The central problem with the white supremacists in Charlottesville is not so much that they hate blacks and Jews. Their central problem is that they hate God, and hate Jesus Christ. And the same thing goes for the anitfa agitators on the other side of the street. Scripture tells us what the emotional weather is always like outside of Jesus Christ.
“For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another” (Tit. 3:3).
There is no way out of this apart from real repentance. God sent His Son into this world, in part, in order to solve the most intractable of problems—that of ethnic animosity. Christ was sent in order to overcome the division between Jew and Gentile, to create one new man out of two (Eph. 2:15), and the chasm between those two groups was a true chasm. But—liberal bromides notwithstanding—we cannot have the Jesus fruit apart from the Jesus tree. “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30). “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). We are commanded to repent, and we are commanded to repent by Jesus. We cannot do anything resembling this if we persist in our refusal to name His name. We must come to hate our sin, which means naming it, and we must come to love Jesus, which means naming Him.But—liberal bromides notwithstanding—we cannot have the Jesus fruit apart from the Jesus tree.
Refuse to do that and the only thing you have to look forward to is an ever-increasing cycle of hatreds, spilling out of hearts and into the streets. These racial animosities are not a sin against America, or democracy, or our social fabric. They are a sin against God.
So every form of race-hustling, independent of which race might be receiving the benefits of that hustle, is detestable to God. Every form of race baiting is detestable to God. Every form of racial biting is detestable to God. And this includes, incidentally, the lite forms of race-hustling, race-baiting, and racial biting that have somehow become acceptable within the church. But Christless alt-right thinking defiles the sanctuary. Christless grievance politics defile the sanctuary. There are those who hustle outside the church, and there are those who shamble and shuffle inside it, playing the same game at a slow enough speed to be palatable to evangelicals. But do not ask how fast it is going. Ask rather what direction it is going. There are only two directions—the New Jerusalem or the Abyss.
Ask yourself—where did these white supremacists come from? Were they educated in white supremacist academies? Not a bit of it—I will lay you even money that they were educated under the government school program of identity politics, and they then went and looked in the mirror to find out what side they were on. And outside of Christ, that is the way it always has to go. Outside of Christ, attempts at racial reconciliation are always going to be a matter of reaching around Lady Justice in order to get your thumb on the other scale now. You keep saying you are going to fix everything, and you keep knocking everything over.
It might be said that I am saying these things as a white male in his sixties, and therefore my point is suspect and invalid. No, I am saying these things as a minister of Jesus Christ, and when He makes His appointments, it has nothing to do with racial quotas, and everything to do with the authority of His Word. And so here is a message from God—a hammer that breaks the rock of racial animosities into pieces (Jer. 23:29). And it is the only hammer that can break this rock.
So here is the message for those who hate image bearers of God because they don’t like the color God used to paint that particular image. So then, you have taken it upon yourself to hate God in this way? Very well. Have it your way. Scripture teaches that—for those insist upon living in their own little cesspool of animosity—God hates them also.
Someone might object that they have been taught that God loves sinners, including those who sin racially, unconditionally. No, God loves sinners in Christ. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. The only place where a sinner can possibly be a recipient of God’s love is in Christ. God’s love for sinners was bestowed and manifested in one place only, and that place was the cross of Christ. And so what happens to those who hate Christ, who despise His cross, who insist on turning their face away from Him? What happens to those who stand aloof from God’s solitary provision for sinners? They remain outside in the twilight—a twilight that is rapidly becoming the outer darkness. Where they stand, they hate God and God hates them.
You heard that right. God hates evil men. “The Lord trieth the righteous: But the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth” (Ps. 11:5). Those who love violence do so for various reasons, and they have all their rationalizations in place. But they rationalize under the wrath of God. They are by nature objects of wrath (Rom. 9:22). The white man who loves violence is detested by God. The black man who loves violence is detested by God. The fact that they detest each other does not keep them from going to Hell together.
Tim Challies sums it up nicely:
God “hates wicked people from his soul, from the very depth of his being. God hates their ways (Proverbs 15:9), their thoughts (Proverbs 15:26), their worship (Proverbs 15:8), their actions (Proverbs 6:18), and their evil deeds (Psalm 5:5).”
There is only one righteous side for Christians to take in a situation like this, and that is the side of the gospel of reconciliation. The only way that racial animosity can ever die is if it is nailed to the cross where Jesus died. And again, for that to happen, the sin must have a name and the Savior must have a name.
Anything else is trying to pick up the turd by the clean end.
Wilson is far better at wrecking racism than those misguided SJWs who blindly accuse him of racism.
A rare disagreement K’, Wilson is saying that the Blood of Christ, atoning for sins of malice is the only thing that wrecks racism.
Wilson is just a cheerleader for that atonement!
Amen, adad, amen! May we all be cheerleaders for atonement. :)
“Not a bit of it—I will lay you even money that they were educated under the government school program of identity politics, and they then went and looked in the mirror to find out what side they were on” Case in point: ‘Unite the Right’ leader, Jason Kessler. He’s said to be a former supporter of Obama and the Occupy movement. He didn’t publicly change his views until last November. What’s been frustrating to me is the virtue signaling and one-sided rants coming from hipster pastors and priests on FB, blogs, etc.. One said he wouldn’t allow anyone to take… Read more »
“He didn’t publicly change his views until last November.” Unlike Vox and Roosh and some others, who flipped a 180 turn in only 48 hours? Just a few days ago they were all about Unite the Right, smash some skulls, go white power. Those guys are liars and cowards, but they’ll amp up the energy on social media…and then try to claim their hands are clean and they did no such thing. Jason Kessler, who? Never heard of him. He’ s not one of us. They are the kind of people who send troops into battle and than claim plausible… Read more »
” Unlike Vox and Roosh and some others, who flipped a 180 turn in only 48 hours? Just a few days ago they were all about Unite the Right, smash some skulls, go white power”
I don’t follow them closely. Please provide the links where they said such things.
I know,right? Nobody ever follows them. People just quote them verbatim and then claim to have no idea what you’re talking about.
Join the discussionWait, so if you don’t read them, how do you know they said “Unite the Right, smash some skulls, go white power.”
I’m still waiting for proof. Or did you make that up?
I saw where they dismissed the Kessler guy, but I never saw him praised before that.
Yep, that’s what it looks like to me. Provide the links or it’s a lie.
I do not lie nor am I the only one who noticed that blatant fact. Also, I’ve never claimed not to read those guys. Obviously, I do read them. Hence my ability to make such a statement. You however, have clearly said you don’t read them, yourself, while at the same time calling me a liar for reporting on exactly what they did say. So which is it? Do you follow them so closely you are sure I am lying and you’re just ashamed of the fact that you read them, so you lied about that? Or, did you read… Read more »
“I paid absolutely no attention to the rally in Charlottesville, despite apparently having been invited to speak there, until it made the news.“
Vox Day is a liar. His pants are on fire so often, you could probably toast marshmallows. There are many, many people besides me who see it. Here is one.
There are no quotes or hard evidence there either.
You’re lying and now you’re trying to cover up, which his even worse. You made the statement “they were all about Unite the Right, smash some skulls, go white power” and now you can’t back it up. Instead you ramble for 4 paragraphs and resort to ad hominem. You made the statement, not me. The burden of proof is on you.
Show the quotes or you’re lyng. And we know who the father of lies, is.
That’s funny, because there are multiple discussions on this very forum in which you have made a false declaration, then declared me a liar when I corrected you, I posted proof, and you disappeared.
If you’re going to jump to associating other commenters with the “father of lies” for making false assertions, you probably shouldn’t live in a glass house.
Multiple discussions? Where?
Of all people, someone as disingenuous as you shouldn’t be talking. You always show up late to the party, play like you’re a neutral 3rd party, then use the assumptions and definitions of the Left.
Like when you claimed that it was a lie that Vox Day had been connected to the SBC, then disappeared when I posted both a quote and a link clearly showing that he indeed had been part of the SBC? What you mean by I “show up late to the party” or “play like I’m a neutral 3rd party”, I don’t have a clue. I post when I post, sorry if I’m not online enough to hit every post rigt when it comes online, if that’s actually what you’re criticizingly. And I’m quite explicit about exactly what positions I take… Read more »
I was wrong about Vox. Like I said here, I don’t follow him closely. However, your claim was “there are multiple discussions on this very forum in which you have made a false declaration.” There aren’t multiple discussions. That’s a lie. And it’s pretty ironic that you come on here defending another liar with a lie of your own.
And I stand by what I said about you being disingenuous. It’s evident to anyone who’s read a few of your interactions.
