Benevolent Racism

Bruce Fleming, an English professor who has taught at the Naval Academy for 22 years, recently published an article in which he revealed how the United States Navel Academy attempts to achieve ‘diversity.’  The matter came down to this:  a white student must have scores of at least 600 on each section of the SAT and high school grades of As and Bs, while ‘minority’ students need only SAT scores in the 500s and may have C grades on their transcripts.  This English professor, who had been on the admissions committee at the Academy, said he was told not to write anything down regarding the system to help foil Freedom of Information Act suits!

Our race-crazed society is full of examples of this sort of thing.  There is, of course, only one name for it:  racism.

On the one hand, we are often told that racism is a bad thing.  It was to be eradicated everywhere and for all time.  But on the other hand it appears that a little unspoken caveat comes with the deal.  Racism is bad unless it is benevolent racism.  That is, if it is thought that racism might help someone, then racism becomes a good thing, a necessary practice – especially when practiced by the government and the various institutions connected to government.

At least the purveyors of government-sponsored racism are consistent.  You can see that consistency in other areas.

For example, stealing is a bad thing.  But if the government steals to help someone (benevolent stealing), then in that case it is good.  We call that the welfare state.

Also, murder is bad, very bad.  Some states will still, after enough appeals, put you to death for some versions of murder.  But if the person being murdered is not yet born, or perhaps only partly born, then murder can be a good thing.  That is benevolent murder.  We call that abortion.

Our society will not long endure this moral schizophrenia.  In the end we will either stop tolerating all racism, theft, murder and their kin, or we will stop trying to pretend that they are bad practices some of the time.  It will be an unlivable world if that second possibility ever occurs.

Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings . . .

Last Sunday our Sunday School class started one of those short ‘fill-in’ classes to take up the last few weeks of summer.  Someone – our minister, I presume – found four, short feature style modern day parables.

The first one was very good – well written, well acted.  The plot was neither trite nor ‘preachy’ as that sort of thing often is.  The development was very moving.  It explored, in some depth for a short feature, the intricacy of feelings surrounding an intra-family betrayal and forgiveness situation.  You might say it covered in a very general way the matters of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son.

Many characters had, as you would expect, all sorts of strong emotional ‘baggage’ that that some explored and ‘resolved’ and others did not.  In fact, those characters who ‘explored and resolved’ were portrayed as being somehow more ‘in touch’ with God.   This made me think of how different our story-telling-for-a-purpose is from that of Jesus.

Consider Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son.  The characters say things and do things.  Some of what they say and do allows us to infer with some degree of certainty how they were ‘feeling.’  For example, when the older son complains about his father celebrating the return of the wayward younger son, it seems very obvious that there was more than a bit of jealousy involved.  But notice how the ‘feeling’ side of that is not explored in detail.  No character is portrayed in the self-examination of emotional states.  No one even mentions anything like ‘unresolved jealousy.’

The examination of ‘feelings’ is a modern obsession, but that is not my point here.  Instead, I was reminded by all this of the conceptual, world-view distance between us and the Biblical setting.  It is a warning that we have a lot of work to do when we attempt to understand and apply the Bible to our world.

This is not to say that there is anything necessarily wrong with a modern parable using our culture’s tendency toward psychoanalysis to captivate an audience.  But if we come to expect that of the Bible, or especially if we attempt to impose that approach on the Bible, we will greatly handicap ourselves in the journey toward Biblical understanding.

Why You Say ‘We’ Kemosabe?

In a recent Christianity Today article:

Is The Gay Marriage Debate Over?
What the battle for traditional marriage means for Americans—and evangelicals.
Mark Galli | posted 7/24/2009 10:27AM

I found the following statements:

Gay marriage advocacy was given new life with Massachusetts's historic 2003 high court ruling . . .

But seemingly out of nowhere, gay marriage advocates have won stunning judicial, legislative, and social victories. . .

Even more disheartening has been to witness how, in each mainline denomination, and even in some evangelical seminaries, fellow Christians lobby hard for gay marriage.

The depressing feeling of inevitability is precisely what advocates of gay marriage want to instill in their opponents.

Still, we are at our wits' ends about what to say next, impervious as the gay marriage juggernaut is.

