Fewer Letters Than Normal But We Think It Is a Computer Glitch and Not the FBI

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Putting the Heaton Wheaton

“…wrapped in the mantle of a prevenient surrender…” I will be adding this to my personal inventory. It is one of the best short phrases that most aptly describes the thin oily sheen of nice that covers the quivering livers of Modern E as they give away the store.

Gray

Gray, thanks.

Wailing for Tammuz at Wheaton

I’m a Wheaton alum from ages ago. I’ve heard you and others lament the school’s demise as the leadership there has wandered and pandered along after secular culture. I sensed what was coming 20 years ago when my son, attending as a freshman, told me he’d had to sit through chapel message given by a Catholic priest (he transferred out).

So, I just had to watch the video link you provided. I didn’t make it past an hour, since everything said sounded like everything else out there in the secular world. I must conclude their journey to irrelevance is accelerating: as an actual believer, why would you go there? And as a secular kid, why bother? It’s just like any other school. What made Wheaton stand out in ages past is being squandered by cowards afraid to stand up to the madness. I pray for their repentance, but am not hopeful since it looks like the wolves have taken over.

Thanks for your courage! Your content is a huge blessing to many of us.

Mark

Mark, thank you. It really is astonishing that otherwise reasonable people deny the manifest drift.

In the Wheaton post, you mention the “slavery issue”. Could you direct me to your discussion of this. Thanks,

Steve

Steve, the best place to get up to speed on my relationship to the slavery issue would be to get my book Black & Tan. The second best would be to look at the links provided in my Controversy Library.

You agree that there is a “trajectory” for ultimately eliminating slavery by means of the regenerating influence of the Gospel is there in the Bible, correct?

Would you please elaborate in some more detail and specific examples on what you are saying with this paragraph? . . .

“So what am I going on about? Keen says, and actually says it out loud, that when it comes to those nasty old black and white proof texts, slave owners were able to prove their point, and Q.E.D. In order to refute the slave owners and their pesky verses, the enlightened ones had to put on their secret decoder rings, and then drape the scarf of mysteries-solved over their heads, and then to examine the trajectories and contours of God’s redemptive purposes, generally considered, looked at in a dim light, and all while squinting. If you were to do all these things, you could see the faint smoke of God’s liberating intent wafting off the epistles, the plain teaching of which we were all so eager to ignore.”

i.e. . . . and . . . e.g. . . . What are the (dishonest) methods that the “traditionalist evangelicals” use(d) to get rid of the slavery texts they don’t like?

Thank you!

Robert

Robert, they would include, but not be limited to: claiming that Roman slavery was more benevolent than American slavery, which is false, translating doulos as servant, allowing us the illusion that the New Testament was crammed full of hired help, and simply refusing to acknowledge that a Christian slave holder in the ante bellum South could have faithfully followed the requirements of the Scriptures while remaining a slave owner. There are others, but that will do to start.

A Sharp Exchange Over Anti-Semitism

God bless and good morning Doug! I’ve been listening to the CrossPolitic guys for about a year and discovered your podcasts in the last 9 months or so. I’ve found your words to usually be edifying and helpful. I don’t always agree with what you say but I have consistently considered your counsel to be wise and worth seeking out even if I disagreed. So when episode 233 of The Plodcast came out, the one about Anti-Semitism, I was excited.

You see, I am what some people would call an Anti-Semite. I wouldn’t call myself such. I don’t hate anybody for their genetics or their beliefs. I don’t hate anybody at all. I call myself anti-degenerate because I am for what God is for and I am against what God is against, but I would define “against” in meaning that I love what God has blessed me with and I have the God-given responsibility to protect it, not that I hate those who seek to tear the goodness of God down. But people have called me anti-Semitic because I’m generally against the crap put out by the mainstream media and I think that there’s something fishy with outlawing the questioning of a particular bit of history when the Official Narrative (TM) says that despite starvation, Germans were so hate-ridden as to devote infrastructure to the systematic murder of enemy combatants (actual and potential) in work camps with DDT in rooms sealed with wooden doors and vented with fake chimneys and incinerate the bodies with crematoriums more efficient than what we have today with ashes and mass graves that we never did find, all somehow not documented by General Patton or any other heroes of the day. But enough about cash cows.

The point being, I’m racist in that I can point out that 13% of the population commits 52% of violent crime while still having black friends or that 2% of the population makes up 40% of billionaires and something like 98% of ownership of the media as well as also being over-represented in positions of power in not just America’s, but several countries’ positions of power. I’m so racist that I believe God can call anyone out of any sin and save them, even the folks who want my sons to cut off their penises, who want my daughter to whore herself out, but not with white folks since she’s half white.

Oh yeah, I’m so racist that I’m white and my wife is Hispanic. I’m so anti-Semitic that I find the phrase “eat the rich” to be actually anti-Semitic. Yet here I am. Having hopefully established my love of my savior Jesus Christ, as well as my lack of racism despite the labels often thrown at me, let’s move on.

I mean this with all due respect, which in my eyes is quite a bit, but you didn’t go that route and straw-manned people you don’t understand. Literally none of us are anti-Semitic for envy’s sake. I’m “anti-Semitic” because I want to see God honored in my community, protect my family from evil, and I think the narrative of 1940s Germany is fishy. That’s it.

I was excited for this episode because I’ve been hoping for you or Jeff Durbin or the Cultish guys or really any Reformed folk with wisdom, wit, and love to finally address the Talmud and Jewish Supremacist beliefs. I don’t know if I should link videos here or not considering you seem like a guy who would want to go to the source. Being that Talmudic Jews are, y’know, Jewish and not Christian, of course they wouldn’t have great things to say about Jesus, so it’s not surprising that our King is mentioned boiling in a pot of feces in Hell, but saying things like it’s okay to rape a 2 year old Gentile girl, that goyim (that’s us) are animal spirits in human bodies to serve Jews who are the only actual mankind, that it’s okay to lie to, cheat, or kill goyim . . . that all seems like a bit much. And this is all mainstream Judaic beliefs for all of history labeled A.D.

I hope you reconsider and do a deeper dive on this than you did this time. I think that what you could glean from such a thing would be beneficial to all who hear it. Even if you don’t, it would be very much appreciated to at least not be maligned by someone who doesn’t know why I believe what I believe.

With much love and respect, some sadness, and a little trepidation, I wish you the best and thank you for your time, not just in reading my letter, but for the work you do.