Glad to see you’ve finally admitted #1. #2 is that you claimed I had “made up” my own definition for wealth, when I said that wealth and income are different, because income is the money that comes in to you while wealth is the possessions that you have on hand. You still appear unaware that a tax on income and a tax on wealth would be two different things. In the same discussion you claimed that I “often make up definitions that fit my worldview,” with absolutely zero evidence beyond your misunderstanding that wealth and income are different. Then you… Read more »
Wow, so you can just claim any disagreement is a lie? Gee, that’s fun, we can accuse anyone with whom we disagree of being pathological liars. I gave you a dictionary definition of wealth, because your disjointed rant defined it in a peculiar way to try to make your point (which you didn’t). The rest of your claims come down to semantics and opinions. You have issues, dude. You apparently have unlimited time to look up old threads or copy-paste every online exchange with internet strangers. You’re the definition of a keyboard warrior. I have real battles to fight, and… Read more »
That was ironic. The only time I used the word “lie” or “liar” in that entire comment was when I was quoting the many times that you have called me a liar, and your response is to…criticize the use of the word liar.
I hope you see clearly how you just condemned yourself.
Eh, I know MeMe is sub-truthful sometimes, but I am not going to carry Vox and Roosh’s water for them, either. Vox first talked about the gathering on his main blog, and his supporters, especially, were ready to rock ’em sock ’em. Vox never officially endorsed it, but he usually belittles posters he thinks are stupid, so…
Then, later, Vox, condemns it. Not outright flipping, but one can read between the lines.
I don’t read Roosh, so I don’t know there.
I’ve noticed that the SJW-Lite, hipster, racism-is-the-unpardonable sin types haven’t threaten to ban anyone from the Lord’s Supper for not condemning this:
Talk about neo-nazis…
I’ve also heard that 8/12 is the new 9/11. You can’t make this stuff up…
Amen! My big concern is that many white supramacists, some Alt Righters, and red pills, are professing the name of Jesus Christ, quite poorly. They are perverting the gospel, they are calling good evil and evil good. Not all of the “Alt Right,” that is a broad brush, but some of them are really preaching an ugly gospel. So when someone screams at you, “I hate those racist, horrible Christians, and I reject Jesus Christ Himself” that is often why. They don’t even know Him, but they have seen Him so poorly represented, they don’t even want to. That is… Read more »
All I saw were a_ _ hats on all sides! ????
As near as I can tell, Charlottesville was National Socialists fighting with International Socialists.
The only appropriate response to that is to get the popcorn and root for them both to lose.
This problem takes on a number of forms but it’s always “us against them”.
Livy’s History of the Republic was nothing more than several centuries of the plebians vs. the patricians with land reform *just* around the corner…..
Jesus brings it all inside the church by bringing converts (both us, of course, …. and them, “wait, what?”) from all stations and then tells us to love one another…and tells us how.
Absolutely agree, Doug. At the root of our racial animosities is our pride and vainglory. Any racial reconciliation that merely states sociological facts but doesn’t name the sins at root (on both sides with even-handedness) to our racial animosities is an ego trip based on emotional perception. All it does is feed our animosities and racial vainglory.
Did you mean to say baiting in the following sentence: “Every form of racial biting is detestable to God.”? Thank you for speaking from a strong, biblical, perspective.
This violence is actually far more driven by politics than race. The progressive Left has framed every political debate in racial terms for the last 20 or 30 years. You oppose the death tax? Racist! You support limiting Muslim immigration? Racist! You oppose abortion? Racist! So now when political violence breaks out and identity politics has shaded every flag and label, we now have to creep around the obvious. Those of us who want to preserve Western Civilization and the Christian roots which made it thrive are hamstrung, because we either support the sin of racial vainglory, to use the… Read more »
The “racial” aspects of the conflict seemed skin deep from what I saw in media. Most of the combatants with a fork in the cake seemed Caucasian.
The core conflict is ideological, with race as a weaponized red herring. ????
Our host is still correct though. Repentance and the blood of Christ are the only real resolution to this conflict.
Well, of course, but that is the resolution to all conflicts. In this particular case, he felt so compelled to address race, because the Left is playing that game, and winning.
White anarchists attack white protesters, and white protestors fight back, and we have to apologize for our hatred of black people.
Am I the only one confused?
Heh, no. But you should apologize anyway. I imagine an apology will be part of the next PCA General Assembly as well.
I really don’t understand the pull to try and placate Leftists with groveling apologies.
Jesus called sinners to repentance. I think we should give that a shot.
Kilgore, do you think there are times when a Christian is compelled to denounce something that is objectively evil (like American Nazis who say they are sorry Hitler didn’t finish the job) even though it might appear to give ammunition to some ill-natured people on the left?
I’m not Kilgore, but no, I think it is pointless. No one is happy with it. Leftists don’t want apologies, they want to win.
Example: After the big SBC condemnation of the Alt-Right, guess what most leftists news groups said? Many said, “The Southern Baptist Convention, which was founded on racism…”
It will never work.
Leftists have weaponized apologies, so even if we do apologize, it is simply not the same message on both sides.
Besides, when is the last revival that broke out among secularists when a Christian apologized?
But the secularists’ improper manipulation or reaction isn’t the reason why we should or shouldn’t apologize.
Totally agree. My point was not to base our decisions on their reactions. Rather, when churches apologize as a way to appease Leftists, thinking to themselves that the reasons secularists and Leftists, ah I am redundant, are not Christians is because we have sinned against them, they are wrong. Leftists are not in opposition to Christianity because we are mean. They are in opposition to Christianity, because they hate God.
Apologies actually do more harm than good in that case, because we are confirming to them that they are justified in hating God.
Denouncing is different than apologizing. So I will happily denounce what the bible calls sin and anything that I feel educated enough on to condemn. If it is some historical point, and I don’t know the reason why something happened the way it happened, no. Not a chance. If it is openly sinful, I will happily denounce it. But I will never apologize for something of which I am not guilty. I can also never apologize on behalf of someone else. That is no apology, it is a back handed condemnation. “I hereby apologize on behalf of Jill Smith for… Read more »
I agree with you about apologies. Unless I did it, or colluded in it, or stood by when I ought to have stopped it, it’s not my place to apologize. You’ll note I used denounce and not apologize with reference to Nazis. For example, I would not apologize for Andrew Anglin’s website. But I really don’t see how a Christian who has read it could agree with it, or refuse to denounce it when asked his opinion, without committing the sins of racial vainglory and hatred. Any more than I could read a FB post calling for the killing of… Read more »
I think we are compelled to denounce gross misrepresentations of Jesus Christ and of scripture. It should not be about apologizing or appeasing people at all, it should be about standing up for the truth of the Word.
Not speaking to anyone here,but when Christians are unwilling to denounce things like obvious racism and violence, then we have no moral upper hand on which to denounce other things like abortion and gay marriage. We are hypocrites when that happens,we have shown our morality to be as subjective as those we rail against.
“We are hypocrites” – especially when you blatanly lie then cover up…making even Adam and Eve look honest.
Excellent. Particularly like this quote: “These racial animosities are not a sin against America, or democracy, or our social fabric. They are a sin against God.”
You use the term “supremacism” in that some equivocating way that the mainstream media do. To want to have a country that is mono-ethnic is NOT supremacism. There is nothing inherent in that ideology that says “my race is superior to yours.” Why is that so hard to understand?
Hi Ben, I don’t think it is necessarily supremacist to have a natural preference for living with one’s own kind. But I see three problems with it. The first is that, when people are asked why they want to live in a pure-white America, they don’t typically say that they just feel more comfortable that way. They usually start talking about blacks being stupid and criminal, and Mexicans being stupid and lazy. This tends to undercut their argument that wanting to live with whites has nothing to do with supremacist views. Secondly, it can show a problem with our core… Read more »
Even if someone rails against minorities for being stupid, criminal, lazy, etc., the “supremacist” epithet still doesn’t work. Do you prefer to have smart, reasonable, likable people in your life, or stupid, lazy, criminal people in your life? The answer is obvious. Now you might say, “Well, I want to minister to and evangelize the more problematic people I come across,” and that’s perfectly fine, but if we’re all honest with ourselves, the people we want to be our closest allies, confidants, etc., are those who are most like us. We want to have friends who understand us, who get… Read more »
Ben Garner wrote: Do you prefer to have smart, reasonable, likable people in your life, or stupid, lazy, criminal people in your life? The answer is obvious. … When we choose such people in our lives, we’re exercising merit-based discrimination, whether we want to admit it or not. Does that mean we see ourselves as superior to or “supreme” over those that we don’t choose? I really don’t think so! I noticed a bait and switch here. Garner was attempting to offer a defense of “mono-ethnic” preference, but instead it actually morphed into a defense of merit-based preference (which no… Read more »
I was just making the point that some people meet our standards for being a friend, confidant, etc., and some people don’t. How we determine who “merits” it is often subjective. Whether a white person rejects blacks because he thinks they’re all dumb and lazy or just because he doesn’t resonate with the black culture, in either case we would not call his non-association with blacks “supremacy.” I wasn’t even morally defending using the harsh language about minorities being lazy, dumb, criminal, etc. I was trying to show that, however unkind it may be, it’s not “white supremacy.” That’s a… Read more »
Friend and confidant do not need to meet the same standards as people who live near me or work alongside me, though. That second group is called “neighbors” the response to them is supposed to be charity, not filtering.
