilian life by providing them with benefits including low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans and financial support. African Americans did not benefit from nearly as much as White Americans. Historian Ira Katznelson argues that “the law was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow”.[1] In the New York and northern New Jersey suburbs 67,000 mortgages… Read more »