As I learned growing up, having been taught by sane people, I learned that racism is the false belief that one race is inherently and essentially superior to another. Taken this way, and when the attitude is combined with malice, we can see that racism is a very grievous sin. God hates it, and one of the things Jesus came to do was eradicate that sin.
A lesser sin, but still a sin, is when the false belief of racial superiority is combined, not with malice, but with a patronizing do-goodery. Many missionaries from previous eras fell into this problem. We see a continuation of this variant of racism in affirmative action policies — policies quite effective in casting a shadow over every genuine black achievement. This highlights yet another destructive aspect of the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Because the apostles of uplift have snow white motives, their racist assumptions are invisible to them. They would never use the phrase “white man’s burden,” but they operate in terms of it all the time. They are not racists, they claim, because they intend only good things for those lesser breeds without the law. And of course, they would never dream of expressing their smug superiority through phrases from Kipling. They express their smug superiority in other ways.
Can racists be cowed? Sure. If an outcry is raised against either kind of racism, it can be successfully chased indoors. People still harbor their racist notions, and occasionally something will slip out, but for the most part they keep their racism to themselves. They stuff it. It is still in there somewhere, and God sees it, but for the most part nobody else does. If this kind of pressure is kept up, such unarticulated racism can morph into what is called white privilege, which in another time would simply have been called bad manners. We are now down to the level of what are called microagressions. The political correctness police are out in force, calling everyone on every expression of what they consider to be such white privilege. Unfortunately, they wind up policing a good deal more.
This is not to say that there are no people who could personally benefit from that exercise that is quaintly called “checking your privilege.” There are some insufferable bores out there, and there are people who puff themselves up like a barn owl when it is ten below. That is a problem, but as mentioned above, it is a problem of manners.
But let me use an outrageous example. If we gave campus cops the authority to write up, at will, any student who spoke a sentence that did not have an appropriate subject/verb agreement, and there would be no possibility of appealing such a ticket, and no defense allowed, and three tickets meant automatic expulsion, the issue before us would not be grammar, but rather tyranny. Once a system like that is in place, it will not be long before subject/verb tickets are being issued for anything that an abusive officer happens to dislike.
And it is precisely here that we have gone off the rails. There are those who believe they are engaged in the work of racial reconciliation, but the effect of their labors is precisely the opposite. It is appropriate to call a Klansman a racist. It is appropriate to identify exercises in lowering the bar for blacks as racist. It is appropriate to say that certain jokes are now considered to be in bad taste. All that is fair game, each at the appropriate level.
But when apostles of reconciliation call you a despicable racist for simply saying that we ought to hear back from the grand jury first, notice what has happened. They are now saying that any defense of due process is to be identified out of hand as a defense of racism. If they call you vile names for asking if the crime actually happened — when you grant that the crime would be evil if it did in fact happen — they are attacking, not the hegemony of racism, but rather the rule of law.
To revile due process is to become, in principle, a defender of lynchings. When the controversy erupts, any caution against acting hastily is perversely taken as a defense of the alleged crime itself. A century ago, if a black man was accused of raping a white woman, and a mob was starting to form in order to fetch him from the county jail, and you were trying to formulate a speech to give from the steps of that jail, trying to stop them, what would you say? You should say that a defense of due process is never a defense of any crime whatever, if such a crime happened.
But our first duty lies there — if it happened. And those who want to guard the processes we use to find out such things are not the enemies of the downtrodden. Quite the reverse. When the protections of law are gone, it will not be the rich and well-connected who suffer.
So as our college campuses spiral out of control, the loss of due process there amounts to the loss of everyone’s liberty. It promises, in the not too distant future, to again plant trees with “strange fruit” on them. To go along with any level of this PC foolishness is like going on a bender in Bangkok, and getting a tattoo from a guy whose English is not that strong.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that! Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to… Read more »
Excellent…I was readying the video to post the clip, but you got there first.
My favorite scene of arguably one of the best plays/ movies of (ever)
And especially pertinent at the current juncture.
Reference the name of the movie for us dumdums please!