Actually, I don’t think it is consistent with “love they neighbor as thyself” to have active preferences about the kinds of people in our lives, beyond avoiding associating with fools and the identifiably wicked, such that we take active steps to eliminate some of the disfavored ones (not from existence, but from our lives.)
So the blithe assumption that it’s just fine to prefer shutting out the simple and the unlovable from our lives needs to be challenged from the get-go.
Ben, certainly I like to surround myself with people whose values, ideals, and morality resemble my own. I like smart, funny people who get my jokes, help me out in a pinch, and pay me back when I lend them money. I don’t like criminals and I would rather not have them around me. So far, we agree. But if I assume that anyone who meets these qualifications must be white, I am thinking as a racial supremacist. Merit-based discrimination (which all healthy people practice in choosing their friends) does not assume that one race is automatically more meritorious than… Read more »
Thank you Jilly.
” There is no way to make America a purely white country without harming many of its citizens whose ancestors were brought here in chains or who were legally admitted as immigrants.”
Or, you know, who were already here when all those other people came in.
Does Christianity have a good track record on this? At least in American history, not really.
For that matter, if you take the racial resentments and replace them with religious ones, it’s unclear what you’ve really achieved.
I’ll have to consult my harem and my chattel slaves on this question….
The Christian South bought the slaves before it freed them, and it didn’t even free them willingly.
Wait, what century did that happen in again? When were the slaves freed? Must have been recent, I remember just last week my dad reminiscing on the slaves he owned when he was younger…
Just kidding, of course. Seriously, let it go. It (slavery) was 155 years ago. It is over. It has been apologized for, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. We even, in the USA, elected a black president. And wasn’t that a triumph at the time? Wasn’t that wonderful? End of racism, and all of that?
Can you please name all of the wonderful non-Christian nations and societies (Muslim? Atheist?) that ended slavery before the U.S. and the rest of the West did?
Annnnnnd, those penguins even did it with style!????????
Matt, I am from the “Christian ” north. Some ship owners up here, bought African slaves with rum that was distilled in the north! The slaves were presumably bought from pagan Africans. No one had a good track record on the issue at the time. Just like antifa and neo- nazis don’t have a good track record at this time. Comparatively speaking, the church does have a better track record than socialists or nazis, though only because the Church has the only real Lord. Considering that the Lord only has the likes of you and me to work with, how… Read more »
Well Adad, we Northeners never thought to enslave Africans at all. It would have interrupted our enslavement of Indians, our disposable Chinese laborers, the dirty Irish that kept our brothels supplied, and all the shanghaied sailors we sold.
Quite funny, were I live there is a framed old town newspaper. We actually sold “six able bodied men,” all white guys, so we could raise money for a cutting edge, lady doctor. Apparently there was some kind of brothel induced public health crisis and the mayor figured out how to fund the solution.
Not to mention, many of us northerners started out as indentured servants….
Which may actually have been a better deal than a current day 6 figure student loan,
and a useless liberal “arts” degree! ; – )
Christianity’s track record on slavery looks bad when compared to impossible perfection.
Christianity’s track record on slavery here in the real world, on the other hand, looks pretty much like we lead the way in ending it’s legal status. That track record looks pretty good to me.
I suppose we could flog ourselves for not being perfect, but we need to be willing to hold that standard to everyone, not just ourselves. Otherwise, its really just self-hatred.
It’s not about flogging yourself, it’s about the idea that only Christianity can overcome racial animosity. This seems plainly false, as the last 500 years or so show that Christianity isn’t actually any better at this than anywhere else. The universal human tendency is to form groups and hate other groups. Christians do this as well as anyone.
Matt, if you were Randman, this would be the point where you would mention that “Hitler was a Catholic”. But anyway, the nazis, stalinists, maoists, and imperial japanese all killed millions of people in concentration camps, to eradicate the ethnicity, religion or politics of those millions of people. Where is the “Christian” equivalent of these concentration camps and millions of dead people? Matt, there is no “Christian” equivalent, so Christians historically (and in the last 500 years) don’t murder on the same scale as nazis, communists and imperialists. In fact, Christians are generally even better behaved than this guy: “U.S.… Read more »
I firmly believe in the superiority of Christian ethics and in positive Christian ethical influence on states, but to be fair, you should look up what King Leopold of Belgium did to Congo Free State. Around 10,000,000 died, which does put it on the same scale as those other atrocities. And why wouldn’t you count the 10 million or so killed in the Atlantic Slave Trade? The genocide of Native Americans is definitely on the same scale as well. We’ll never know the full death toll, but it was certainly over 10 million and might have been as high as… Read more »
J’, this is all a very CNN, kooky liberal rendition of “fake” history.
You are attributing the damage and collateral damage of conflicts to “christians” only,
when the reality is much more murky, and much more non-christian.
You are fabricating / projecting illegitimate numbers for weak rhetorical effect.
By comparison, no reasonable person disputes that nazis, communists and imperialists killed millions, in concentration camps, specifically step up for that oppression.
Finally, is “Woody” Kaine a “christian”? Is Tim?
Not as measured by their behavior.
This can easily devolve into a debate over who was the one true Scotsman. Atheists do the same thing when they say Stalin and Mao don’t count because they were so fervently devoted to a cause the were basically religious.
Demosthenes1d, I don’t think it’s the one true Scotsman fallacy to point out that the reason Stalin and Mao did what they did isn’t that they were atheists, but because they were communists. Had they been atheist libertarians, history would look very different. Plus, they didn’t believe in palm reading or unicorns either, but nobody argues that their disbelief in those things caused them to become mass murderers.
They acted based on what they did believe, not on what they didn’t believe.
I haven not attributed anything to “Christians only”. You made a strong claim with very poor evidence, and I quickly offered contradictory evidence. Like Demo said, you can twist it to a No True Scotsman fallacy quickly, but it’s there. Whenever anyone even hints of claiming that religion is the cause of murder and war, I rebuke them with swiftness and easy examples. But when someone tries to claim that Christian hands are clean in history, they don’t have much of a leg to stand on either. YES, violence and killing are anti-Christ. Some of us here have very strong,… Read more »
j’, read the words I responded to: “Does Christianity have a good track record on this? At least in American history, not really.” In America, some Christians do have a good record on being salt and light, other Christians less so. Only Christianity was mentioned, which does not include non-Christians. “I quickly offered contradictory evidence.” ???????? J’ , who do you think you are? Chuck Todd?? You offered a counter opinion, not contradictory evidence, even you yourself say we can’t know true numbers re: native american population decline. You also moved the goal posts beyond events that America had much… Read more »
“The genocide of Native Americans is definitely on the same scale as well. We’ll never know the full death toll, but it was certainly over 10 million and might have been as high as 100 million.”
I am a high counter on these matters, but I really don’t think you can blame smallpox on Christianity. Most of the natives died without ever seeing a white man.
Oh, I was just lazily grabbing total death tolls, same as had been done on the other side. Only to demonstrate the point of how such laziness can be used both directions and becomes useless quickly. It is worth saying that modern scholarship based on the stated words and actions of the people involved has shown that quite intentional genocide often was exactly what was going on in in the depopulation of the American continent, and the attempts to pin the blame on unavoidable epidemics have probably been overdone. In most cases, those who had not been killed by disease… Read more »
Jonathan, the fact that you got a downvote for stating simple historical fact makes me despair. Even among Christians on this board, there are evidently people who think that any criticism of white believers even centuries ago is unacceptable. Clearly, conversion to Christ is not enough to make people set aside their tribal loyalties.
Jilly, I don’t see that anyone down voted J’, and I don’t think even he is representing all that he said as fact.
