There has been a fair amount of conversation around the concept of bias recently, so instead of commenting elsewhere I thought I'd throw a few observations out here.
1. Our entire legal system is based on the presumption that reasonable people are able to exert enough control over their biases to be able to be able to make all sorts of critical life altering decisions.
2. When a group of protesters is so committed to a narrative that is not supported by facts and evidence, that they insist of punishing people for reasons of race or position, that seems like a heaping helping of bias to me.
3. When a convicted sex offender is involved in the writing of a bill that allows him and people like him more access to the people they prey on, that also seems like the gentleman in question just might be a bit biased.
I'm sure that there will be other examples to come, but for now how about we all admit that it's possible to control ones bias and make reasonable conclusions, while at the same time realizing that allowing ones bias to embrace something contrary to the evidence or that might harm others is not good.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Justice???
A while back I wrote about a situation up here in which a young black man was killed by the police, resulting in numerous demands from the BLM types.
Of the first round of demands they got two. Later they demanded that the case not be taken to a grand jury and that the decision to charge be made by the prosecutor instead. True to form the prosecutor gave in and did as they demanded.
Before I go on, a quick reminder, this happened in the heart of a city, county, and state historically and currently controlled by the democrat party.
The assumption on the part of the BLM types was that they could put enough pressure on the prosecutor to force him to charge that police officers no matter what the evidence. As part of a preview of coming attractions these fine upstanding citizens essentially laid siege to a police station, blocking roads, throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails, and hindering the police from protecting the rest of the citizens of that district. After a couple of weeks and hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted (I can't imagine that they couldn't have gone toward something more useful), they got bored and moved on.
Cut to today, the prosecutor finally makes his announcement about charges. He brings out video evidence, forensic evidence, DNA evidence, testimonial evidence, and reached the conclusion that (based on the actual, real, legally admissible evidence) that charges against the police officers were not justified.
Surprising no one, the press conference was hijacked by a local activist (not a member of the press), who proceed to pretend as if none of the evidence that had been shown was going to change her preconceived notion based on her bias against the police department. The kicker was when she said to the prosecutor, "When the fires (or burning) starts it will be on you." or words to that effect.
Seriously, om what planet does justice look like "Do what we want, or we'll burn things down."?
Personally I hope that cooler heads prevail and that there will be no riots, no burning, and no violence. But given the history, I just don't know.
A few thoughts keep swimming around in my head.
1. You (the urban African American community) elected and continue to vote for the very people who you now claim are the problem and have been for decades.
2. What does it say about our political system when people expect to be able to influence the outcomes in a criminal justice proceeding by threats or by political influence?
3. The "victim" in this case had beaten his girlfriend badly enough to require that an ambulance be called, was trying to prevent the EMT's from treating the woman he had beaten, then when the police tried to stop him he resisted arrest and tried to take one of the officer's weapon. I'm not saying that he deserved to die like this, but can't these folks see that making this guy a "poster boy" for their cause does absolutely no good and ultimately probably harms it.
4. Where is the sympathy for the young woman he beat the crap out of?
What we seem to have here is a case in which justice seems to have been done despite all of the threats and pressure put on the prosecutor, and an opportunity for the BLM folks to demonstrate that justice is really what they want.
EDIT
I just want to applaud the fact that so far the protests have stayed non violent despite the public threat made at the press conference.
EDIT 2
The woman who was beaten did a TV interview last night in which she contradicted her 911 call while people still try to deny the physical/forensic evidence while clinging to the contradictory witness statements. But again, props to the protesters for not doing any damage,
Of the first round of demands they got two. Later they demanded that the case not be taken to a grand jury and that the decision to charge be made by the prosecutor instead. True to form the prosecutor gave in and did as they demanded.
Before I go on, a quick reminder, this happened in the heart of a city, county, and state historically and currently controlled by the democrat party.
The assumption on the part of the BLM types was that they could put enough pressure on the prosecutor to force him to charge that police officers no matter what the evidence. As part of a preview of coming attractions these fine upstanding citizens essentially laid siege to a police station, blocking roads, throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails, and hindering the police from protecting the rest of the citizens of that district. After a couple of weeks and hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted (I can't imagine that they couldn't have gone toward something more useful), they got bored and moved on.
Cut to today, the prosecutor finally makes his announcement about charges. He brings out video evidence, forensic evidence, DNA evidence, testimonial evidence, and reached the conclusion that (based on the actual, real, legally admissible evidence) that charges against the police officers were not justified.
Surprising no one, the press conference was hijacked by a local activist (not a member of the press), who proceed to pretend as if none of the evidence that had been shown was going to change her preconceived notion based on her bias against the police department. The kicker was when she said to the prosecutor, "When the fires (or burning) starts it will be on you." or words to that effect.