Here we go! ‘A man for all seasons’
Everybody seems to be quoting this these days! A very appropriate quote for many occasions. :)
Well said, Doug. Very clear, well placed antithesis. Nothing to argue with. A post that cannot possibly engender any argument.
Just when you thought things couldn’t get any further off course, comes this gem, complete with embedded links yet more perverse . . . .
What will these tender snowflakes and “cry-bullies” do the first time they encounter an actual problem?
it’s a long list of demands that reads like a parody, and then a whole bunch of organizations at the end. The one called “women in science” intrigues me. I can imagine some poor naive chemistry major thinking she was actually joining an organization that had to do with science finding that she was being used to promote this crap, and wondering who in the organization actually authorized signing onto it, and I found this. “We want to stress that any action taken by Amherst College to address the demands made will not erase the fact that it exists within… Read more »
It WOULD be very funny if the whole thing was a hoax just to see how far they could make everybody jump. A potentially costly idea, but a delightful one nonetheless for exposing the emperor’s lack of clothing.
Like those petitions to ban “di-hydrogen oxide?”
But the Mass Comm prof bellowing for some “muscle” to get the student reporter out of their tent city was NOT doing a parody.
No way did they have time to get approval for all those folks they put at the bottom. This is stupid kids with too much time on their hands.
By anyone’s standards, surely the children are off the rails now? What possible basis can there be for hearing out such a complaint? What possible justification can there be any response other than summary dismissal?
Kelly, don’t be demagogued. It’s not “the children”. It’s a handful of idiots. If they want to demonstrate to the world at large what complete jackasses they are, it’s their God-given, constitutional right to do so. They certainly aren’t the first and won’t be the last.
Oh, were they only a handful.
What percent of college students do you suppose they represent?
Enough to convince the Prez & Chanc to quit – – at Mizzou. And it’s not all college students. I’ll amend my comment to say “at Mizzou.” And enough there to get the campus police to send out that preposterous e-mail threatening e-mail on turning over students to the disciplinary council for obviously protected speech.
But back to the larger remaining question, even after narrowing it just to those who sent out these ghastly tweets. Why would any reasonable adult hear out such complaints?
I guess to make sure they’re not missing anything of substance. If people were to bring this crap to me, I’d listen to it for just that reason. It’s like that saying, just because you’re paranoid that doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you. And that other saying, a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Anyone with experience in an IG (inspector general) position quickly learns that about 98% of what walks through the door will turn out to be utter BS. And it’s usually obvious very quickly. But the 2% that is real often seems outlandish at the start. Given these particular tweets, my thesis is that time to distinguish the 98 from the 2 will be very short.
Also, the president of Mizzou wasn’t that swift either. Apparently some kid asked him if he knew what systemic oppression was, and he started out, systemic oppression is because you feel like you aren’t given opportunities … and he was shouted down. I have no idea where he was going with that. But that was just really stupid. Systemic oppression is when one group is disadvantaged, not because any person is racist or sexist, but because something is wrong in the system. So everyone can say “I’m not racist” or “I’m not sexist” and be telling the truth, but that… Read more »
Please. Absent Jim Crow, there isn’t any such thing as “systematic oppression.” Nor is there such a thing as “white privilege.” It’s just the grievance industry looking for loot.
Did you read my little story? Have an open mind, Kelly. I know you have to when you do your investigations. You can’t walk in to a new situation having already assumed the conclusion.
Yes, I did. I think it’s nonsense. Read Christian Hoff Sommers’ “The War on Boys.”
I think it’s what I’m talking about.
… Unless you want to argue that boys are deliberately being oppressed?
Boys are not so much oppressed as repressed. Though I guess you could call that a form of oppression.
I’m not so sure I entirely agree with your definition: “Systemic oppression is when one group is disadvantaged, not because any person is racist or sexist, but because something is wrong in the system”.
The “something is wrong with the system” part fits, but for us to call it oppression requires intent on the part of people influential within the system. Absent that intent we should not call the fact that someone is disadvantaged (someone always is) in itself oppression.