My point was that historical “fact” about conflicts, and Christians for that matter, is rarely simple. ; – )
Hi, adado, he was downvoted until I upvoted him. What he said about King Leopold’s genocidal policies in the Congo is absolutely correct. This is an area of history I know very well. Leopold was so appalling that even other imperialist rulers were horrified and forced to intervene. I am not remotely expert on the treatment of Native Americans, although I do know something about the Spaniards treatment of indigenous people in the Caribbean and it was far from pretty. Both malefactors in those cases were Catholic. As one, I have no problem whatsoever with saying, “Yes, that was terrible;… Read more »
Jilly, we both know that this blog is a bit of a rhetorical playground, if not a day care center! ; – ) Matt’s original comment was about Christianity in America, so J’s interjection of King Leopold was goal post moving at it’s most pedestrian. (I actually don’t recall hearing about that guy until now.) As for native Americans, for rhetorical purposes J’ views their experience as monolithic, and bad, when that is not always the case. Their experiences of European expansion into the Americas was varied, but no one denies that the indigenous peoples commonly ended up on the… Read more »
adad, Matt’s original comment about American history was a LONG ways up the chain, and had literally nothing to do with my comment. I responded directly to the statement where you said: “the nazis, stalinists, maoists, and imperial japanese all killed millions of people in concentration camps, to eradicate the ethnicity, religion or politics of those millions of people. Where is the “Christian” equivalent of these concentration camps and millions of dead people? Matt, there is no “Christian” equivalent, so Christians historically (and in the last 500 years) don’t murder on the same scale as nazis, communists and imperialists.” It’s… Read more »
Wrong again J’, nazis, stalinists, maoists and imperial japanese were all adversaries America was in conflict with, and in those conflicts, whatever godliness we had as a nation served us well in those conflicts. So the goal posts were moved re: Belgian colonial actions, presumably at a time when the USA was isolationist and had no involvement in that conflict. Native American conflicts and the American slave trade were ended under the auspices of Christian efforts by Americans, hence a record that is good, especially compared to nazis, communists and racial imperialists. My lack of familiarity with King Leopold, works… Read more »
As to your first paragraph, you’ve gotten convoluted to the point of quite ridiculous silliness. And other than Nazis, we were both partners and enemies at varying times with all the countries you mentioned. Native American conflicts were ended under the auspices of Christian efforts by Americans? Completely ridiculous – Native American conflicts weren’t ended until 95% of them were dead and every last one was in a reservation. And even THEN we kept abusing them. As far as the end of the Atlantic Slave Trade, you should Google the “Fire-eaters” before you keep going. If the South seceded sucessfully,… Read more »
j’, your misapplied adjectives are still no replacement for facts, no matter how much you insist that they are. Sorry you have such a tough time with fact. Considering your lack of faculty with facts, let’s try a simple one and see how you do. “Yes, the legal shipping of slaves over the ocean ended in part due to the efforts of Christians, but many of those Christians were the very “leftists” and “SJW’s” that many here are trying to claim are anti-God. And the actual slavery (as well as illegal shipping of slaves over the Atlantic) continued until the… Read more »
adad, if you hadn’t started out with three consecutive insults, I would have assumed the last two paragraphs were a joke. I really don’t understand what’s gotten into you.
You can’t blame the problems of race caused by Leftists on Christians.
It’s pretty bizarre to blame slavery and segregation on “Leftists”
It is also pretty bizarre to act like the West is so bad on slavery when we have been the unquestioned best at working to remove it.
“we have been the unquestioned best at working to remove it” By “we” you mean “leftists”, right? (At least in the USA – I know little about the anti-slavery campaigns elsewhere. Except for Haiti – I’m guessing that slave revolts count as leftists too. And I think that it was the new republic of Mexico that dismantled the Spanish slave system….they were leftists too, right?) I don’t actually think that this “leftist” category is a very meaningful one, only that is seems unfortunate to apply it so broadly to the “bad things” that happened in the last 500 years and… Read more »
One of my great heroes is William Wilberforce. I have often read his speech to the British Parliament on ending the slave trade: “You may choose to look away, but you can never again say that you did not know.” What a great Christian, and if the Lord had seen fit to make him Catholic, I have no doubt that he would now be Saint William!
I love you as a brother, I really do, so please listen to this mild criticism. I am responding to you specifically because I respect you and truly hope you’ll listen, that dialogue can begin. I am a Christian. I love Jesus Christ. He is my only hope for salvation and all my faith is in Him alone. I accept and understand that the problem with our society is a rejection of Christ, not a racial issue. That said, I would have stood with the alt-right in their rallies. I am alt-right. I do not hate other races. I do… Read more »
As one who self-identifies as alt-right, what does Scot believe are the essential non-negotiable pillars of the movement? How are they different from simply identifying as a Christian? What makes them distinct? We’re listening.
I would say that I agree with VoxDay’s pillars of the Alt-Right, ignoring the economic points which I am uninterested in and unqualified to discuss. You should be able to easily search for those points online. I do not think they differ from how any Christian should think or believe, although bear in mind that they are written for someone living in Western Society. I would expect and hope that someone living in an Eastern/African/etc. culture would adapt them to fit their own preferences and values. For example, it would be strange for a Chinese man or woman to think… Read more »
I appreciate the interaction from Scot. From his description, it doesn’t appear that he relies on the alt-right to justify his stance on race or nationalism. While we may differ on the priority that nationalism or race should have, Scot seems to want to ground his stance on Scripture, which is the preferred basis for further discussion. I hope he would also grant that refusal of alt-right is not necessarily a refusal of all the points that Scot has made by appeal to Scripture. Scot wrote: I think that the churches failure is denying that whites can have any identity,… Read more »
So here is a criticism of your criticism. My mother’s mother was half Mexican, ¼ Native American and ¼ white. She had dark skin and dark curly hair and was called the “N” word a time or two, growing up in the 1920’s in a small town in the southwest (which wasn’t a particularly bad racist community). Although she never fixated on the subtle racism that existed in the town, the sinful effects of it rippled through our family in very profound ways. My husband’s father was the grandson of German immigrants from the Russian Volga river valley. Growing up… Read more »
You have a problem, though. There are those who do organize political rallies, based on race. Black Lives Matter would be one. If there is no Jew, Greek, Slave, etc. in Christ, then we need to talk to those who peddle the privilege narrative. This country tried going color-blind, or has tried, in the past 50 years. That apparently will not work anymore. We should all realize that.
If one marches for the idea that black or yellow or brown or white skinned Americans shouldn’t be told to sit in the back of the bus or use a separate drinking fountain or bathroom because of their skin color, then that would be in keeping with Christian principles, and you could march in such a parade with any skin color.
But if one marches with pride just because of the color of one’s skin, over and above the skin color of others, then that would be antithetical to Christianity. BLM in no way claims to be Christian.
I agree with both of your last two sentences, but don’t see the connection. I’m not involved with BLM, but at least judging by my facebook feed they seem to have members of all races and do not consider pride in skin color “over and above the skin color of others” as part of their principles.
Based on what I have read and heard about BLM, I would say they are a leftist organization using race as a façade for a progressive agenda and fomenting political strife. They would be the race equivalent of Salon or Media Matters.
That’s not my experience at all, but again, my experience with them is limited to the major headlines and protests and what my friends who associate with them post on their facebook feed. If you were correct, them doing things like taking over Bernie Sanders’ microphone at a political rally wouldn’t make sense, because Sanders would already have been with their agenda about as much as they could imagine and they’d have little to complain about. I do agree that they appear to have attracted a broad swath of the progressive left though. Also, if you’re right, then they’re explicitly… Read more »
Follow the money
And the rhetoric
As far as I can tell, that first link shows that foundations which fund a LOT of different initiatives have also given funding to BLM. Considering the incredible range of cause that The Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundation donate to, everything from microloans in Bangladesh to fighting AIDS in Africa, I have a hard time seeing how simply receiving funding from such groups means that they’re a facade for anything. On the second link, I find that completely odious, but as far as I can Google it it seems like you’re talking about a 30-second chant that a… Read more »
Here we go again Jonathan. You claim to be thorough and methodical in your fact gathering and yet you are somehow unaware of the RADICAL agendas of both the Center for American Progress and the Open Society Foundations?
I’m not sure what you mean by I “claim to be thorough and methodical in your fact gathering”. I would love for you to quote what the heck you think I said in that regard. I do try to learn the facts of things I’m interested in, which I hope are things that generally matter to society. The kind of conspiracy-chasing “AGENDA!” claims made by both the right and the left do not fall into that category – as much because the idea of influencing society through partisan political agendas strikes me to be as pointless as obsessing over who… Read more »
Who is the founder of OSF? $33 million? You are naive Jonathan.
Read about ACORN and then we can talk about public façade versus reality, as well as conspiracy theories.
First of all, the claim that $33 million was given to BLM is completely false, so I’m not the one being naive. $33 million was the total that OSF gave to domestic social justice organizations in the United States in that particular year. Some of those organizations are in various ways linked to Black Lives Matter, others have other focus. Second, once again, these groups fund an incredible range of organizations. Would you argue that the Grameen Bank is also a facade? Would you argue that efforts to fight AIDS in Africa are also a facade? If your ONLY argument… Read more »
Gosh, Jonathan, what was I thinking? Of course you must be right. Let’s see, what are all the ways you’ve proven me wrong with your fact checking? There is no left-leaning bias in the main stream media; young earth creationists are frequently dishonest and lying; Julian Assange’s perfect record should be ignored and we should assume he is trolling the U.S.; the founders of Open Society Foundations and Center for American Progress are not currency-collapsing, social revolution plotting, mercenary masterminds but in fact misunderstood, good-hearted philanthropists; and Black Lives Matter might in fact be Christian because their Facebook page seems… Read more »
* I have made no claims at all about the founders of OSF or any other grant-producing organization. I have simply said that there are so many different groups that win grants from those organizations, and many of them are clearly benign, so you can’t make assumptions about someone’s ideology just because someone they associate with got a grant. And I gave clear examples. * I have never once said that there is no left-leaning bias in the mainstream media. I have said that due to their position there are checks on how much they can lie (as evidenced by… Read more »
Sure, BLM does not claim to be Christian. Did the Nationalist group Saturday claim to be? I actually don’t know. If they didn’t, it has been strange watching promient Christians (of whom Doug Wilson has been the least) apologize and trip over themselves with white guilt, etc.