Theonomic Postmillenial Reformed Baptist bro

Dear TPRB, thanks for letting me know how you feel. And I trust you won’t mind if I am equally frank. Please note that I did not say that you were envious, but rather that the fact of envy is undeniable in the public criticisms of Jews as Jews that I have seen. The crackle is unmistakable.

Apart from the historical issues raised by your references to the Holocaust, you do say a bunch of things that I can agree with. I believe that a bunch of the Bolsheviks were Jewish, and unleashed Hell on earth. I believe that the Frankfurt School was largely Jewish, and that is why the West is suffering Stage IV cancer right now. I believe that any rabbis who consigned their true Messiah to Hell were clearly showing where they intended to go. So when you point to manifest Jewish sins, you are not going to get me to argue with you. And when it comes to the undeniable fact of the Holocaust, I agree that it is a fact that has been politicized in unfortunate ways bt some. A historical scholar could argue that the number of the victims was actually around 5.8 million, and some would construe this as a defense of Hitler and try to ruin his career. I have read The Holocaust Industry by Finkelstein, a Jew.

But here’s the thing. Woodrow Wilson was not a Jew, and he’s the one who actually wrecked everything. Why don’t you white people knock it off with the ruination?

And suppose I pointed to Jewish achievements, the kinds of things that have made everyone’s lives better. Now what? A reasonable person is going to say that Jews are clearly a talented, high-achievement people. When they turn to crime, it gets really bad. They are like the girl who had a curl, right in the middle of her forehead. When she was good, she was very, very good, and when she was bad, she was horrid. So when they devote themselves to chess, or playing the violin, or winning Nobel prizes, the situation should be treated a little differently, don’t you think?

The Jewish mean IQ is 110, ten points above the norm. And here’s another thing to consider: the proportion of Jews with IQs of 140 and above is six times greater than everybody else. So they are smarter than we are, they work harder, and they stick together. This is something to imitate, not something to resent. And all of them are fallen, and some of them are dedicated to evil.

In his book Human Accomplishment, Charles Murray notes that Jews are three tenths of one percent of the world’s population, and are responsible for about 25% of the notable achievements to date.

I have a robust view of human depravity, and do not believe that the Jews have any special exemption from that depravity. But when I see their faults magnified and their virtues ignored, I am in fact witnessing human sin—but I am witnessing it in the speaker, not in the object of their contempt.

Intrigued From a Distance

I am intrigued with your teaching. I ‘returned’ to Christianity back in 2008/9 when I started going to Calvary Chapel and a sort of related church near my home in Dana Point, California. We were pre-millennial (as you know). I find your positive outlook vastly more interesting than any I’ve been exposed to in the past. Your application of Scripture also seems quite logical and well-reasoned and I want to lean more.

What can you point me to in the way of books, papers, anything that would help me to learn more about post-millennialism and your logical, reasoned approach to understanding and applying Scripture?

I’d love to visit Moscow and your church and perhaps someday we will.

Regards,

Steffan

Steffan, you are welcome to visit at any time. For a good introduction to the postmill outlook, a good little primer is Christ’s Victorious Kingdom by Davis, a good introduction is Postmillennialism by Mathison, and a soup to nuts treatment is He Shall Have Dominion by Gentry. My books on the subject are Heaven Misplaced and When the Man Comes Around, a commentary on Revelation.

Another Book Recommendation

I’m the vein of your understanding of biblical economics (books by David Bahnsen, etc), I’m curious to know your thoughts on Chuck Bentley’s (Crown Financial) book on how the invisible hand of a free market provides and apologetic for the universe’s maker and sustainer:

Economic Evidence for God? Uncovering the Invisible Hand That Guides the Economy

I would be curious if at some point this was a book that was reviewed on a podcast episode.

Thanks!

Tanner

Tanner, I was unfamiliar, but have ordered it on your recommendation.

Elder Qualifications

In looking briefly at the story of Abraham Piper and how he was excommunicated at age 19. How is it that John Piper was not forced to step down based on 1 Timothy 3:5. Is there a point in time where a child of an elder can “walk away” or be “excommunicated” and he can still continue to minister? Am I drawing to hard of a line on a possible grey area issue?

Thanks,

Josh

Josh, I can’t speak to why that didn’t happen there because I was not there, and am not up to speed on what actually happened. But I do know that from church to church and from denomination to denomination, there is wide disagreement on what Scripture requires in such a case. For more on our views, you can check out my book The Neglected Qualification.

My Purported Racism

I have been seeing a lot of people write you off as a racist/pro-confederate apologist and they often site some overly used quotes from, “Southern Slavery as it was”. However, I personally find it disingenuous to quote from a book/monograph that is just so gosh darn hard to find. I know these people, and I know they have not paid the $100+ to purchase and interact with your book and sources honestly and Christianly. Therefore, I was wondering if there could be a way I could attain this book, and even if that’s a pdf. I just do not feel it to be right to use one of the pdfs which do not seem like the full book and also which do not come from the people which it rightly belongs to. Eager to hear from you soon, and also looking forward to hear more of your thoughts on slavery, social justice, and racism either through that book or through your many winsome and Molotov-like articles which seem to only reign on liberals gay (not homosexual l, but fruitless) parades. Grace and peace be to you!

Ashton

Ashton, the best way to get that material would be to get the book Black and Tan. Everything I contributed to Southern Slavery is reproduced in Black and Tan, plus a whole lot more.

A Nice Plug

Canon+ A missionary friend of my was looking into Canon+ and asked me why I paid money for it (in other words wondering if it was worth it to get himself). I told him the many things I had found valuable in it and how I was excited that new content was constantly coming out. Since that conversation a couple weeks ago there has been just an overwhelming amount of exciting content out on the platform. I was stoked about Ken Gentry’s lectures but they were quickly lost on the homepage from all the other new things coming down the pike.

If asked the same question again I would simply answer “why wouldn’t you?”

Anyway I say all this to give a hearty well done and keep up the good work to you and all the hard working folks over at Canon Press. I honestly don’t miss Youtube or social media (which I disposed of last year).

Shea

Shea, thanks very much. And a lot more is on the way.

The Judgment of Charity

Thanks for answering my question on charitable judgment. I understand the illustration you gave and how you view Paul’s letter to Ephesus and his teaching there on election (for example) as similar to a talk you’d give at a marriage conference—but you’re not an apostle (shock). How can Paul be a minister of the new covenant, and be sure about what he’s saying for the people he’s writing to and yet be proclaiming mere possibilities to the church. 1 Corinthians 2:9,10,12,13 seem clear that there was objective revelation that the visible church of Corinth knew that was for them, from God, through Paul.. and then Paul says “we have the mind of Christ” at the end of the chapter. How can Paul be an apostle of maybes and not objective truth that he knows is true for those whom he speaks to because it’s his job to preach truth to the visible church of God? Rant over . . . I’d feel privileged if you rebutted me.