See, I don’t think so. I don’t think that everywhere a group is being disadvantaged, there must be a bad guy. 1 – Sometimes, as in the no-recess thing, the disadvantage is an unintended outcome of an attempt to solve an unrelated problem. 2 – Sometimes the systemic problem is a result of assumptions people make in entirely good will, it’s just that they’re misguided or mistaken. It used to be that in some states, if a marriage blew up and there were children “of a tender age” (under six), they automatically went to the mother even if she was… Read more »
“I don’t think that everywhere a group is being disadvantaged, there must be a bad guy.” Yes, and every time we attribute the disadvantage to oppression we imply that there is a bad guy. That was my point.
I think I see what you mean, John — the word “oppression” has somewhat of a moral connotation, I think, that implies a bad guy. At least intuitively, it seems like to have oppression, you have to have an oppressor, and an oppressor is a bad guy.
“Disadvantage” is a more broadly applicable word.
I’d like to see those concepts split out so the implication is no longer there.
That would require changing the way most people think when they see the word, not to mention what the dictionary says about it in its primary definitions. Doesn’t it seem simpler just to avoid using the word oppression when you don’t intend to impute guilt?
What would you suggest?
I already said “disadvantage” works better, I think.
Thought about this a little am. I’m not willing to invest the time in hashing it out on this blog. The 8:30 sermon (by our new female associate pastor FWIW) was on Mark’s “no two remain/every stone will be thrown down.” Sunday school this am skipped the Ehrman CD to instead talk about the start in public school many of the “snowflakes/cry-bullies” had before reaching the Groves of Academe. And the more I listened to that discussion and the more I thought of sermon the more the 4 stroke cycle in Judges came to mind; bondage-deliverance-prosperity-decadence . . . and… Read more »
Great comment. Have a good day.
You mean something like this? http://militaryhonors.sid-hill.us/history/rescue.htm
I remember that typhoon. I was not involved in the incident, just was in the general meteorological area.
It was briefed on it in survival school and I heard about it again while stationed on Guam.
The complaints out of Yale and Mizzou are so utterly baseless and the Maoist free speech suppression in response to these “complaints” are so over-the-top, words fail me.
I was at Andersen once hitching a ride on a KC-135. The ground drops away quickly after rotation.
Search for the interview (past couple odays) with Neil Cavuto with one of the progressive panhandlers…priceless.
That was Rwy 06 to the northeast – 600 ft cliff; saved a few guys with engine trouble. I’m almost sorry I dropped in to this thread. My contempt for these Stalinist-PC destroyers of civilization knows no bounds. Talk about “Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.” Is this ignorance in action? Or is it simply a will-to-power? Could it really be that none of these budding Robespierres realize they’re only setting themselves up to take their turn with a blindfold at the wall? There’s a certain schadenfreude (pleasure derived by someone from another person’s misfortune) at work… Read more »
The inside of my head often looks like a fur ball with a four on four merge. Hence the reason for adopting formality…it gives me pause to avoid an unseemly response.
But we will always have Paris.
Have you been watching what’s happening there today. That would call for a more seemly response.
Early, smoky J-79s?
However, if the GIs keep making GI references, at some point the civilians on this thread are going to ask Pastor Doug to expound on the Just War doctrine. Or ask us directly how nuking babies is compatible with Christianity. Or with turning the other cheek.
He could probably answer those just fine…he was a bubblehead on nukes.
Maybe we shouldn’t tempt the pacifists. Just now I’m trying to convince a civilian over at NRO that tactical nukes should indeed be off the table in dealing with ISIS. Sigh.
Just shut down the mosques. CAIR would retaliate. The lawyers. Curse.
Suppose Obama decides to “just shut down the churches” of all the “bitter clingers” – – he means you and me and Pastor Doug – – because we won’t agree to, say, gay marriage. Then what? After he’s copied Henry VIII and “knocked all the laws flat,” where will you hide?
Angela M has serious opponents. Treasonous? Coming down fast. Viva La Guillotine?
Why can’t I remove the above comment?
Whatever, die is cast.