Your first paragraph, Ginny, shows that we need no such parades, then. I mean, when were blacks sitting in the back of the bus? Using separate drinking fountains? It was 50 years ago, in the south. Much further back, in the north. Why are we acting like modern conditions are still that way?
I’m not. Just trying to delineate between proper political action for a Christian, as opposed to improper political action for a Christian.
Several of the members have claimed to be Christian, but I doubt they identify as a “Christian group” together.
Doug, the problem with the “both sides” argument that you’re making is that the two sides are not morally equivalent. On the one side, you have people who want to kill or enslave or make second class citizens of blacks and Jews (and gays, you forgot to mention them). On the other side, you have people who don’t want to be killed or enslaved or made second class citizens. And while the people on the second side (and their leaders) are admittedly imperfect, any comparison of criminals to crime victims is frankly outrageous. You could equally as well claim that… Read more »
Glad to see you made it out safe.
Which side is less moral than the other, and what is your proof of that?
‘Check, the “other side” has Bernie bros gunning down republicans at ball practice and blm gunmen ambushing police. Your bias on these realities is very liberal. That’s a problem.
The best thing to do is repent.????
The same thing nazis and antifa needs to do.????
adad, people who gun down people playing baseball and shoot police officers should spend the rest of their lives in prison regardless of their politics, but there’s a significant difference you’re overlooking here. Bernie supporters do not support a government policy of genocide, enslavement, or second class citizenship for people based on their race, color, national origin, sexual orientation or religion. Absent the occasional nut case who shoots up a baseball game, the worst that can be said of Bernie supporters is that they support economic policies you disagree with, and which you are free to vote against. But they… Read more »
So………how is wanting to leave an old statue of Robert E. Lee in place, an effort to deny anyone basic human rights? I hear that’s what the Virginia rally was about. I am not a confederate officer fan, any more than I am a Saul Alinski fan, but I get that some people appreciate these historical figures. That they do, is simply not a denial of anyone else’s rights, even if such reverence seems ill advised. There is no moral difference between rioting antifa and rioting nazis. They both overstep the law to ill effect. Who oversteps farther, varies from… Read more »
adad, this was no more about the Lee statue than World War II was about Poland, or the 2016 presidential election was about emails. The Lee statue is a symptom of a deeper problem that’s been festering for a very long time. Standing alone, the Lee statue is a non-issue; as a symbol of a deeper problem, it’s huge.
“… as a symbol of a deeper problem, it’s huge.”
Oh! I think I get you.
Thomas Jefferson. The Deistic Democrat.
Right? ; – )
If only John Adams had not needed Jefferson as a marketing guy! Right?
adad0, do you really think that’s what the Virginia rally was about? I suggest you actually listen to the protesters themselves:
The claim of “blm gunmen” is pure dishonesty. Neither the Dallas shooter nor the Baton Rouge shooter had any association with Black Lives Matter. Both were military veterans, both were casually associated with violent, fringe Black Nationalist movements. The Dallas shooter was rejected from Black nationalist groups like the New Black Panther Party because of his checkered history and possible mental health issues, including depression and PTSD. The Baton Rouge shooter was a member of a Black offshoot of the Sovereign Citizens Movement and also appeared to suffer from paranoia and possible PTSD. Blaming BLM for those atrocities because they… Read more »
“During the standoff, Mr. Johnson, who was black, told police negotiators that “he was upset about Black Lives Matter,” Chief Brown said. “He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”
Whoops! wrong again J’.
“pure dishonesty” in fact, although I guess it could be ignorance.
Nothing you wrote shows that Jonathan is wrong.
Yes, the quote was from the NYT, not me. ????
OK then, nothing in the quote.
The NYT quote, quoting actual investigators, shows that the shooter was a “fellow traveler” with BLM, and he was murdering people and denying them the basic human right to life, for the color of their skin, not the content of their character.
J’ said the shooter did not have “any association” with blm, when the truth is that the shooter had total association with the misdirected values of blm.
The shooter’s own words and actions support my previous statement.
They disprove J’s fabrication, and yours Mic’.
So anyone who is also upset about police violence is therefore a “fellow traveler” with BLM or has “total association with the misdirected values” of BLM, and therefore can be referred to as “BLM gunmen”??? So if Pastor Wilson refers to abortionists as “ghouls” and says that they are responsible for massacre and generally horrific people, and he drives that point home over and over, and someone who is in no way associated with Pastor Wilson but who reads his posts once then shoots up an abortion clinic, is that person now a “Pastor Wilson gunman”? I have yet to… Read more »
“So anyone who is also upset about police violence is therefore a “fellow traveler” with BLM or has “total association with the misdirected values” of BLM, and therefore can be referred to as “BLM gunmen”???” J’, the Dallas shooter had a direct association with blm racism. You are a one man red herring fishery. I don’t have a problem with people being upset about police violence. I do have a problem with gunmen ambushing innocent police in unprovoked attacks. The ambushing with guns does make those two guys “gunmen”. The racism of those gunmen makes them “fellow travelers” with racist… Read more »
““The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”
Again J’, the above quote is actual evidence and fact, of the gunman’s blm style racism.”
That’s simply ridiculous. I have no doubt the gunman wanted to kill White people. I absolutely deny that wanting to kill white people is a characteristic of the BLM organization.
And Gavin Long, the other guy you’re trying to pretend is BLM here, is not only another military vet with mental health issues but was actually a Black Nationalist who belonged to the “Washitaw Nation” and was a card-carrying member of the Sovereign Citizen Movement. At least six police officers have been killed by members of the Soveign movement since 2000, but of course they had nothing to do with BLM, so how you somehow pretend that Gavin Long is a “blm gunman” is completely nonsensical. Gavin Long mocked people who protest. He is explicitly anti-multicultural, and in a perverted… Read more »
I don’t believe I mentioned Gavin Long, but you did. The FBI however, does make an association; “Gun murders of police officers rose over 50 percent in 2016, driven overwhelmingly by Black Lives Matter-inspired cop hatred,” Mac Donald told LifeZette. “It would be naïve to think that the constant iteration of the theme that policing is lethally biased against blacks, whether repeated in a president’s speeches or in street chants like “CPD [Chicago Police Department], KKK, how many kids did you kill today?” would not affect the atmosphere in which inner-city police work,” said Mac Donald. “It would be equally… Read more »
1. You used “gunmen”plural and said “those two guys”. If you weren’t referring to Long, then who is the 2nd gunman you are referring to? 2. Whoever “McDonald” is, he is absolutely, completely disingenuous. The 35-year average from 1980 to 2014 is 64 police officers shot and killed each year. BLM started in 2013 and rose to prominence during the Michael Brown shooting and subsequent Ferguson protests in 2014 and 2015. You know how many police were shot in 2014? 51. You know how many police were shot in 2015? Only 41, the 2nd-fewest in the last 50 years of… Read more »
Here’s a graph if you need to see it directly. As you can see, 2016 looks like any other year in the last 20, and far lower than the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. 2013, 2014 and 2015 look like crazy-low aberrations, the likes of which we hadn’t seen since the 1950s, if that.
So if I claim to be a follower of you, you will be responsible for everything I say and do? There is nothing in the quote that shows him to be member of BLM, or his actions to be planned by them. Claiming that he was some kind of black nationalist, on the other hand, seems accurate.
K2, did you graduate from trolling class and receive a troll diploma or are you here because you needed more time sharpening your troll skills?
By what standard do you declare that the two sides are not morally equivalent?
Also, if you have paid attention to the past 50 or so years of affirmative action, the ones enslaving and killing blacks are other blacks such as Jessie Jackson, Hank Johnson, Maxine Waters, and of course Al Sharpton.
Again, by what standard do you declare that the two sides are not morally equivalent?
Dave, please be a dear and sit quietly while the grownups talk.
K2, just answer the question. You told us how high the ethical standards were for lawyers and lectured us that you don’t evade or pull lawyer tricks, yet you can’t answer a simple question.
By what standard do you declare that the two sides are not morally equivalent?
Dave, you’re more likely to get civil discourse if you don’t begin every comment with a personal insult. The white supremacists explicitly and pointedly seek a world in which people are disadvantaged, in some cases violently so, because of their skin color, national origin, religion or sexual orientation. The other side doesn’t. So whatever faults you’re going to find in the other side — and since that side is made up of imperfect humans you will find them — there’s a major chasm between people seeking to deny basic human rights and people demanding basic human rights. I’m frankly amazed… Read more »
“there’s a major chasm between people seeking to deny basic human rights and people demanding basic human rights.” Doesn’t every single liberal always stand on the side of basic human rights and the virtuous good of all, making it totally impossible for them to ever be immoral about anything, ever? Isn’t that kind of infinite virtue just built into the whole ideology itself? And when the world gets broken by liberal policies, isn’t that just because anyone who says so is just a rabid right wing racist? Isn’t it true that the very fact that you are a liberal, now… Read more »
Liberals can be immoral and they can enact unjust and unwise policies. That doesn’t make their commitment to human rights a bad thing. The Bible tells us to do justice. If I am indifferent to the rights of anyone outside my own privileged group, what does that say about my commitment to justice? I am not supposed to be proud of my benevolence, or to use it as the pretext for wrongdoing. But that doesn’t make malevolence an option either.