Jonty

Jonty, the apostolic gifts were not “on” all the time. Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus (2 Tim. 4:6)—why didn’t he heal him? The apostle Paul conducted pastoral ministry in much the same way we do, and so he uses the judgment of charity. He had Demas in his entourage for a time. Why? Jesus knew about Judas all the time, but Paul didn’t know about Demas.

Hopefully Coming Up

Thank you for diving into the topics between young men and women and how Christian young men and women should deal with their relationship issues within the current corrupt and evil culture climate.

However, there are a few other topics/questions that I would like to ask/bring up, as I think these are important questions that we should address for our Christian young men and women:

(1) How should Christian young men and women prepare themselves spiritually before they are ready for marriage? It’s not just to become the ones that they think others would like to marry, but according to the Word of God, what kind of men and women should they become for marriage?

(Side questions: in the past, young women ages 13 and older were generally ready for marriage. Today’s 13 years old girls are not ready for anything. Even many 20 years old girls are still not ready for anything. How can we prepare our girls to become the young women they need to be?)

(2) For young men facing temptations of youthful lust, marriage is usually not a immediate solution (due to age, maturity and other issues). So how would you help a young Christian men (or older boys) deal with the constant bombardment of soft porn/porn and other such things try to destroy them through sexual sins? And shouldn’t Christian young men have a healthy take on sex before entering into marriage? If they are encumbered by masturbation or use of porn, that would taint and hinder a healthy marriage (sexually).

Appreciate any resources to books, articles, sermons or any things that address these issues. Thank you.

God bless

Richard

Richard, thanks. Perhaps I can get to some of that in my letters to Darla, just starting.

Here’s a question in the spirit of your recent dating advice posts…

I’m 24, and I’ve been dating a girl from my church for around 4 months now. This is the first romantic relationship I’ve been in. While her dad isn’t really into the whole courtship thing, we’ve been emotionally and physically responsible through this whole process.

Here’s the problem: while this girl is beautiful, feminine, submissive, forgiving, and godly in many other ways, I’m having second thoughts. This is mostly because it feels next to impossible to have any deep, two-sided conversations about the Bible, theology, culture, etc. She also seems to struggle with reading more than a chapter or two of the Bible a week—and even that only by listening to it. In fact, she doesn’t seem to read much of anything besides the occasional short devotional and her school textbooks. I, on the other hand, was devouring Jonathan Edwards and outlining Philippians on my own time when I was in high school.

Based on the rest of her life, and on her expressed desire to grow in this area, I think this difficulty is caused more by a massive personality difference than by a lack commitment to Christ. She faithfully attends church and midweek prayer meeting, and occasionally listens to sermons on her own time. But it still bothers me that she doesn’t directly engage with the Scripture. I also know that, as the man, I’m called to love and sanctify a woman like Christ does. While I (and my pastors) truly believe I could marry and lead this girl in good conscience, and I sort of feel like it would be the Christ-like thing to do, I long for a deeper connection over the Word of God and a deeper sense of shared purpose and direction with the woman I marry.

Almost everyone I talk to seems to think I should just marry her, and that an inability to get over this is my problem. I am attracted to her, and I do care about her. There also aren’t a ton of eligible godly ladies in my area in the first place. But I really, really want to lead a deeply Word-centered home, and I can’t help but wonder whether that will ever be possible with this girl.

So my question is this: how can I tell whether my gut instinct to break up is coming from a spirit of selfishness and discontentment, or from wisdom and true incompatibility? I just want to honor Christ with this decision, but I really don’t know what that would look like.

Thanks.

John

John, I don’t want to pretend that I can see what needs to happen at this distance. But from what you describe, it seems that you should pursue the relationship, but with one proviso. This should be no problem given that you said she really is sweet and submissive. If she knows that marrying you means that she is going to be in the Word daily, together with you, and she is eager for that, then I think you should go for it. But if she doesn’t want to be “extreme” about Bible reading, then second thoughts are warranted. The question is whether she would follow you readily in making your home a Word-centered home, and is not a question of whether she would have built a Word-centered home all by herself.

Taking Responsibility

I’m more or less a “Baptist” who enjoys reading/listening/learning from your “content” . . . I’ve been meaning to tell you this for a few weeks, but you made “sort of” an offhand comment about Christ’s work on the cross in a letter response on Federal Headship(?) regarding husbands and wives (as I recall) . . . but the comment was something like: “On the cross Jesus took responsibility for our sins” . . . that idea/concept/word “responsibility” . . . Jesus taking “responsibility” for my sins . . . (responsibility for the guilt/penalty my sins deserve(right?)) . . . somehow really resonated/resonates with me in clear way I had never known before in thinking about Christ’s substitutionary death/sacrifice for my sins . . . just wanted to let you know and say thank you.

Robert

Robert, you’re welcome. Thanks for paying attention.

Reasonable Thought

Was Rome acting as the the covenant head of all the nations of the earth when they crucified Jesus Christ? And just legal restitution would therefore be the life of every the nation of the earth.

Eric

Eric, that is worth thinking about.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
93 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Farinata
Farinata
2 months ago

Eric – that’s Dante’s theory, in Paradiso 6.

Eric
Eric
2 months ago
Reply to  Farinata

Thanks!

Armin
Armin
2 months ago

Everyone’s making the Jewish question too complicated. All that needs to be said is that they are a people different from us, with a different (and often anti-Christian, perverse mindset), which combined with their high average ability and in-group solidarity causes a lot of problems for OUR people. So they just have to go.

-BJ-
-BJ-
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

Armin,

It seems to me that you see this divide in ethnic terms, but given Matthew 27:25, wouldn’t a covenantal animosity be a better perspective?

I see Doug’s point about ability and accomplishment, but he seems to neglect the covenantal hostility which, in my mind, accounts better for the Talmudic abominations and modern anti-Christ identity.

Armin
Armin
2 months ago
Reply to  -BJ-

BJ,

For Jews, both ethnicity and religion are tied to their national identity, though ethnicity trumps religion at the end of the day. And in any case, my point is simply that they are an “other.” Whatever it is that makes them an “other” is secondary, though in an Anglo-dominant, Christian nation that I envision, both their ethnicity and religion would play a part in that.