Seriously, om what planet does justice look like "Do what we want, or we'll burn things down."?
Personally I hope that cooler heads prevail and that there will be no riots, no burning, and no violence. But given the history, I just don't know.
A few thoughts keep swimming around in my head.
1. You (the urban African American community) elected and continue to vote for the very people who you now claim are the problem and have been for decades.
2. What does it say about our political system when people expect to be able to influence the outcomes in a criminal justice proceeding by threats or by political influence?
3. The "victim" in this case had beaten his girlfriend badly enough to require that an ambulance be called, was trying to prevent the EMT's from treating the woman he had beaten, then when the police tried to stop him he resisted arrest and tried to take one of the officer's weapon. I'm not saying that he deserved to die like this, but can't these folks see that making this guy a "poster boy" for their cause does absolutely no good and ultimately probably harms it.
4. Where is the sympathy for the young woman he beat the crap out of?
What we seem to have here is a case in which justice seems to have been done despite all of the threats and pressure put on the prosecutor, and an opportunity for the BLM folks to demonstrate that justice is really what they want.
EDIT
I just want to applaud the fact that so far the protests have stayed non violent despite the public threat made at the press conference.
EDIT 2
The woman who was beaten did a TV interview last night in which she contradicted her 911 call while people still try to deny the physical/forensic evidence while clinging to the contradictory witness statements. But again, props to the protesters for not doing any damage,
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Why not listen to people who might actually know a thing or two
For those who hold the opinion that it is normal and healthy to transition between genders and sexes (especially for children), lets take a look at what some actual experts (we call them doctors) have to say about this disturbing trend we are seeing.
The American College of Pediatricians (doctors who specialize in the health of children) have come out with a report with 8 main points.
Here they are:
So for all y'all who think that kids should get to choose their gender and pick their bathroom, how about we listen to some folks who just might know a bit about childrens health.
H/T Wintery Knight
The American College of Pediatricians (doctors who specialize in the health of children) have come out with a report with 8 main points.
Here they are:
- Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder.
- No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.
- A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.
- Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous.
- According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.
- Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.
- Rates of suicide are twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBQT – affirming countries.
- Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.
So for all y'all who think that kids should get to choose their gender and pick their bathroom, how about we listen to some folks who just might know a bit about childrens health.
H/T Wintery Knight
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Lemmings
It would appear that the group Presbyterian Voices for Justice doesn't fully trust people to make up their own minds or use their own judgement when it comes to how to vote ate the General Assembly.
It seems that;
"We will have a helpful General Assembly issue out in plenty of time that will tell you exactly how to vote on each overture."
I'm guessing that they'd rather have lemmings who just vote the way they are told and don't bother with any of that pesky thinking for themselves.
When I see stuff like this I rejoice that my congregation has ransomed itself away from the PCUSA and that we do not have to deal with this kind of brainwashing.
I've said for a while that the progressive/atheist wing of the denomination will eventually succeed in running out all of those who oppose their agenda and will be left with a top heavy shell of a denomination without enough members to support the overhead of a national organization. I have no idea how long it will take, and I realize the ransoms they are getting from congregations who leave (totaling tens of millions of dollars) will allow the shell of a denomination to appear viable longer than the flood of membership losses would seem to indicate.
I wish them well and hope that after they destroy a once significant denomination, that they will stay away from the ones they ran the rest of us off to. Y'all got what you wanted, a denomination to play with, enjoy it while it lasts.
It seems that;
"We will have a helpful General Assembly issue out in plenty of time that will tell you exactly how to vote on each overture."
I'm guessing that they'd rather have lemmings who just vote the way they are told and don't bother with any of that pesky thinking for themselves.
When I see stuff like this I rejoice that my congregation has ransomed itself away from the PCUSA and that we do not have to deal with this kind of brainwashing.
I've said for a while that the progressive/atheist wing of the denomination will eventually succeed in running out all of those who oppose their agenda and will be left with a top heavy shell of a denomination without enough members to support the overhead of a national organization. I have no idea how long it will take, and I realize the ransoms they are getting from congregations who leave (totaling tens of millions of dollars) will allow the shell of a denomination to appear viable longer than the flood of membership losses would seem to indicate.
I wish them well and hope that after they destroy a once significant denomination, that they will stay away from the ones they ran the rest of us off to. Y'all got what you wanted, a denomination to play with, enjoy it while it lasts.
Friday, March 4, 2016
Plan
Dan has argued that the Marrakesh declaration is an "important" and "historic" step on the rod to social change. I'm on record as saying that is is quite possible that this is in fact the case, but that we won't know anything until time has passed and more has happened.
On a couple of occasions I asked Dan for some specifics in terms of how certain specific situations would/could/should be dealt with. Dan's response was.
"I have no plan."