Not in Germany. Daniel Pipes wrote a column yesterday predicting there will be no lasting changes as a result of this attack. Whether there SHOULD be is a different question from if there WILL be. OTOH, people lie to pollsters when they realize their opinion does not match the “school solution.” It’s called “the Bradley effect,” named after the black guy running for mayor of Los Angeles who had a huge lead in the polls but lost in a landslide. Gov’s race in KY 2 weeks ago. D led by 13 but lost by 13. Only the 2nd time in… Read more »
Did you change your mind about the 2011 post on the nut in Norway? In any event, I don’t see the connection between a mental case and ISIS. They aren’t insane in any clinical sense.
He killed immigrants.
Immigration equals wars. 4GW.
I read a book about him. One of Us. It was really quite something. He had a dreadful early childhood b/c of his mother’s mental instability. But she had an even worse childhood, due to her own mother’s mental instability. She was very young when she had him and was still emerging from her own wretched beginning. Eventually she worked out her problems and became a decent mother to him. But by then he was several years old and the die was cast. I don’t think he was insane. He was screwed up, definitely. Some people are more resilient than… Read more »
It is not just her. “Davos” will serve as a useful proxy.
In the open.
Not whether, but which.
Your mistake is thinking like an American and not a Marxist. The Law doesn’t matter to these pukes. They will use it or discard it at will in furtherance of their goals.Your thinking is very useful to them.
We are at war now. The people of Europe are waking up as are Americans. You are arguing for a reversion to the mean that is not there. It is not there because there are two bell curves, not one.
“reversion to the mean?” “bell curve?”
Not seeing how lack of process control and hence variation in production line output applies to this problem.
Besides, one need not be a Marxist to believe law only applies to other people, or that the end justifies the means.
I find myself contemplating the Olaf Trygvasson method.of conversion. sometimes.
Probably just because that’s where my people came from. But then I have to repent…again.
Charles Martel for me, but…same story. Or was it Clovis?
Clovis might be the closer comparison to Trygvasson, I believe (and a heap easier to spell). Perhaps Charlemagne too – didn’t he beat the heathen out of the Saxons? I think Charles Martel would be credited not so much with conversion as preservation.
Yes, I remembered Charles’ role in the “preservation.” I just couldn’t remember who was legendary for the forced baptisms. Not that I advocate it as appropriate evangelism, but I’ve heard it explained in ways that make a bit more sense if you lose some modern assumptions. In those days, your loyalty was to your overlord. When one king conquered another, he became the new overlord. If the new king’s overlord is Jesus, 1) it was not a violation of conscience, but a normal expectation, that they would swear loyalty to Jesus as the lord’s overlord and 2) as a general… Read more »
If it was conversion they wanted they did not do it right and at the same time I am glad they achieved the results they did. I don’t believe genuine converts were or can be made under compulsion, but Europe was “Christianized” and then Europeans became Christians. Would it have happened another way? I don’t know. Perhaps the brush had to be cleared before the field could be planted.
As I said, it’s not the right way to do it. But I am absolutely certain some genuine converts were made, just not all of them. That some of the converts were genuine doesn’t justify the means, but the means doesn’t void the possibility that some may have genuinely kept their compelled vows to Christ.
John and Jane, any recommended reading on this subject?
One I’d suggest is James Reston Jr.’s The Last Apocalypse, Europe At The Year 1000 A.D. Reston himself describes it as “..not a history in the modern sense..” but rather as “…a narrative of a heroic time.”, and he goes on to explain it is based on poetry, folklore, saga, archaeology, and holy chronicle. The subject is the 10th century A.D., and Reston shows how relatively little of Europe was Christian at the beginning of that century, and how that changed over the course of the century. This of course was after the time of Clovis, Charles Martel, and Charlemagne,… Read more »
Recall once more that Christ just let the young rich man walk away. He only observed to the 12 how hard it was for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
So I can’t support forcible conversion under any circumstances.
Hence my need for repentance.
ALL of us need some.
Cultural Revolution 2.0
Why would anyone go to Amherst in the first place unless they’re already among the brainwashed? Do prospective students really have no idea what to expect from these places?