Ken B
Ken B
2 months ago
Reply to  -BJ-

Doug … seems to neglect the covenantal hostility …

What about a Jew who looked at those who condemned him and said Father forgive them they don’t know what they are doing?

Sam Rutherford
Sam Rutherford
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

Go where?

Actually, what we need is a Godly law, and all people held to the same standard. Regardless of abilities or lack thereof.

Remember that in Israel, there was one law for the Jew and the stranger.

Mike M.
Mike M.
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

They’re “a people different from us,” and for this and the other reasons you state, they “have to go?” Who is the “us” you’re referring to, where would the jews “go,” and by what authority would “we” make this happen?

Because if the “us” refers to Christians, I fail to see where in scripture we’re called to drive out our unbelieving neighbors from society (particularly in a generally mixed Christian/non-Christian society).

Armin
Armin
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike M.

Implicit in the idea of a “nation” (properly understood) is the right to exclude. If you can’t exclude certain people for any or no reason, then you simply do not have national sovereignty.

Mike M.
Mike M.
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

So what nation are you advocating the jews be excluded from, exactly?

Mike M.
Mike M.
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike M.

Armin, since it’s been several hours since I asked which nation you’re talking about, and you’ve responded to multiple other posts since then, I think it’s fair to conclude you weren’t planning to answer it. On that basis, I’m going to assume you’re talking about the United States. This, since it is the proprietor’s home country, seems to be the most likely answer. If this is the case, then it naturally follows that the “us” in your original statement would be the citizens of the United States. But that would then invalidate your claim that the Jews are “a different… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

Armin, does it occur to you that in a nation in which your political and social views are those of a teeny tiny minority of the population, if there’s going to be religious persecution and exclusion, you and yours are far more likely to be at the receiving end of it? And therefore, religious toleration and pluralism might very well be in your own best interests. You talk and act as if you have a working majority of the population on your side and you don’t. Most Americans (left, right and center) would be completely horrified by your views. So… Read more »

Armin
Armin
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

I’m actually trying to prevent horrors by calling for separation of incompatible groups. I’ve made this point numerous times with regard to blacks. Jews historically have a habit of offending the Gentiles in the lands they occupy, often resulting in severe persecution. I’d like to prevent that. I’m not a monster who just wants to hurt Jews.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

Well, maybe Gentiles shouldn’t offend quite so easily. At some point, squabbling children need to be told to grow up. In life, you are going to encounter people who are different from you, and part of being an adult is recognizing that fact.

From what I can see, the primary reason the Jews have been hated is that they’ve refused to assimilate, insisting on the right to maintain their own culture and religion. I just don’t see that as being a horrible crime against humanity. You live your life and let them live theirs.

Farinata
Farinata
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

But that’s the point, isn’t it? You may be a swell guy, a cosmopolitan libertarian who has no trouble with the guy down the street. Maybe that’s true for everyone you know. But nations don’t work that way. Heterogenous societies – which after a certain point are not strictly societies anymore, in the sense of socii – always eventually homogenize. The only questions are which group will prevail, and whether it will happen violently or peacefully.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Farinata

Farinata, it is true that that seems to be the way things have generally happened in the past, but I’m far from convinced that they have to be that way. I’m ex-Navy; when I arrived at boot camp, I got thrown in with 80 other guys many of whom I had little in common with, and a few of whom I didn’t even like. Nevertheless, after eight weeks of shared boot camp experiences, we were a cohesive unit. We got that way through shared experiences and having to work together whether we liked it or not. Maybe instead of rewarding… Read more »

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

“we should instead come down hard on those who are perpetrating prejudice” Like BLM, CRT and those who do things like this (which has only gotten worse since 2017)? Colin Flaherty: Parking Lot Black Violence 2017 FBI NUMBAHS Even Worse Than They Seem (rumble.com) No, I’m sure that goes against the narrative so tightly programmed into you. But really, we don’t “come down hard on those (simply) perpetrating prejudice” because of a thing called the 1st Amendment. As much as you’d like an Orwellian society, sharing a viewpoint–whether the KKK, Black Hebrew Israelites, Brown Pride Latinos or anything else–isn’t a… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

Cherrera, I certainly hope you feel better having gotten that out of your system; sometimes when someone has indigestion the only thing for it is to throw up. Now that you have, please get some rest and feel better.

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

So much projection there, Mikey. You don’t even know how to hide it!

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

Projection? Nah. I’m not the guy who tries to conceal his own racism (though not very successfully) by accusing other people of being racist. That would be you.

Armin may be a racist, but at least he can stick to the subject without invoking what aboutism or making up strawmen. In other words, he’s an honest opponent. Maybe you could learn something from him.

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

I’m no more a racist (by Biblical standards) than you are a mind-reader. And why do you assume I’m a “he” you wannabe biologist! For someone who’s given to bad arguments and logical fallacies, the “whataboutism” charge is hilarious. That seems to be the only fallacy leftists know–and they use it to cover their own hypocrisy. Speaking of which, here’s one of today’s face-palming examples of someone in your tribe–a crybully WaPo “journalist.”
WaPo Reporter Readies to Expose Anonymous ‘Libs of TikTok’ Account (breitbart.com)

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

I grew up in the Jim Crow South, and when someone says “I’m not a racist by Biblical standards” you can pretty much bank on it that they’re a racist. That story I’ve heard before. The problem with what-aboutism is that you can always find someone on the other side who’s behaving badly, so then nobody can ever be held accountable for anything. Hitler gets a free pass because what about Stalin, and Stalin gets a free pass because what about Hitler. I’ve never claimed that there aren’t leftists behaving badly, but it doesn’t absolve conservatives behaving badly, and it… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

when someone says “I’m not a racist by Biblical standards” you can pretty much bank on it that they’re a racist. That story I’ve heard before.”