It's possible that those behind the Marrakesh Declaration actually do have a plan, but if they do Dan certainly isn't aware of it or hasn't seen fit to show us what it is. I've done a few Google searches for the Marrakesh declaration and have found very little objective coverage and nothing that would explain the next steps they have planned. Much of what I've found is essentially outlets who just passed along a press release, with no other reporting. Again, I'm not saying it's not there, just that I haven't found it. If it is there, I'd sure like to see it.
Anyway, after Dan's whole "I have no plan" response, he posed this challenge.
"You've been placed in a position of authority for a week to work to resolve the problem of Muslim/Christian/World relationships. What is one thing you'd do to make the world a better place as it relates to this issue? Noting that there are already efforts in place to find and stop actual terrorist acts... so I'm speaking more of what to do to improve Muslim/other relations."
Obviously it's interesting that one who clearly "has no plan" would expect others to provide what he will not .
It's also interesting he he felt it necessary to attempt to goad me into doing what he is clearly afraid to do, as he is completely unable to deal with criticism (Hyperbole)
Anyway, I thought about it and decided that the best way to point out Dan's inconsistency and hypocrisy (Hyperbole), was to accept his challenge and to allow my response stand in stark contrast to his "I have no plan."
But, I have to point out the fact that the challenge as posed is totally ridiculous. It is obvious that the only way to completely "solve" the problem in a week would be to literally remove every single person on one side or the other, which is just absurd. It's further ridiculous and simplistic to think that this ca n be solved by one thing in a weeks time. I realize that I've changed to parameters of the original challenge to make them slightly more reasonable, and am not adhering to the specific letter of the challenge, but I'm going to offer something more than "I have no plan."
So, what I am going to lay out is an set of bullet points of things that could be started in a week that I believe could move the situation closer to being resolved.
1. To remove any terrorist group, radical imam, government leaders and financial supporters who are engaged in fighting, arming, funding, or in any way (material or not) supporting any group or individual who is engaged in terrorism or jihad.
2. Clamp down on individuals or groups who are using social media to recruit or direct terrorists.
3. Put every effort into developing energy sources in the United States and in non Muslim countries that would limit the ability of any of the middle eastern oil producing nations to use oil as lever against efforts to stop terrorism.
4. Limit or eliminate all US foreign aid to any country which does not adopt a secular government chosen by open, free and fair elections and adopt a governing document that guarantees basic human rights for all as well as protection for religious, ethnic and other minorities.
5. Reward those who institute the changes outlined in #4 with whatever trade and development incentives seem reasonable and appropriate. Change US law to allow US businesses some sort of an incentive to operate in these countries.
6. Explore the feasibility of eliminating the arbitrary nations and boundaries established by the British and French in favor of a more rational and realistic arrangement.
I could probably go on, but it seems like that is quite a lot to get started in only a week.
I don't expect that everyone will agree with my outline. I don't expect that anyone will like it. But, the fact is that I have taken the challenge, laid out an outline and put something out there.
GROUND RULES
I am going to moderate comments on this thread. No one will be allowed to comment on anything in this post until they have laid out what specific plans they would propose under similar restrictions.
Specifically to Dan. I'm going to be very clear. If you want to comment here, "I have no plan" will not cut it. If you "have no plan", then I suggest you put your thinking cap on and pull one out of somewhere if you have any hope of commenting on this thread. If you think you can get around the ground rules by posting on another thread, those comments will be deleted also. I have been upfront and specific about the rules, so I do not want to hear any whining about how I won't let you comment. Finally, I will not save any deleted comments, so if you want to keep them for any reason it's your responsibility.
EDIT
Dan, if you like I will allow one comment here to acknowledge that I have taken up your challenge (albeit in a modified more realistic form), and that perhaps you underestimated me. Anything beyond that will need to have your plan.
On a couple of occasions I asked Dan for some specifics in terms of how certain specific situations would/could/should be dealt with. Dan's response was.
"I have no plan."
It's possible that those behind the Marrakesh Declaration actually do have a plan, but if they do Dan certainly isn't aware of it or hasn't seen fit to show us what it is. I've done a few Google searches for the Marrakesh declaration and have found very little objective coverage and nothing that would explain the next steps they have planned. Much of what I've found is essentially outlets who just passed along a press release, with no other reporting. Again, I'm not saying it's not there, just that I haven't found it. If it is there, I'd sure like to see it.
Anyway, after Dan's whole "I have no plan" response, he posed this challenge.
"You've been placed in a position of authority for a week to work to resolve the problem of Muslim/Christian/World relationships. What is one thing you'd do to make the world a better place as it relates to this issue? Noting that there are already efforts in place to find and stop actual terrorist acts... so I'm speaking more of what to do to improve Muslim/other relations."
Obviously it's interesting that one who clearly "has no plan" would expect others to provide what he will not .