“Liberals can be immoral and they can enact unjust and unwise policies. That doesn’t make their commitment to human rights a bad thing.”
With all due respect,Jilly, you’ve just proven my point. All you have to do to make something moral in a liberal mind is to just label it a human right. Hence abortion is a human right, gay marriage is a human right ….
MeMe, I don’t think that logically follows. The fact that something may be improperly defined as a human right does not mean that there is no such thing as a legitimate human right. Do you dispute that there is such a thing? When I support a particular human right–for example, the right not to have the government tell me where I must worship–I support it for everyone, simply because it is the moral position. Would you really like to live in a society in which there was no concept of God-given human rights? Could you be happy knowing that you… Read more »
MeMe, I disagree with you on abortion and gay marriage, but even if I agreed with you on those points, liberals at least get the principle — that human rights exist and deserve fighting for — even if there’s an occasional misfire on application.
MeMe, that’s a pretty good caricature, though in fairness it would apply with equal force had a liberal written it about conservatives.
Hey ‘check, one thought. Don’t lose sight of the fact that we are all goofing here on a blog, and not on either side of a protest that might get physical.
; – )
Adad, at one level you are right, this is just a blog and it really doesn’t make much difference who says what. At another level, within the past week, our president’s intemperate comments have risked getting us into nuclear war in Korea, have given a significant boost to Nazis and white supremacists, and just to top it off, he’s now instructing the Justice Department to launch criminal investigations into his political opponents. This is looking more and more like Germany in the 1930s, only with a good economy (that the current president inherited). Usually when my side loses an election,… Read more »
On August 21, 2017, I hear that DJT will borrow Mr. Burn’s sun blocker, and blot out the sun over portions of the USA.
Let’s hope and pray that somehow Smithers or Lisa Simpson will stop him!????
K2, just answer the question.
By what standard do you declare that the two sides are not morally equivalent?
Dave, if you’re filling in for Katecho and trying to engage me in a conversation about whether atheists have any basis for claiming that morality even exists, forget it. It’s already been thoroughly aired, it’s a nonsense argument, and it would be a thread hijack.
No K2. You dodge again. Just answer the question. You said Wilson missed the mark, so back up your claim. “I explained the difference between the two sides; what more are you looking for that I didn’t give you?” That was not the answer to the question that I asked. That is another lawyer shift of position and redirection. And your explanation was incorrect anyway.
By what standard or authority do you declare that the two sides are not morally equivalent?
Krychek, you said: At another level, within the past week, our president’s intemperate comments have risked getting us into nuclear war in Korea… Of course, Kim Jong Un’s intemperate comments about wanting to attack Guam had absolutely nothing to do with it. In your universe, you’d rather Trump allow himself (and the nation he represents) to be steamrolled by fathead dictators, in order to avoid upsetting your delicate sensibilities. Speaking of intemperate: If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the likes of which has never been seen on this… Read more »
Commenter, when Truman made those comments, Japan did not have nuclear weapons; North Korea does. There’s a difference in how you deal with crazy people with nuclear weapons versus crazy people without them. Yes, we could have a war with North Korea that would be over in a few hours, but not killing millions of people would be nice if we can avoid it.
Last I checked, the fathead dictator backed off without millions getting killed. Fancy that.
So, the takeaway here is that the difference isn’t in how you deal with crazy people with nukes versus those without; the difference is in the political affiliation of the person dealing with the crazies.
” …in fairness it would apply with equal force had a liberal written it about conservatives.”
I think not. It is not equal at all. I’ve yet to see a conservative cloak anything in the alleged virtue of perpetual “human rights.”
Conservatives properly care about their religious rights. They care when they are forced to violate their liberty of conscience. The whole issue of companies being forced to provide contraceptives was framed as a violation of their rights. Conservatives care about violations of property rights. They care about violations of their second amendment rights–self defense being a human right. They care about forcible taxation, and frame that argument as a violation of their freedom. I do not argue with these positions, by the way. But to say that conservatives never use the human rights argument is ridiculous.
Conservatives have other cloaks that are just as pernicious.
You still didn’t answer the question. That is evasive and prevarication. If you can’t stand the heat, don’t go in the kitchen.
By what standard do you declare that the two sides are not morally equivalent?
Oh, I can stand the heat just fine; just don’t complain when I fire back by responding to insults in kind.
What part of your question didn’t I answer? Do you dispute that there’s a moral difference between seeking equal treatment for all versus seeking to make some second class citizens? If you do, then perhaps you can explain why you think they are morally equivalent.
The people upset over Robert E. Lee’s statue being removed felt like second class citizens.
I’m sure Lee’s slaves mostly felt like second class citizens too.
Lee’s slaves may have felt like second-class citizens. And you care for their concerns. So go and do likewise for the Virginia demonstrators.
K2, you are using deflection and evading the question again. Remember you said that you didn’t use lawyer evasive tactics. You accused others of evading when Biblical answers were presented to your questions and you couldn’t reply to those solid answers. You can’t give an honest answer at all. You opened the door. You pontificate without basis, throw statements without fact and call names. You say you have integrity but really don’t. Just answer the question. “Doug, the problem with the “both sides” argument that you’re making is that the two sides are not morally equivalent.” By what standard do… Read more »
Dave, if you’re filling in for Katecho and trying to engage me in a conversation about whether atheists have any basis for claiming that morality even exists, forget it. It’s already been thoroughly aired, it’s a nonsense argument, and it would be a thread hijack.
If that’s not what you’re trying to do, then I still don’t see what part of your question I haven’t answered. I explained the difference between the two sides; what more are you looking for that I didn’t give you?
Dave, at what point in history do you believe that Black people first began to receive equal treatment from the police nation-wide? Give me an approximate year and explain to me why it finally happened then.
Jonathan, cops give everyone except other cops a bad time. That is historical and even fellow cops are given a hard time until the stopping officer finds out he is dealing with another cop.
You interject race into many of your discussions without merit. You do realize that most of American black problems today are caused by good feeling people who don’t have a clue about applying scripture and by blacks enslaving other blacks into the government plantation — don’t you.
Dave, I’m a white guy. If I get stopped for speeding, I may be annoyed that I’m getting a ticket, but I have no realistic fear that I might get shot. A black driver does.
Very true, Dave. No one could say blacks haven’t gotten the short end of the stick with police sometimes, but white people do, too. It’s only police who don’t (blue line). SWAT officers, who are supposed to be community policemen, often think that they are Navy SEALS and the common citizens are ISIS.
Dave, why couldn’t you answer the question?
But you did open yourself up to a nice second question. At what point in American history do you believe that “most of American black problems” first began being caused by “good feeling people”, as opposed to people who either didn’t care about Black people at all or actively wanted to be better off than them?
Jonathan, your question was leading to a fight and not backing up something that I typed. That is to say a leading question such as “Why did you push me” when no pushing occurred. K2 made a statement that was the basis for his pontificating and refuses to back it up with even a simple statement “That’s my opinion.” Do you understand that difference? When did the nice people step in? That depends on which historical setting you want to use. Some would say as far back as early 1600s, but realistically, for today’s impact, with abortion and LBJ’s Great… Read more »
Virtually everything you say is incorrect. You’re straight-up promoting myths from pro-Confederate conspiracy theorists that were only recently made up in the last 15 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth Secondly, the question I asked you was when did “most of American black problems”, your exact words, begin to be caused by “good feeling people”. Your first answer, the early 1600s, is jaw-dropping ridiculous. So give me a real answer. Give me a year that you feel that Black problems transitioned from being caused mostly by people who wished them ill, to being primarily the fault of people who wished them well. And with… Read more »
Well, your response confirmed my statement that you were looking for a fight rather than putting scripture to use in today’s America. This isn’t a gotcha game for high school boys but discussions about applying Biblical standards to America today.
As a note, snopes and wikipedia are made for those individuals without real books, with real pages and places for notes and a wonderful book smell. You shouldn’t use wiki as a primary source document as that is similar to quoting from the National Inquirer.