Directly describing the exact process by which you create and apply prejudice to others based on stereotypes you’ve constructed in y our past is maybe not the intellectual coup de grace you envisioned in your head.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, just the result of 70 years of observation. People with guilty consciences tend to talk and act in certain ways.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, by way of explanation, and having grown up around people who used the Bible to justify racism, that’s all it is: Using the Bible to justify something that is otherwise not justifiable. And where I come from, it’s not just racism. I’ve seen unmarried people living together claim they had a “Biblical marriage.” I’ve seen a man having an incestuous relationship with his daughter claim it was “Biblical patriarchy.” Some people still practice Biblical polygamy. The list goes on and on. So if Cherrera really isn’t a racist, there’s no reason to qualify it by saying he’s not racist… Read more »

Cherrera
Cherrera
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

“Based on plenty of his previous statements here, I’m quite certain that he is. Having read his comments here for several months and having lots of experience with people who use the Bible to justify racism, that’s sure how it smells to me.” 70 years can either bring wisdom or foolishness compounded by years of bad programming. Sadly, you fall into the latter category. You don’t “know” I’m a racist any more than I know your birthday. The Biblical standard I refer to is non-partiality (James 2:1, Rom. 2:11, Lev. 19:15, etc.). You can claim I’m a racist using recent,… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Cherrera

I didn’t say I “know” you are a racist; I said I’m “quite certain” of it; the two do not mean the same thing, though nuance has never been your strong point. And lumping together all things left is no more helpful than lumping together all things Christian; Christians are not a monolithic entity any more than liberals are. (For that matter, neither is CRT; it’s adherents are all over the map politically.) And here’s the reason I think you’re a racist; feel free to correct any misconceptions you think I may have. Your notion of non-partiality runs straight up… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

I find it really interesting that your response to pointing out you are creating and employing a system of stereotyped prejudice is to justify the practice with your age. That’s maybe not the strategy I would go with. People tend to look down on openly employing prejudice. “Using the Bible to justify something that is otherwise not justifiable. And where I come from, it’s not just racism.” That’s everywhere, for as long as there have been holy books from which to leech legitimacy. “I’ve seen unmarried people living together claim they had a “Biblical marriage.” I’ve seen a man having… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

It’s not an appeal to authority; it’s testifying to what I’ve seen and heard over an extended period of time. And if you bring in another senior with different experiences, my response would be to ask them about their own experiences. And the problem with appealing to “Biblical standards” is that they are subject to confirmation bias and self-serving interpretation, which was the point of the examples I gave. It’s why people on both sides of any emotionally-laden issue, be it the death penalty, abortion, or critical race theory, are all able to cherry pick texts that support their position.… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

“And the problem with appealing to “Biblical standards” is that they are subject to confirmation bias and self-serving interpretation” The problem with denying an appeal to Biblical standards is its a Christian board. Nobody here cares one whit about how offended Mike Freeman might be of something if God is not offended by that thing. If its nothing to God, what can it be to you? If its offensive to God, go ahead, make that case. “Which was the point of the examples I gave. It’s why people on both sides of any emotionally-laden issue, be it the death penalty,… Read more »

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Well, you first have to tell me what a flibbertygibbit actually is, and it has to be a definition we both agree on, otherwise having a conversation about it is pointless. And unlike flibbertygibbets, racists actually do exist under a definition that is largely agreed to. And I did make an argument as to why he’s a racist. See my comment above that begins “I didn’t say . . .” Having made that argument, my real objection to Cherrera’s comments is that he then covers his racism by accusing other people of being racist (even when, as here, it wasn’t… Read more »

Mike M.
Mike M.
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Mike, you say that “unlike flibbertygibbets, racists actually do exist under a definition that is largely agreed to.” Here’s the current Merriam-Webster definition of racist as a noun: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist “a person who is racist : someone who holds the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” But in your post beginning with “I didn’t say…” you argue that a person who fails to sufficiently take into account historical oppression when applying modern-day treatments and standards is racist. That’s nowhere to be seen in… Read more »

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Mike Freeman: I’m far from convinced that societies have to homogenize. So here’s an example from the military!

Alanis says “Hi”.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago

Are you claiming members of the military have a different human nature than everybody else?

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Dude, if you were Navy, then you of all people should know that the military has homogenization down to a science. Really, the uniforms should have been your first clue.

This is why I could never subscribe to your cultish religion — it’s incoherent. Serious people don’t go around obliterating their own truth claims. But alas, that’s par for the course for a leftist who talks of growing up in the very bad, no good Democrat Jim Crow south while still remaining a Democrat.

Mike Freeman
Mike Freeman
2 months ago

That we don’t need to homogenize to the same extent that the Navy does, doesn’t mean that a Balkanized society is the only other alternative. You’ve given your usual false alternative in which there are only two choices.

And if those Jim Crow Democrats came back from the dead, today they would all be wearing MAGA hats and voting Republican.

The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
The Commenter Formerly Known As fp
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

Mike Freeman: I’m far from convinced that societies have to homogenize. To support my point, I’ll use the military as an example! Also Mike Freeman: We don’t need to homogenize to the same extent the military does! Like I said, your religion is incoherent. Speaking of religious nuttery, I like how, despite the facts, you stubbornly cling to your belief in the Magic Party Switch, a conspiracy theory concocted by religious Democrats to transfer Democrat sins to Republicans. You probably believe there’s a Santa Claus and an Easter Bunny, too. Since no one ever sat you down for The Talk… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago

The spirit of Jim Crow is alive and well in the Democrat party. “

I counted the number of explicitly racially discriminatory policies in the official 2020 Democrat party platform. 32.

I wonder when those renewable energy jobs specifically for people of color are coming…….

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

And if those Jim Crow Democrats came back from the dead, today they would all be wearing MAGA hats and voting Republican.”

In fairness, I think Mike’s right here. Unfortunately for Mike, the reason this is true, is nearly everyone who has ever lived who died before the 1975 would vote for almost any alternative to the 2022 Democrat party.

Joel Pastor
Joel Pastor
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

….

Last edited 2 months ago by Joel Pastor
Jill Smith
Jill Smith
2 months ago
Reply to  Farinata

With around 70% of young Jews marrying gentiles these days, I think it’s clear which group is going to prevail in the US. The child of a Jewish-gentile marriage is generally lost to Judaism. His or her sense of being Jewish can be as shallow as “That’s why I like lox and bagels at Sunday brunch.” A recent poll of young adults raised n Gentile/Jewish homes found that 43% identified a “having a good sense of humor” as a defining characteristic of being Jewish; only 28% said that about “being part of a Jewish community.” A Jewish/gentile kid is unlikely… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Jill Smith
Dave
Dave
2 months ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

“As Irving Kristol said about American gentiles, “They don’t want to kill us. They want to marry us,” and not very many Jews are saying no.”

Jill, you must warn us to put our drinks down before reading statements such as you quoted!