I read a stat somewhere a while ago (a few years) that said that a current 4 year degree is the equivalent of a 1970 HS diploma.
Rfb, those of us recently graduated with degrees in the hard sciences take exception to the comparison. Your average (or even way above average) 1970s HS grad did NOT understand differential equations, quantum physics, or multivariate analysis.
As to humanities degrees, I will grant the comparison.
I supposed his reference was to the relative advantage conferred by a 4 year degree rather than to the knowledge gained thereby.
Actually, from what I remember, it was pointed at the “knowledge gained thereby”.
Given the vapors off-gassed by the masses involved, I doubt that STEM is the core of the problem.
On the other hand, a major/degree in “abcd Studies” is arguably an identifiable trait.
Exception understood, and more than likely pertinent. I doubt that the overwhelming majority of the polezniye duraki in view are hard science devotees.
I would also take exception for the ‘hard’ humanities disciplines–and there are some. I have degrees both in Classics and in natural science, and I’m not sure physical chemistry is harder than Aeschylus. Both certainly require rigorous thinking to do well, though, sadly, such those who have had such rigor inculcated in them do not always apply it to political matters….
Heard this in a sermon maybe 20 years ago. Obviously it stuck with me:
“Fires burn hottest in the hearts of those who have inwardly, secretly, begun to doubt.”
Commentary had a blog post along those lines this afternoon. Maybe the reason we’re seeing a wave across universities all over the country is that the little darlings have suddenly realized their house of cards is collapsing?
Practically no one off campus agrees with them. They’ll never make enough to pay off their college debt. Next year state legislatures could well tighten their budgets yet more.
Here is the statement the president put out. The kids are spinning this as a win but I’m not so sure. From the manifesto: 1. President Martin must issue a statement of apology to students, alumni and former students, faculty, administration and staff who have been victims of several injustices including but not limited to our institutional legacy of white supremacy, colonialism, anti-black racism, anti-Latinx racism, anti-Native American racism, anti-Native/ indigenous racism, anti-Asian racism, anti-Middle Eastern racism, heterosexism, cis-sexism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, ableism, mental health stigma, and classism. Also include that marginalized communities and their allies should feel safe at Amherst… Read more »
Barely skimmed the “manifesto.” What a pompous, presumptive concept – – but then “manifesto” perfectly fits the inflated, grandiose image snowflakes have of themselves and their “problems.” I once asked a 1L, first semester classmate to tell me about a racial discrimination SHE had personally experienced. Not anything her parents or grandparents had received; what had happened to her. She thought for a few moments and replied, “My hair care products are in a separate section by themselves.” OK, fine. Is there some law requiring that? Or did the store manager place them there because he thought it would help… Read more »
I don’t think you have to read it. It’s a bunch of nonsense.
I think this from the response:
“Reacting immediately to strict timetables and ultimatums and speaking in the names of other people and for all times would be a failure to take our students seriously.”
is actually a very nicely delivered spanking. Paraphrase: Your demands are childish and I need to treat you like grownups.
“A lesser sin, but still a sin, is when the false belief of racial superiority is combined, not with malice, but with a patronizing do-goodery.” Words of wisdom once again. Do goodery can be very patronizing, it actually robs people of their power, it can be demeaning. It is more an act of pity than of love and it is far more about establishing the vast superiority of the giver. Because the feelings of superiority must be constantly maintained, there is a conflict of interest there. You must create more victims so as to justify your cause. Where you to… Read more »
It also robs the recipient of dignity and creates (even if unintended) a “you are not good enough to make it on your own” type of effect.
Pastor Wilson, the problem is that you’ve adopted your rhetorical opponents’ outlook just by using the word ‘racism’. Your previous distinctions of ‘racial malice’ and ‘racial vainglory’ are spot-on — God is indeed no respecter of persons, nations, tribes, or ethnicities and our duty is to respect the image of God in all men. But ‘racism’ does not now mean, to anyone with significant power or audience, merely the metaphysical elevation of one race or nation over another. You are trying to seize a rhetorical sword from its wielders and turn it into a doorstop. For white Europeans and Americans… Read more »
Why do white Europeans and Americans prefer to live in communities with their co-ethnics, that is, when they do so prefer? If such preference is categorically based on co-ethnicity and that alone is it possible the motive behind that preference is racial malice or racial vainglory? If that was the motive then could we rightfully call the preference racist?