I will say more about the article later, but first this:  when we battle bad ideas, we should not surrender important terminological ground.  The original meaning of ‘gay’ was ‘having or showing a merry, lively mood’ and its synonyms included ‘gleeful, jovial, glad, joyous, happy, cheerful.’  I am still unwilling to concede this word to homosexuality.  There is nothing gay about homosexuality.  There is something evil about it.  Why Christian writers are so willing to give this propaganda term to the opposition is beyond me.

In any case, Galli goes on to conclude in his article:

We are, of all Christian traditions, the most individualistic. This individual emphasis has flourished in different ways and in different settings, and often for the good. . . But it is individualism nonetheless, and it cuts right to the heart of one of our best arguments against gay marriage.

We cannot very well argue for the sanctity of marriage as a crucial social institution while we blithely go about divorcing and approving of remarriage at a rate that destabilizes marriage. We cannot say that an institution, like the state, has a perfect right to insist on certain values and behavior from its citizens while we refuse to submit to denominational or local church authority. We cannot tell gay couples that marriage is about something much larger than self-fulfillment when we, like the rest of heterosexual culture, delay marriage until we can experience life, and delay having children until we can enjoy each other for a few years.

In short, we have been perfect hypocrites on this issue. Until we admit that, and take steps to amend our ways, our cries of alarm about gay marriage will echo off into oblivion.

And here we see an example of when appeal to individualism is needed.  There is no ‘we’ who argues for the sanctity of marriage; only individuals can present arguments.  And hypocrisy cannot be rightly assigned to some collective ‘we.’  Some Christians may be hypocrites in this matter, others are not.  Many have never been divorced.  Some who are were the innocent victims of adultery.  There is no ‘we’ in this matter.

Galli should be very careful in his rhetorical flourish.  The problem with all things homosexual is that they violate the commandment of God.  Matters like delaying marriage, or having children later in a marriage do not necessarily violate any commandment of God.  To lump them together as Galli does is more than presumptuous on his part.

But in spite of the fact that there are some Christian hypocrites (on these and other matters) the matter of marriage – and the exclusion of anything homosexual from it – remains what it is.  It remains that way because it is not a matter of human definition.  It was defined, by virtue of creation, by God.

So when Galli says above that ‘We cannot very well argue for the sanctity of marriage’ or ‘We cannot tell gay couples that marriage is about something much larger than self-fulfillment’ he is flat-out wrong.  Many Christians very well CAN argue from a non-hypocritical position on this matter.

But even those have violated God’s prescription, and who are perhaps truly repentant, need not hold back in announcing God’s proscription on ‘homosexual marriage’ because it is God’s proscription, not ours.  No amount of hand-wringing about how bad ‘we’ are changes that.  If cries of alarm about homosexual attempts to redefine religion ‘echo off into oblivion’ it is because, as the Apostle Paul once said, some prefer to worship the creature rather than the Creator.

An Open Letter to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky

Dear Senator McConnell,

I recently wrote to you urging you, for a variety of substantial reasons, to oppose the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.  In a letter of July 15, 2009 you responded to me.  You said, in part:

When the U.S. Senate evaluated Judge Sotomayor’s nomination in 1998 [to the U.S. Court of appeals for the Second Circuit] I had concerns about whether she would apply the law even-handedly, despite her own feelings or personal or political preferences, and whether she would strictly interpret the U.S. Constitution instead of legislating from the bench.  My concerns were serious enough that I voted against her confirmation at the time . . .

You then conclude:

Despite my concerns at her confirmation in 1998, I intend not to prejudge her current nomination.  Instead, I will review her record to assess whether her statements and actions reflect an nominee who will interpret the law, and not write it.

Now I read that:

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the GOP would not attempt to block or filibuster a vote on her nomination. "I look forward to you getting that vote before we recess in August," he told Sotomayor during her fourth appearance before the committee.

Senator McConnell, what do think has changed in this nominee’s views since 1998?  Do you think our current radical leftist President nominated Sotomayor because she is a judicial conservative?  A simple perusal of her many public comments reveals that many of the answers she gave at the recent hearings were lies which were obvious attempts to cover her pervious statements.  Even a poor hick like me can see that.