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Mike Freeman

“From what I can see, the primary reason the Jews have been hated is that they’ve refused to assimilate, insisting on the right to maintain their own culture and religion.” Historically, the reason why the Jews and other similar groups have been hated, the Lebanese, the Chinese (immigrants specifically), etc., is their tendency to occupy middleman industries. Typically large portions of people do not accurately recognize the service provided by a middleman and just see someone profiting off the the labor of another. This is very consistent with the Jews in particular who are famously cast, most famously of course… Read more »

Armin
Armin
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, calling inaccurate conclusions from data “racist” is irrational and gay. You’re injecting a moral element (and a manufactured one at that) into empirical analysis. That’s worse than simply being wrong about data.

Last edited 2 months ago by Armin
Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

Lol, while I appreciate the attempted trolling with your use of the word “gay”, you’re simply incorrect. I didn’t insert any moral element whatsoever. While its understandable to assume that I meant a moral condemnation by calling your analysis of the facts “racist”, as most people would have meant exactly that, I simply meant that believing one race to be biologically superior to the others is definitionally racist. If I had been making a moral accusation, I would have directed the comment to you and been much more thorough.

Jane
Jane
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

And to take it a step further, the reason they have tended to occupy middleman industries is twofold: some of those occupations were considered unlawful for Christians, and Jews were not allowed to own property and were excluded from guilds. What’s left? Facilitating the exchange of things you’re not allowed to create yourself.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Jane

This was my understanding Jane. I did not include it in the post because my personal knowledge of those kinds of laws in that era is shamefully inadequate and I am highly likely to get bopped on the nose rhetorically for even a minor historical error. I’m too snarky when I’m right to deserve any less.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

Of course a nation could go rogue,strip its Jews of their citizenship, and mass deport them. Not under current domestic or international law, but I presume you aim to eliminate the first and ignore the latter. What is your plan for persuading the majority of Americans to go along with you? From what I have seen, years of “naming the Jew” and “raising the JQ” have not significantly moved the needle in your direction except, perhaps, among alienated, economically unsuccessful young men who are ripe for recruitment to any cause that gives them a sense of belonging and the promise… Read more »

Armin
Armin
2 months ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

All I was trying to do was bring clarity and simplicity to an issue that confuses and freaks out (unnecessarily) a lot of people. I feel like my original statement did that.

Mike M.
Mike M.
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

Funny. I don’t see much clarity in contrasting the Jews against an undefined “us.” Or in the vague notion that they “have to go,” without any mention of where they’re going from or to, or by what means. And while making a statement devoid of any specificity might qualify for some definition of “simple,” I don’t believe that this is the sort of simplicity that helps bring understanding.

Jane
Jane
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

“Us”? I know several Jews who are Christians. They’re not different from us, they ARE us.

Armin
Armin
2 months ago
Reply to  Jane

When dealing with these kinds of issues, you don’t allow the outliers to color general observations about groups as well as the political implications of those observations.

Last edited 2 months ago by Armin
Jane
Jane
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

The point is that “Jews” and “not us” are distinct categories, kind of like “red” and “tall.” Jews can’t be definitionally different from “us” if some Jews are “us.” In the context of this discussion and the things you advocate, generalities, while useful in some contexts, aren’t sufficient.

Armin
Armin
2 months ago
Reply to  Jane

Here’s how I look at it. Imagine you live in a nice small town, an idyllic kind of town where people know each other and there’s a real sense of community. Imagine some Roma were brought into the town, and that these foreigners were causing all kinds of trouble, not working, being filthy and loud, committing crime, and just generally not fitting in or even respecting the basic norms of the town. Is it wrong for the people of the town to want to be rid of the Roma? Does it mean they hate them? (You can bet they’ll probably… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Armin
Jill Smith
Jill Smith
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

Serious questions. Do you believe that the traits you believe make Jews unfit to live among us can be remedied by conversion to Christianity? That was the position of Catholic Spain–Jews were welcome to stay if they gave up their religion. On the other hand, Hitler believed that a Jew who became Christian could never erase his inborn rat-like traits. Which is your own position? Does your dream of mass expulsion–solely for the Jews’ own good, of course, as you noted above–include people of mixed gentile and Jewish ancestry? Have the racial genes been sufficiently diluted to exempt someone with… Read more »

Jane
Jane
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

Nice way of avoiding the issue. If I agree to remove “the Roma,” I’m also removing (in your scenario) some of my closest friends and most solid citizens. You are literally calling for legally-enforced injustice to your brothers and sisters in Christ because you don’t like some aggregate tendencies of people distantly related to them. That is indefensible.

Armin
Armin
2 months ago
Reply to  Jane

OK, so keep all the Roma then? Or just go through and individually pick out the bad ones who follow the general pattern of Roma bad behavior and kick them out, all while pretending that our dislike of those particular Roma has “nothing to do with their ethnicity, they’re just bad individuals.”

Which approach is more honest, mine or yours?

John Callaghan
John Callaghan
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.

But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish.

– Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, page 168

Jane
Jane
2 months ago
Reply to  Armin

How about we “go through and individually pick out the bad ones” and prosecute them for their actual crimes, and treat the other ones as full citizens of the republic. You know, like justice provides for? What would be the horrible and dire result of preserving the rights of people who aren’t criminals?

JohnM
JohnM
2 months ago

John, I can’t see what needs to happen at a distance either but my (unsolicited) advice is, lighten up or remain a bachelor. A woman doesn’t need to have deep theological discussions with you to be a good wife, or a godly Christian, and you will find relatively few women who want to have such discussions. This is coming from someone who enjoys and values discussing theology, culture, and the Bible.

Kristina Zubic
Kristina Zubic
2 months ago
Reply to  JohnM

Hear, hear.