This is a fairly common pattern. You make an absolutely false claim with no sources whatsoever. I rebuke your claim with clear sources, which anyone can look at. You claim my sources aren’t good enough, but continue to provide literally nothing of your own. If you continue to believe self-published and heavily-debunked nonsense from conspiracy theorists while denying public knowledge, then how can I ever keep you from believing what you want to believe? Still waiting for a SINGLE primary source from the actual time period that shows that the “big issue” that started the Civil War was tariffs and… Read more »
Jonathan, wiki is not a clear source. Wiki is written by anyone who wants to write an article and edited by anyone who wants to edit it. Perhaps in your school you were able to use it as a source, but it is unreliable and requires further checking. Please stop making things up and attributing things to other people that is not so i.e. “You make an absolutely false claim.” No, tariffs as a reason for the Civil War was taught in schools both North and South in the 60s. All you want is a fight. You really should stop… Read more »
Yes Dave, Wikipedia is written by anyone who wants to write an article, just like self-published books are written by anyone who wants to self-publish a book. The difference between a wikipedia article on the Irish Slave Myth and a self-published book promoting the Irish Slave Myth is that wikipedia is subjected to extensive reviews by others, while the self-published book has no peer review within its pages. That’s why Wikipedia has been demonstrated to have a lower error rate on mainstream articles than print encyclopedias. The extensiveness of the peer review that it undergoes is meaningful. Does that mean… Read more »
Also, on the LBJ claim, in the mid-1960s you had places like Mississippi where mayors and pastors and sheriffs and police officers were conspiring to murder Black people and Civil Rights activists in order to keep Black people from voting, and where the entire state refused to prosecute the murderers for those crimes for the next 30 years. Up until the mid-1970s you had a state organization whose open purpose was to promote anti-Black segregation. You had federal agencies who were segregating Black people into the worst inner-city neighborhoods as a matter of consistent, proven policy. Black farmers who were… Read more »
Jonathan, you really do not think clearly and do not understand the problems of open source writing.
The citations are right there. Quotes, links, detailed citations, all right there.
Open-source writing, especially when well-curated and edited by a community, will always be superior to…literally no sources whatsoever. Which is what you’ve provided in defense of your position to the point.
You’re right Jonathan, it probably never has happened. So, for that reason, let’s go to Virginia and throw acid in someone’s face (which is what happened this past weekend, when an Antifa person threw acid in the face of an Alt-Right demonstrator.)
MYS, I have been stopped illegally three times in the past 10 years. During two of the stops, the cops wanted to shoot my wife and me dead. One of my cop friends back East was stopped illegally by another cop who was ready to shoot him also. Once he showed his documents, the other cop was apologetic and my friend read him the riot act. Black cops stop black guys all the time and black cops shoot black guys all the time. Black cops shoot white guys in both good and bad circumstances, but it doesn’t make the big… Read more »
So let’s take actual numbers and see what you think. This is copy-and-pasted from a post someone made about a Tampa Bay Times study: Tampa Bay Times broke down 5 years of police shootings in Florida. 343 Black persons were shot compared to only 330 White persons, even though there are more than three times as many White people in Florida. In itself, that doesn’t prove anything. Black people might just be much more likely to be doing things that get them shot by police. But if the difference is only behavior, then you can’t explain the rest of their… Read more »
I agree, my comment was mostly sarcastic. Actually, I was once stopped by a police officer because they thought I resembled a suspect. What? I thought that only happened to black people! (driving while black, as it is called). The difference: I moved on, such is life. I didn’t cry and make it a central part of my identity that the police incorrectly stopped me.
mys, I think what antifa does is horrific and am against violence unilaterally. I also think that antifa has about as little to do with the state of the average Black family in America as Al Sharpton does. And saying that “Blacks get the short end of the stick with police sometimes, but white people do” is absolutely true, and absolutely avoids the point. A substantial percentage of Black families experience treatment from the police that 99% of White families will never face, enough so that it has an enormous overall effect on the Black experience in America. I know… Read more »
Read my comment above. I have been stopped, too, while white.
And if antifa, or the alt-left, if you will (and I will) doesn’t represent black American, amazing that the media claims the Alt-Right does. Almost like they’re liars or something. And the police Saturday were aiding and abedding the antifa scum.
I’m not talking about being stopped once, and the fact that you think that is relevant shows how large the disconnect is between your own experience of policing and what a lot of Black communities experience. I’ll give one particular extreme example. “But the case of Earl Sampson is especially outrageous: Sampson, the paper found, has been stopped and questioned 258 times in the past four years. The paper continues: “He’s been searched more than 100 times. And arrested and jailed 56 times. Despite his long rap sheet, Sampson, 28, has never been convicted of anything more serious than possession… Read more »
Also, did you read the Justice Department Report on policing in Ferguson? Not the shooting, the actions of the police department as a whole. It was obscene, nothing like anything any White community I know faces. This was a rather typical example from the report: “For example, in the summer of 2012, a 32-year-old African-American man sat in his car cooling off after playing basketball in a Ferguson public park. An officer pulled up behind the man’s car, blocking him in, and demanded the man’s Social Security number and identification. Without any cause, the officer accused the man of being… Read more »
I know there are constitutional violations galore. Interesting you bring up Ferguson. Talking about police violence and overreach would have more effect on the general population if race-baiting wasn’t thrown in.
To an extent, I agree. There are massive issues in American policing that are irrespective of race, and some of the racial arguments have obscured that.
On the other hand, it is clear (by the eye test, by raw statistics, and by academic study) that Black communities are subjected to such violations far more often than White communities, and sometimes to the point that it has an enormously negative effect on the entire community. I’ve lived in a community like that and seen the effects up close.
I’m confused. Which side wants to do the enslaving? Which side wants to be free to live as they like?
Because from your description, Id have said the answer to the former was the Leftists, and the answer to the second was the Conservatives.
Arwenb, I once represented a man on trial for beating his wife nearly to death. He believed that it was his God-given right to beat his wife, and that it was a terrible infringement of his rights for the state to tell him he couldn’t. He was furious at me for refusing to make that argument to the jury. You think the left wants to enslave the right because the left tells the right that it can’t treat minorities badly. It’s the same dynamic as it was with my batterer client. He doesn’t have the right to beat his wife,… Read more »
Krychek, it’s not the same dynamic. If the man in your story had not beaten his wife but instead told her that he disapproved of her behaviour, no jury in the land would convict him of abuse. On the other hand, expressing the opinion that the God of the bible is particular about whether two men may have a carnal relationship is deemed hate speech. Disapproval is not acceptable. It is not even acceptable to hold those views privately. It is not even acceptable to politely opt out of joining in the celebration of such a union. Your wife-beater is… Read more »
Indighost, I’m fine with you believing that two men should not marry, and I’m fine with a man telling his wife he disapproves of her conduct. I’m not fine with you actually preventing two men from marrying, or a husband using physical coercion to change his wife’s behavior. That’s the line. I’ve said here earlier that I think the bakery case was wrongly decided; I support a world in which gays can marry but nobody is required to bake them a cake. Live and let live. But I don’t seem to have had any luck selling that idea to either… Read more »
On one side are the people who believe white people should be allowed to have their own country and culture. On the other side are the people who believe white people are responsible for all the evil in the world and deserve genocide.
Guess which side instigated the violence. And guess which side the media took.
And who is seriously arguing that white people are responsible for all the evil in the world and deserve genocide?
Oh, I don’t know…
Oh no! Wait! Wait! Don’t tell me….
You are saying that whites protesting their culture being replaced, their oppression by globalist governments and massed third worlder invaders, not only in colonial nations such as the USA but in their ancestral homelands in Europe, are the bad guys here.
Pepe, while I do believe that the white supremacists are the bad guys, I do not believe they deserve genocide, which is what you originally said. Your exact words were, “On the other side are the people who believe white people are responsible for all the evil in the world and deserve genocide.”
For that matter, I don’t even think the white supremacists are a representative sample of all white people, which makes it an even bigger leap to claim that my side thinks white people deserve genocide.
Krychek, I think that most normal white people are horrified by violence, repelled by hate groups, and feel physically sick at the sight of Nazis demonstrating in our streets.
Are the people advocating punching nazis on your side?
I don’t personally know anyone who expressed approval of punching the Nazi. It is not how civilized people handle conflict.
I happen to know a few who have. See, nazis literaly want to commit genocide so punching them is an acceptable way to disaprove of them.
Christopher, I disapprove of punching people regardless of their social or political views.
I’m actually wanting to say “amen” to Krycheck.
Pepe, you know, I don’t think it was primarily Black people who decided that Black people would be a part of American culture.
White people made that decision, and it’s far too late to turn back the clock now.
Of course, White people didn’t choose to bring Native Americans and Latinos here, they were already all over much of the land long before it became part of American territory.
Sorry, but this country has been multicultural since long before your people got here. You want an all-White country and culture, Belarus is waiting.
“On the other side, you have people who don’t want to be killed or enslaved or made second class citizens.”
And if takes making second-class citizens out of people (and maybe even killing them) who express disagreement with how to go about preventing that, so much the better.
This is the problem. The concerns are asymmetrical. The degree to which each side wishes to disenfranchise the other, is not.
Jane, I don’t see any attempt to disenfranchise whites.
I didn’t mean in the literal sense of the vote. I meant in the sense of being allowed to speak and participate fully without being shouted down or told they shouldn’t have full participation and influence in society, on a par with those not guilty of “white privilege.”
If you haven’t seen that, you haven’t been paying attention. It is not widespread, but I am not talking about what is widespread, but the fringe elements that exist, in the words of the Tweeter in Chief, “on both sides.”
Have you actually heard the things the protesters were saying? They don’t even want to live in the same country as non-White people and Jews, and you’re trying to say that they are happy with non-White people being able to have full participation and influence in society?