So then, does Senator Jeff Sessions really speak for the GOP?  Is this the kind of weak-kneed (lack of) leadership we can now expect when we vote for Republicans?  For many years now I have voted for you and many other Republicans, in part simply to oppose the many destructive schemes of Democrats.  Where is that opposition in this very important instance?

Conservatism can never make political headway as long as you and your colleagues insist on ‘playing nice’ with the other side.  Robert Bork, for example, was ‘Borked’ by Democrats, and as a result is NOT on the high court.  Republicans treat a horrible candidate like Sotomayor with kid gloves, and we are to be stuck with her for life.

I must conclude that the GOP is not so ‘grand’ these days.  It appears that those of us who would like to advance the ordered liberty of conservatism may need to look elsewhere.  With Republicans like many of those now serving in the United States Senate, who needs Democrats?

If you and your colleagues are not going to fight the various forms of political garbage being foist upon us by leftists, why, exactly, should we bother to support you in the future?  (I sincerely invite an honest answer to this question by you or any other Republican leader.)

Liberal vs. illiberal

 

[From ‘The Clash of Stereotypes’ by Dinesh D'Souza at Christianity Today 7/20/2009']

It's helpful to distinguish between two types of liberalism. One is the classical liberalism of the American founding. Call this Liberalism 1, which is reflected in such principles as the right to vote, to assemble freely, to trade with others and keep the fruits of one's labor, to practice one's religion, to tolerate different political and religious views, and so on.

Then there is the modern liberalism that developed in the West after World War II. Call this Liberalism 2, which is characterized by the right to blaspheme, pornography as a protected form of free expression, the exclusion of religious symbols from the public square, the right of teenagers to receive sex education and contraceptives, the right to abortion, prostitution as a worker's right, and so on.

The data show that the vast majority of Muslims support Liberalism 1 while rejecting Liberalism 2. From Jakarta to Jeddah, from Islamabad to Istanbul, Muslims are deeply concerned that, through U.S. military force, economic pressures, and the global spread of American popular culture, the values of Liberalism 2 are being imposed on the Muslim world.

Kent Comments:

This raises some very interesting questions.  Not all of D’Souza’s listed examples of Liberalism 2 are equal, but let’s try his first example:  blasphemy.  How does one maintain Liberalism 1 and yet ‘do something’ about blasphemy?  It is, after all, a ‘religious view’ is it not?

So it would appear that we cannot hold to a principle of toleration for differences of religious views and at the same time do anything ‘political’ about blasphemy.  But this doesn’t mean that there is nothing to be done in regard to blasphemy and things like it under Liberalism 1.

Because part of Liberalism 1 is the freedom of association, and the sanctity of private property.  This means that those opposed to blasphemy, for example, can use any kind of social pressure to discourage it.  Social pressure is not violent or coercive.  This might mean not befriending or even doing business with those who blaspheme as long as they continue to blaspheme.  Social pressure could be a good and useful thing, except for two problems.

First, advocates of Liberalism 2 have done everything in their power to make social pressure illegal.  Liberalism 2 claims, in essence, that once you go into business the government gains a large degree of control over your property.  You are not legally allowed to ‘discriminate’ in regard to your customers or your employees – which is another way of saying that you no longer control your own property!  In other words, Liberalism 2 wants to subsume ‘social pressure’ under the law and the sword, and thus, in effect, eliminate it.  This is part of what makes Liberalism 2 anti-liberal in terms of Liberalism 1.

But the view of ‘the vast majority of Muslims’ includes the idea that the government should punish those who blaspheme.  They, too, want to subsume ‘social pressure’ under the law.  But instead of eliminating it, they want to give it ‘the power of the sword.’  This is part of what makes many Muslims anti-liberal in the sense of Liberalism 1.

Social pressure is a valuable societal tool, which is given ‘space’ to operate by the very principles of Liberalism 1.  But both Liberalism 2 (modern ‘leftists’) and many Muslims want to take it away because they are, in the end, illiberal in the very best sense of that word.

Why Not Just Separate School and State?

Religion in Schools
The National Free to Speak Campaign
By Chuck Colson|Published Date: July 16, 2009

As her contribution to a school mural, Melissa Yates painted a cross with the words “I believe, do you?” School officials quickly whitewashed her artwork, erasing her expression of faith.