Alicia
Alicia
2 months ago
Reply to  JohnM

Absolutely agree with Doug on this but I do have questions which I’ve listed below and I’ll insert a couple unsolicited thoughts here in no particular order- of which I am very open to hearing correction if need be: Don’t wait until 4 months into a relationship to figure out what you need/want. Figure out what your musts are before entering a relationship, pray to have that “musts” list refined and transformed by what God would want for you and that He would open your eyes to see what is truly good and necessary for you. If having deep theological… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
2 months ago
Reply to  Alicia

Alicia, first, my apology for not replying sooner. I agree with figure it out before you even start – and with let your “musts” be guided by what God would want. However, I’m not sure the “for you” part is important. I don’t think a man who desires the kind of conversation John does necessarily needs his wife to be the one who provides it or should expect that. Indeed, it might be different for women. I think there are more men than women who desire deep conversations about doctrine and theology, though I know there are women who do.… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
2 months ago
Reply to  JohnM

My alarm bells went off a bit at three things: she doesn’t seem to read much except textbooks, she doesn’t like deep discussions about culture, and John was reading serious literature in high school. Because she sounds sweet-tempered, of course she will agree to read and study the Bible if he asks her to; I don’t think that’s the potential problem. But a woman who isn’t a reader and who isn’t interested in thoughtful discussion about books and ideas will not be easily transformed into a woman who is. You can be a godly, intelligent, and wonderful wife without liking… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
2 months ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

“But John has to figure out whether a woman who doesn’t like these things is right for him.” Or if he is right for her. We never look at it that way, either men or women, do we? My alarm bells went off at I what perceive to be John’s attitude. Here is a woman he describes as “beautiful, feminine, submissive, forgiving, and godly in many other ways” but he’s ready to turn his nose up at her because she’s no fun when it comes to deep theological discussions. Now, what does he offer her, besides a passion for reading… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
2 months ago
Reply to  JohnM

I see your point but I think that, if a young lady told me of her misgivings, I would be asking if someone was right for her: “He’s great but his nose is always in a book and he’s so serious all the time. I don’t want to talk about theology and culture–I don’t think they’re interesting and I’d much rather do things than talk about them.” I would say pretty much the same thing. “He’s not likely to change and would you be okay with that? Will you find yourself wishing that he would lighten up?” I personally don’t… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
2 months ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

I agree. That delusion probably is a major cause of marital unhappiness and one of the best bits of advice we can give a woman contemplating marriage is “He’s not likely to change”. However, to that I would add: “Why should he?”. And it would not be a rhetorical question. “Is there something objectively and seriously wrong about the thing you don’t like? Does he try (as might be the case here) to force it upon you? Will it prevent him from fulfilling something that is essential to being a good husband?”. If the answer to any of those questions… Read more »

Alicia
Alicia
2 months ago
Reply to  JohnM

John, and Jill, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your responses and thank you for your thoughts and suggestions. I thought my comment wasn’t approved after I clicked “submit” yesterday so I rewrote the whole thing as a letter to Doug and sent it last night. So, if it makes it into next week’s letters I’ll be curious to hear Doug’s thoughts about it. FYI, since I rewrote it all there are some differences and additional thoughts/questions. Jill, I agree that determining what is truly a good match is necessary. John, I particularly liked your response regarding the man considering what he… Read more »

Anne
Anne
2 months ago
Reply to  Alicia

As someone who loves a good philosophical discussion myself, but married to a wonderful man who prefers living the right action without tongue wagging about it, I would encourage you to consider that you may be excluding lots of men who you could happily marry and follow. A lot of movers and shakers, doers, don’t value turning something inside out in a discussion. Many men of this strain are sounder than the men who love rhetoric because they live it without debating it, whereas a lot of the talkers only do so for attention. I judged my fairly quiet man… Read more »

RT
RT
2 months ago
Reply to  JohnM

From my own experiences, my wife and I do discuss the Bible, theology and culture from time to time. Especially when the situation arises related to our church, our work places, families, friends, etc. However, it is also true that I discuss with those issues, including politics more with my friend than with my wife. One reason is that generally speaking my wife is not “THAT” interested in those topics. But that does not mean my wife doesn’t know God or doesn’t know the truth. She’s very perceptive in her areas, regarding our family and various other issues. And also,… Read more »

JohnM
JohnM
2 months ago
Reply to  RT

I think your experience is fairly typical.

arwenb
arwenb
2 months ago
Reply to  JohnM

In my experience, deep theological discussions are the Christian high school equivalent of “Who would win in a fight between Superman and Captain America?” and are just as off-putting to the young women who are forced to listen to the young men engage in them.

Liz
Liz
2 months ago

John, I also hate jumping in to the discussion from a distance but as an older woman I would ask you to try to determine WHY she seems to read the Scripture so infrequently. Is it lack of interest, or does the young woman have a lower IQ or a learning disability that makes it hard for her to read at the comprehension level Scripture demands? She seems to lean towards aural learning and in a situation where the text is explained to her. If her intelligence is low, then you will need to decide whether you could marry her… Read more »

Robert
Robert
2 months ago

Thank you for answering my question about how the “traditionalist” evangelicals handle the slavery verses in the New Testament, pastor Wilson! … I think I get it. *Planning* on buying your book “Black and Tan”

Ken B
Ken B
2 months ago

Theonomic Postmillenial Reformed Baptist bro Yet here I am. Having hopefully established my love of my savior Jesus Christ, … In my view you haven’t established this at all. Jesus said to love your enemies, this doesn’t seem to be manifested anywhere in your letter. Germans were so hate-ridden as to devote infrastructure to the systematic murder of enemy combatants (actual and potential) … and mass graves that we never did find, … I have visited a concentration camp and have seen the mass graves – row after row each with 500 murdered Russian soldiers in them. The treatment of Russians… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Ken B

“ Your ignorance of this is contemptible and inexcusable.” If you could as a Christian find ignorance in and of itself contemptible and inexcusable, I would spend most of my days furious and in constant condemnation. I’m quite fortunate that there is no basis whatsoever in Christianity to hold moral fault for a lack of knowledge. “If you were to take this line in Germany you would be committing an offence, as it is against the law to trivialise (verharmlosen) or deny the holocaust.” Leave it to the government of Germany to write fascist laws against supporting fascism. I’m curious though… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, over 16 European countries have laws against Holocaust denial. If that makes Germany fascist, it has plenty of company. And quite a few other countries around the world prosecute some Holocaust denialists under general hate speech laws. For example, it is not illegal to question the number of deaths or to say that you have doubts about the accuracy of the historical record. But it is considered illegal hate speech if you say–as many denialists do–that the “Holo-Hoax” is a Jewish plot to extract sympathy and money from gullible gentiles because that’s the kind of thing Jews do. That… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Jill Smith
Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Re: Your first paragraph, You’re taking what was intended as slightly tongue in cheek single sentence as though it were a treatise on the flaws of Germany’s handling of its history. While I do think there are a great many flaws in its handling of its history, I didn’t mean to imply that criminalizing holocaust denial made Germany definitively fascist. Though I certainly don’t think that if it were a fascist law in and of itself, other countries doing the same would somehow alter that. It is also as I understand it illegal to sell or puchase a copy of… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Justin Parris
Jill Smith
Jill Smith
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

The “Mein Kampf” issue is interesting. It was illegal before 2016 because the Bavarian government owned the copyright and had total control over printing and distribution. You could be prosecuted for owning a bootleg copy. However, it came into the public domain in 2016 and is available online. It’s still hate speech in Germany to quote from it in for the purpose of promoting “hatred or war.” I do believe in the conclusion of the Popper Paradox, and I am generally on the side of free speech. I personally don’t think the two can be be reconciled. Our way of… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Jill Smith
Ken B
Ken B
2 months ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

My old school history teacher thought it no bad thing if people read Mein Kampf. It’s such nonsense it would put anyone off its ideas for life.