I don’t think so because I don’t think “racist” is a word useful for rational discourse. As for the rest, actions can have sinful or non-sinful motives and it’s sensible to consider them separately.
lol what? If racist people exist–if racist actions exist–then it’s certainly a useful word for rational discourse.
Why limit the question to Europeans and American whites? Surely you aren’t so provincial as to think that racial malice and/or vainglory are exclusively associated with the melanin-deficient?
I think you’ll find that the preference for living among people who look like you is nearly universal
The reference in ashv’s original post was to white Europeans and Americans, that’s why.
Sure, but they don’t get called racist for it. :-)
Actually, they do. Just not by the media. But the media is stupid.
THE STRANGER within my gate, He may be true or kind, But he does not talk my talk— I cannot feel his mind. I see the face and the eyes and the mouth, 5 But not the soul behind. The men of my own stock They may do ill or well, But they tell the lies I am wonted to, They are used to the lies I tell. 10 And we do not need interpreters When we go to buy and sell. The Stranger within my gates, He may be evil or good, But I cannot tell what powers control—… Read more »
“And the grapes be all one vine”
Jesus is the one vine, and all branches abide in Him.
Jesus is the gate and none within the gate are strangers.
My (our) hope is built on nothing less than JESUS’ BLOOD and righteousness.
Do you suppose Kipling saw the irony of the ten years he spent as an adult living voluntarily as a stranger within India’s gates? Did he wonder if the natives felt exactly the same way about him? Or was the pleasure of living amongst one’s own kind reserved for British colonials who could go back home and shut the gate firmly behind them when they got tired of dark-skinned foreigners? I understand Kipling’s feelings, but I don’t think they are godly. The church I attend has roughly equal numbers of Filipinos, Ugandans, African Americans, Hispanics, Vietnamese, and white people. There… Read more »
In the resurrection we will not be married or given in marriage — but it would be an exceedingly bad idea to try to live that way now. The spiritual unity of the church in Christ does not require us all to be under the same administrative structure (as the Roman Catholics believe) or to all be in the same room or same country (as the apostles of diversity believe). The Great Commission is to disciple the nations, not demolish them.
Do you think jillybean’s church is a bad idea now? Do you suppose the communion of the saints is based on racial similarity or nationality? Is being of “the same blood” really more important to you than having in common redemption by blood of Christ?
Whether jillybean’s church organization right now is good or bad I can’t say, there’s no virtue inherent in ethnic diversity or ethnic homogenity. How a church body should be composed is a wisdom issue. I will merely note that it’s already work to cultivate like-mindedness when the congregation has a strong shared culture – adding cultural differences within a church body increases that.
That is a sensible enough answer. It notes there is no inherent virtue either way, and makes the proper distinction between ethnicity and culture. I recommend you listen to yourself here and refer yourself back to yourself here whenever you find yourself thinking there is inherent virtue in ethnic homogeneity, or are tempted to conflate race and culture.
Of course, critiquing a culture while drawing a distinction between that culture and the ethnicity of it’s members won’t always save you from accusations of racism, but you knew that. Just wanted you to know I get it too.
Jillybean has a preference for diversity in her church and in her community. She may be willing to accept certain circumstances such as living with a small risk of being machine gunned in theaters, or being harassed by gangs of jobless Muslim men on the streets or living with a surveillance state to keep such things at a minimum. I prefer not to live that way. Why should her preferences be forced on me? Why on every Western nation?
Because having a roughly equal numbers of Filipinos, Ugandans, African Americans, Hispanics, Vietnamese, and white people in one congregation does carry with it a small risk of being machine gunned in theaters, or being harassed by gangs of jobless Muslim men on the streets. Any rational person can see that.