If there is any possibility that the degree to which one side wishes to disenfranchise the other is asymmetrical, it is certainly in the opposite direction. You can’t possibly get more disenfranchising than “This should be a White nation for White people.”
This is exactly the kind of gutless middle ground seeking and pseudo-spiritual mumbo jumbo I would have expected. Those men went to Charlottesville to speak and were attacked by communists and Terry McAuliffe’s police. Even the guy who drove into the mob was being attacked and had his car hit with a bat. Your children’s birthright is being sold, your ancestors defamed, your political influence diluted and your race marked for extinction by communists and political opportunists. That’s what those men went to Charlottesville to say. They have the same rights to advocate for the welfare of their people that… Read more »
You raised some interesting and fair points. Surprised no one has interacted with you yet.
Now that’s a way to end an article!
And the US is the only country who thought the only possible way for us to end slavery was by slaughtering over 600,000 Americans when the rest of the West that ended their slavery did it peaceably. And the Church has accepted the atrocity of war as a legitimate and righteous means of how we ended American slavery. I’m sorry, but that’s absurd and the Evangelical Church should be ashamed of its embrace of that pro-war view of the civil war.
Slavery could have been ended without any lives being lost if the South had just ended it.
You’re right, Krychek. So many lives could have been saved in wars if people would just accept their conquerors peacefully, without fighting back.
The south could have ended it peacefully, who knows. Now we never will.
How is releasing one’s sinfully acquired slaves equivalent to “accepting their conquerors”???
It’s equivalent because if the South didn’t, they would be invaded by the North. Don’t pretend to be that stupid because your other comments indicate you are not. Release one’s sinfully acquired slaves, or we will conquer you. Why did the Brits fight the Germans so hard in WWII? If they would have just stayed out of the way.
That is absolutely, completely false. Not only did the North not demand an end to slavery until long after the war had started, the Corwin Amendment is absolute proof that giving up slaves was not a requirement to avoiding war.
The South could have given up slavery on their own if they had chosen to give it up. And before the war started, the nation had not in any way, shape, or form demanded that the South give up slavery, nor did they have the votes to do so.
I know you aren’t Krychek, but somehow, the south could have given up slaves without any lives lost, yet, at the same time, giving up slaves wasn’t part of avoiding the war? Might want to resolve that contradiction.
It’s not a contradiction, you’re making a basic language error.
I can say, “Skipping meals will help me lose weight, I can lose weight without skipping meals.” That is not a contradiction.
If the South had chosen on its own to give up its slaves, then it never would have gone to war. But the South also could easily have avoided the war without giving up its slaves. Both statements are true and aren’t the least bit contradictory.
We might be on different frequencies. The South could have avoided the war without losing its slaves. But, weren’t you just arguing against the people who said that slavery wasn’t the cause in a different thread? If the South really could have averted the conflict while keeping slavery, then that would speak truth to the fact that the war really wasn’t about slavery, mostly.
Not exactly, but I can see why it would need to be explained better. The South left because of the fear that as the United States expanded west, the majority of new states would be free states. That made it impossible for Southerners with slave to spread west, as they would be unable to take their slaves with them unless they freed them. It also would gradually dilute the pro-slavery power in the Senate, as more free states would be added than slave states. Thus they feared that without western expansion of slavery, they would lose slavery in the long… Read more »
As far as I know, we’re also the only country who thought to re-institute the power dynamics of slavery with a century of massacres and lynching that ensured that the majority of the Black population would be subjected to another 100 years or longer of White Supremacy.
I’m in full agreement with you. The violence of slavery led to the violence of the Civil War led to the violence of Reconstruction and Southern segregation leads to continued violence today.
Southern segregation and all of that other stuff you mentioned also led to Barack Obama as president. That was progress, right Jonathan?
The mere existence of political figures is not particularly meaningful progress. And I don’t understand what you mean when you claim those things led to Barack Obama as president. So your whole post is confusing.
Obama doesn’t count as progress? There are not enough, l’s, o’s, and l’s in the universe to respond to that one. Here are some though: Lol.
The entire lead up to the 2008 election was how this would be symbolic, so meaningful, on how far we had come as a nation since slavery, Jim Crow, etc. Now it doesn’t count as progress? This is why we should never, ever, listen to leftists.
Symbolic, yes. Meaningful, not particularly.
Do you believe that electing Obama was progress for our nation?
Now, I suggest that when I express an opinion that is at odds with your stereotype of who you think I represent, that instead of claiming I’m a hypocrite for not aligning with your strawman view of me, you should probably make a different view.
You may not have thought electing Obama was meaningful. Not sure about the symbolic meaningful difference but whatever. However, you can’t deny that before the election, and right after, everyone said how great it was, and that it was progress. Now, though, we have to pretend like it wasn’t progress. Because, if Obama being elected was progress, that means this generation did something for race relations that was progress. And that would combat the victim/privilege myths which are flouted nowadays. Didn’t call you a hypocrite. Was Obama progress? Actually, no. Race relations were set back decades by his election. Now,… Read more »
You are absolutely right that race relations have been set back recently. You are absolutely wrong that it started in 2014. About the time that the majority of Republicans looked at a Black president and began doubting that he was born in America and even eligible for the presidency, things started to go downhill. On everything else you say, I’m quite certain that I won’t change your mind over the internet. Similarly to how you equated the fact that you got pulled over ONCE to Black people’s experience with police (only you handled it better than they do and didn’t… Read more »
Wrong, my not saying things for fear of being racist wasn’t me keeping my racist views in the closet. It was trying to be respectful of others. It was realizing that there had been racial tensions in the country, once, and trying to respect that.
However, I have learned, as have many others, that some will always be victims. Always. They won’t give it up, because it is their strength. Once you see that, you care less.
I didn’t say fear of being racist, I said fear of being called racist.
And yes, I agree that lack of care and respect for others is a significant part of the current climate.
adad0, is correct regarding the North’s track record and history (err, hypocrisy).
Hey! I resemble that statement!????
Racial animosity is rooted in the sins of pride and vainglory, regardless of what happened or is happening to a particular race. If a sin or injustice is committed against you, you don’t then have the right to respond with another kind of sin (prideful, vainglorious animosity). That’s still sin and hated by God.
“Bernie supporters do not support a government policy of genocide, enslavement”?
Abortion = genocide
Democratic socialism = enslavement
When you’re lost a debate, tell your opponent to sit down and shut up. Real grown up like.
Trey, if you’re talking to me, I responded as I did because Dave generally begins every comment to me with a personal insult so this time I responded in kind. And his flawed equivalencies are just that.
K2, just answer the question.
By what standard do you declare that the two sides are not morally equivalent?
Trey, K2 isn’t an opponent. He is only an atheist and troll without any basis to his thoughts or his statements. He lacks integrity because he has no solid foundation.
So, when he fires off ad Hahahahahahaha attacks by calling names, or by using deflection and evasion, rest assured that he knows that he needs Jesus Christ and doesn’t have any answers from this world.
Dave, like I said earlier, if you didn’t begin every comment to or about me with a personal insult, you might find I use them myself a little less often. it’s up to you.
Just answer the question K2.
The vast majority of the peaceful alt-right protestors at Charlottesville were not neo-nazis, despite the few the media focused their attention on. They were ordinary Americans just like you, Pastor Wilson. They aren’t fighting for some evil conspiracy to bring back slavery, they are fighting for the idea that the white race has a right to exist. How long before the media converges on you and calls you a nazi too? And when that happens, who will stand up for you if no one stands up for the patriots at Charlottesville who were beaten, pepper sprayed, attacked with baseball bats… Read more »
I appreciate Pastor Wilson’s response to this. He is absolutely right.
Racism is not a crime against the Left, it is a crime against God.
I also appreciated President Trump’s words. He seems to be aware there is an attempt to write a narrative, and that neither side really has the moral upper hand. Both sides went there to have a street brawl. He also said something along the lines of how the “right” has a right to protest. So I truly believe the President has a good handle on what is going on.
And who is seriously arguing that the white race doesn’t have the right to exist?
Actually the SPLC has identified 3 in my state alone. Since the SPLC are about as liberal as they come, it must be a real thing in the world.
I just read the data, and as of 2017 your state has two black separatist groups which meet the definition of hate groups. I think this is deplorable. However, just as I don’t assume that every white separatist group is preaching genocide, I think it would be unfair to assume that these groups are committed to killing white people.
Uh Oh Jilly, I hope the SPLC is not watching.
You might get added to the SPLC stage mother supremacist list! ; – )
This is a very good summation and pointed definition of the issue. Would also like to give a major shout out to the President of the United States – Donald J Trump. His press conference yesterday was absolutely amazing to watch. Listen, especially, to the press. They are totally in spirit and solidarity with the antifa group…. full of hate, vile, combative and completely out of control. I sincerely pray that the American people extricate themselves from receiving information from this group. They are on par with the most violent-loving left-wing ‘professors’ around. It was a ‘give us Barabbus’ moment.… Read more »