The German government, on the other hand, is worried that some people might actually believe what it in it if it became freely available again, and not entirely without reason. It fooled the Weimar generation.

Ken B
Ken B
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin – I am glad you have clarified your position on Germany’s supposed fascist laws on the holocaust. If you had seriously meant that, it would be accusing a model democracy with an excellent constitution protecting its population from the very evils that Hitler represented of wanting to continue them. Incidentally, the offence is publically to deny, approve of or trivialise the holocaust. The constitution guarantees freedom of expression, so privately this may be discussed. I don’t have a personal stake in this not being Jewish but it is a red rag to a bull with me (as you probably… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Ken B

” If you had seriously meant that, it would be accusing a model democracy with an excellent constitution protecting its population from the very evils that Hitler represented of wanting to continue them.” No it wouldn’t. It would be accusing them of actually repeating them. Intentions of government policy and results of government policy are not to be conflated. The manner in which they arguably are repeating those mistakes is in the rigid adherence to a worldview to the point of publicly and openly infringing on the rights of the individual. Right to independent thought is about as basic of a… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Justin Parris
Ken B
Ken B
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

There are two sets of rights at work here. One is a general freedom of speech, and the other is the right of those who have suffered at the hands of one of the worst ideologies ever invented not to have the consequences of that ideology denied or celebrated by those still supporting it. It is not oppression to ban the Hitler greeting (Heil Hitler), the salute and party emblems. You will appreciate that this law was more important in the past, there are now relatively few survivors still alive. The German law is very specific, and only affects public… Read more »

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
2 months ago
Reply to  Ken B

“the other is the right of those who have suffered at the hands of one of the worst ideologies ever invented not to have the consequences of that ideology denied or celebrated by those still supporting it.” That is obviously not a right by any coherent definition at all, and not something you can promise. You can’t even define it into a coherent idea. What qualifies “celebration”? Certainly anything at all can be celebration, as celebration is formed in the heart of the person doing the celebrating. You haven’t put thought into this at all. How does a right against… Read more »

Ken B
Ken B
2 months ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Far from a right not to have your suffering belittled and denied not being in any modern constitution, it is part of the German constitution. This crime was so awful that considerations of free speech were overriden, and a permission to deny suffering publically as part of a political campaign or otherwise was refused, as is stirring up nationalist hatred. Believe me the German far right are still at it, only now it is immigrants who are the object of hatred. When the western Allies occupied Germany, they commenced a programme of de-nazification. The modern German law is simply a… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Ken B
JohnM
JohnM
2 months ago
Reply to  Ken B

However, from this side of the pond that model democracy does appear authoritarian. In Germany, if it’s not strictly regulated that’s only because it is verboten.

RT
RT
2 months ago
Reply to  Ken B

The crime to publicly deny, question or “trivialize” the Holocaust, itself does not conform to the spiritual of a free society. Only in a theocracy, or in a state where a certain ideology is enshrined would there be a law to criminalize the questioning of certain things. For example, it a crime to publicly deny, question or trivialize the prophet Mohammad (may he live forever) or things related to Islam in any Islamic countries. You can believe whatever you will in private, but when you go public denying the Prophet, you are a dead man. So basically the “democracy” you… Read more »

Ken B
Ken B
2 months ago
Reply to  RT

The crime to publicly deny, question or “trivialize” the Holocaust, … The crime is to deny, approve of or trivialise/play down the holocaust and other National-Socialist crimes in public. Research into it is allowed. This is in part a particular example of enforcing Article 1 of the German Constitution: Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. It does not forbid all discussion. Your statement that it mustn’t be questioned is inaccurate. There is a resurgance of anti-semitism and racist bigotry amongst the extreme right in Germany by those who… Read more »

RT
RT
2 months ago
Reply to  Ken B

I have made a reply to another poster down below regarding the issue of Holocaust. Just some exchange of ideas perhaps you can find it interesting.

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/fewer-letters.html#comment-256324

anonymous
anonymous
2 months ago

Whether the Holocaust is undeniable depends what one means by the Holocaust. Some may believe the numbers are close enough but that certain stories (such as people being skinned or burned alive, and made into soap and lampshades) are discredited, and who may object to the term Holocaust because of its religious connotations (Holocaust means “total sacrifice”) or feel that, though the Jews should not have been genocided, they were hated for a reason (because a large subset of the population was involved in the promotion of vice, and they had a disproportionate role in communism and anarchism.)If that’s what… Read more »

RT
RT
2 months ago
Reply to  anonymous

I have heard that today the mainstream Holocaust historians have disproved some of the evidences and witnesses presented at the Nuremberg trial. It brought into questions of some of the narratives that is mainstream and that is engraved into our collective consciousness. From another perspective, it is important to see HOW the Holocaust is being used by the liberals/progressives/internationalist (both Jews and Gentiles) to advance their agenda. It is also very interesting to see how the students are being taught about the Second World War in public schools and many other private schools today. Today in the study of the… Read more »

RT
RT
2 months ago

I think the “Jewish” questions are very complicated because of it involves many topics and discussions in history, politics, and theology. I think the author of the original letter to the editor was try to make a point that being labeled “anti-Semitic” is not always because of the envy of Jewish achievements. First of all what do we mean today to be a Jew? (1) religious, to be a follower of the Talmudic/Rabbinical Judaism (2) an ethnic Jew, physical descendants of Abraham, Issac and Jacob; meaning descendants of the ancient Hebrews However, technically, the term “Jew” or Judahite, should strictly… Read more »

Leaf
Leaf
2 months ago

My advice to John up above: Don’t worry if your reasons for breaking up with this girl don’t seem valid to your social circle–they’re not the ones who would have to live with her. This girl can be completely lovely, and still not be a good fit for you. I notice you have been dating for 4 months. At this stage, most young men are in the honeymoon phase. They are completely smitten with the girl, and run the risk of turning a blind eye to her faults. The fact that you are sharing your doubts about a future with… Read more »