Olivia Turton wanted to sing her favorite song, “Awesome God,” during an after-school talent show. She was denied permission to do so.

Harrison Kravat asked to read the Bible during quiet reading time at school. He was told to take his Bible home.

Elizabeth Johnson proposed to her teacher a book report on the Book of Exodus. Her teacher said “no.”

Each of these students has a story to share—about how their religious freedom was squashed by school officials who were either ignorant of the law or fearful of offending the ACLU.

After legal motions were filed for each of these situations, Melissa re-painted her cross, Olivia sang her song, Elizabeth completed and submitted her book report, and Harrison read his Bible at school during quiet time.

But a lot of time and legal expenses could have been spared if school officials had simply followed the Department of Education’s guidelines on students’ freedom of religious expression.

Kent Comments:

And even more time, legal expenses, and all sorts of other wasted cultural capital could have been spared if the Department of Education were abolished (Reagan said he would do that, but didn’t or couldn’t follow through) and school and state were as carefully separated as church and state.

For all the same reasons that it is counter-productive for the government to own GM, for example, it is also counter-productive for governments to own schools.  Though it is now a long-standing tradition, it is a bad tradition.  It is, if you think about it, the epitome of socialism – government ownership of the means of production.

For one thing, it is completely impossible to separate education from religion.  You cannot explore the physical universe, the human self, and the human experience without using significant religious assumptions or conclusions.  Even the thought that there is no God, or that God is irrelevant to education, is itself a religious position.

The original reason/excuse for government ownership of schools seemed to be that functioning citizens in a republic needed to be educated to some extent.  But once governments own schools, those in power in government will tend to educate students ‘in their own image.’  State-provided education will tend to be, to some extent, an apologetic for current state policies.  How often, for example, do students in government-owned schools seriously explore the problems with governments owning schools?

And thus can you now peruse the curricula of most state-owned schools and find little breeding grounds for environmentalism, multi-culturalism, nanny-statism, agnosticism, and every other current ‘politically correct’ drivel imaginable.  Even those who seriously disagree with all this are forced to pay to have it stuffed into the minds of those sentenced to endure such nonsense from ages 5/6-18.

These are problems all easily solvable by separating school and state, if only we had the courage to do so!

Do Something, You Weenie Republicans!

 

Every evening before going to bed, I brush my teeth – and floss, too!  (Good hygiene, wouldn’t you say?)  Earlier this week I was listening to the Mark Levin radio show while pursuing said good hygiene.

Mark was talking with one of the Republican Senators on the judicial committee who had been questioning the new Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor.  This Senator had asked some good questions, but he repeatedly said to Mark Levin, “I have to be respectful.  She is a federal judge.”

As pertinent as the Senator’s questions for Sotomayor were, I have some questions for this Senator, and all those who take that approach.

Do you not think that, in this Sotomayor person, we are dealing with someone who has absolutely no regard for individual liberty?  Everything she has said indicates that she a lying weasel who will mouth any words to the Senate committee that she thinks will help get her nominated.

Do you remember how the haters of liberty treated Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas?  They defeated Bork and forever tarnished Thomas with tactics that had no relationship to respect.  Go back and listen to the then-more-sober Ted Kennedy’s part of the questioning of those two.

Do you not think that when the very existence of liberty is in danger, as it is right now, it is time to abandon your polite little thoughts about ‘respect’ and do whatever you can to save what’s left of the republic?  It’s as though you Republicans come to the OK Corral with squirt guns while the opposition is armed with Colt .45s.  When asked why, you say, “It wouldn’t be right to use a real gun.  Someone might get hurt.”

We WANT someone to ‘get hurt.’  We want the haters of liberty to be DEFEATED!  (How hard is that to understand, you gutless Republicans?)

Even the few fairly good Republicans these days are WEENIES.  Gentlemen and gentlewomen who have any regard for liberty:  it is time to ‘take off the gloves.’  It is time to ‘get down and get dirty.’  It is time to do whatever is necessary to defeat the enemy, those who would sacrifice liberty to their vision of a collectivist state.

Stop being ‘polite’ –whatever you think that means.  This is no drill!  Do whatever you must to make clear liberty-despising mind behind Sotomayor’s fake, smug little face.  Do it now before it is everlastingly too late.