There are certainly undeniable risks and challenges. For example, I had to start dressing properly for church because the ladies of these other cultures came to church dressed like ladies. What a sacrifice for me to wash and iron a Sunday dress. I had to learn not to compliment my Ugandan pew mates on their possessions or they would insist on immediately giving them to me. I had to learn to attend potlucks and actually be willing to eat weird looking food without making a fuss about it. I had to become a more generous donor when I realized that… Read more »
. . . so, after the teacher broke up the fight on the playground, she ordered all the children to bring in an emblem of their faith for the next day’s “Show and Tell.”
First, Paul, the Catholic boy, got up and said, “These things are called rosary beads.”
Then Miriam got up and said, “I’m a little Jewish girl and this thing is called a menorah.”
Last, Kelly, the little Methodist boy, got up and said, “This thing is called . . . a . . . casserole!”
Are you saying people would not harm each other in ethnically homogenous societies?
Culture and biology (ancestry) exist in a feedback loop: each is a partial cause of the other. They’re not identical, but strongly tied together. I certainly don’t believe there’s a moral problem with grouos of mixed ethnicity but I do feel that the social and health benefits of homogenous communities are overlooked these days. As for accusations of racism, I’m a little wary of anyone afraid of being labeled such, these days.
I kind of see that in reverse. It is when insignificant cultural differences are set aside, when we are really willing to see one another heart to heart and soul to soul, that the only important unifying bond–our love for Jesus–shines most brightly.
Why do you believe it’s possible to separate “hearts and souls” from “culture”? Culture isn’t a layer on top of people’s “real” identities, it’s a major part of those identities.
An excellent question and I have no real answer for other than personal experience. I grew up in an affluent, white-bread Canadian culture, with British parents, and my family tree has Brits (typically Cedric the swineherd and Alf the ploughman) pretty much all the way back to the Conquest. Before I married my Jewish husband, the only intermarriage in our family had been when my English brother married a Scot. Even my university had very little diversity. My first teaching assignment took me to the Canadian north where I taught native and Metis children, lived adjacent to a reservation, worked… Read more »
“The Great Commission is to disciple the nations, not demolish them.”
The “middle wall of partition” has been demolished though, what are your thoughts on that? (Honest question) :)
The wall of partition was the one marking Israel as a special nation and making the boundaries of the nation and land the boundaries of God’s covenant with man. The Ascension of Jesus extended it to all nations.
Looking for a second opinion on a different question.
1. What value do you find on this blog; what keeps you coming back?
2. Do you find the katecho theology points worth chasing? (If you have not seen any of them, there’s several on Suicide of the West.)
3. Do you post on another blog(s)? If so, can you send me a URL?
When I first stumbled across this blog (I have no idea what first caught my wandering attention), I was fascinated by what I saw as very right wing opinions supported by Calvinist theology. I had never interacted with a Calvinist Christian before, and I kept coming back hoping to make sense of doctrines I found fairly repellent. I kept asking questions, and many regular posters were patient and kind and I came to realize that many of my perceptions of Reformed theology were distorted. I very much appreciated that my Catholicism was treated respectfully, and I enjoyed discussing religious and… Read more »
EDIT Just realized I should have also asked Bugs and Nord. At men’s breakfast. Longer ans from home. &&&&&&&&&& Back home now. I forget who or what it was about, but someone posted a link to this blog on my FB page. It’s mostly recipes and family stuff and I don’t spend a lot of time on it. But I followed the link and discovered something that matched an interest of mine. I had been giving a series of devotions at the breakfasts on aspects of the Caesar-Christ problem. 1st Ad law in free exercise has been an interest of… Read more »
Send something to the firstname.lastname@example.org address and perhaps we can set up a parallel network to discuss issues without the name calling.
Thought experiment #1: Some group of, say, 100 people, is composed of men, women, gays, straights, all races, and so on. Some diversity index is applied to the 100 and it yields a score of, say, 89 out of a max of 100. Now think of Thomas Sowell and Jesse Jackson. One of them was in the 100 but the other is not. We swap them and re-score the group. Question #1: does the diversity score of 89 out of 100 go up, down, or remain unchanged? The number of men, blacks, straights, and marrieds does not change. But the… Read more »