It's also interesting he he felt it necessary to attempt to goad me into doing what he is clearly afraid to do, as he is completely unable to deal with criticism (Hyperbole)
Anyway, I thought about it and decided that the best way to point out Dan's inconsistency and hypocrisy (Hyperbole), was to accept his challenge and to allow my response stand in stark contrast to his "I have no plan."
But, I have to point out the fact that the challenge as posed is totally ridiculous. It is obvious that the only way to completely "solve" the problem in a week would be to literally remove every single person on one side or the other, which is just absurd. It's further ridiculous and simplistic to think that this ca n be solved by one thing in a weeks time. I realize that I've changed to parameters of the original challenge to make them slightly more reasonable, and am not adhering to the specific letter of the challenge, but I'm going to offer something more than "I have no plan."
So, what I am going to lay out is an set of bullet points of things that could be started in a week that I believe could move the situation closer to being resolved.
1. To remove any terrorist group, radical imam, government leaders and financial supporters who are engaged in fighting, arming, funding, or in any way (material or not) supporting any group or individual who is engaged in terrorism or jihad.
2. Clamp down on individuals or groups who are using social media to recruit or direct terrorists.
3. Put every effort into developing energy sources in the United States and in non Muslim countries that would limit the ability of any of the middle eastern oil producing nations to use oil as lever against efforts to stop terrorism.
4. Limit or eliminate all US foreign aid to any country which does not adopt a secular government chosen by open, free and fair elections and adopt a governing document that guarantees basic human rights for all as well as protection for religious, ethnic and other minorities.
5. Reward those who institute the changes outlined in #4 with whatever trade and development incentives seem reasonable and appropriate. Change US law to allow US businesses some sort of an incentive to operate in these countries.
6. Explore the feasibility of eliminating the arbitrary nations and boundaries established by the British and French in favor of a more rational and realistic arrangement.
I could probably go on, but it seems like that is quite a lot to get started in only a week.
I don't expect that everyone will agree with my outline. I don't expect that anyone will like it. But, the fact is that I have taken the challenge, laid out an outline and put something out there.
GROUND RULES
I am going to moderate comments on this thread. No one will be allowed to comment on anything in this post until they have laid out what specific plans they would propose under similar restrictions.
Specifically to Dan. I'm going to be very clear. If you want to comment here, "I have no plan" will not cut it. If you "have no plan", then I suggest you put your thinking cap on and pull one out of somewhere if you have any hope of commenting on this thread. If you think you can get around the ground rules by posting on another thread, those comments will be deleted also. I have been upfront and specific about the rules, so I do not want to hear any whining about how I won't let you comment. Finally, I will not save any deleted comments, so if you want to keep them for any reason it's your responsibility.
EDIT
Dan, if you like I will allow one comment here to acknowledge that I have taken up your challenge (albeit in a modified more realistic form), and that perhaps you underestimated me. Anything beyond that will need to have your plan.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Comparison
I realize that the question of what exactly a "christian extremist" is and why supporters of slavery in the US are the best comparison to extremist Muslim terrorists, but it seems that one way to see how accurate the analogue is would be to compare the actions of the two groups and see how similar they are. Just because, we'll also compare the "moderate" Muslims with "christian extremists".
For the purposes of this post, I am assuming that "christian extremists" are those who supported American slavery.
Muslim extremists have two main goals; the destruction of Israel and extermination of the Jews and the establishment of a theocratic government to rule all Muslims according to Sharia.
"christian extremists" had no desire to destroy any other countries or exterminate people because of their religion. They certainly did not want to start a theocracy.
Muslim extremists frequently use children, women, and the mentally disabled as a means to detonate bombs in areas full of innocent people.
"christian extremists" never once strapped a bomb to anyone and blew them up as a means to kill innocents.
Muslim extremists believe that if they kill infidels (especially Jews), or die in the process that they will be rewarded with an express trip to heaven and 72 virgins.
"christian extremists", not so much.
Muslim extremists believe in the concept of Jihad, and they they are called to force the submission of everyone to Islam.
"christian extremists" did fight a war but believed that they were defending their rights, they were not trying to impose their religious views on anyone using force.
Muslim extremists believe that is proper to kill their daughters if they dishonor the family (honor killings), they also believe that it is appropriate to mutilate the female genitalia in the belief that it will keep their daughter from dishonoring the families.
"christian extremists" certainly believed in chastity and modesty before marriage, but didn't mutilate their daughters, nor did they kill them for being seen in public with a male who is not a relative.
Muslim extremists recruit teenage girls from the U.S. and Western Europe to travel to various enclaves where terrorists congregate in order to turn them into the equivalent of sexual slaves.
I'm sure that there were prostitutes in the areas where the "christian extremists" lived, and I'm sure that there were instances of slave owners engaging in sexual relations with their slaves.
Muslim extremists kidnap prepubescent girls and sell them as sex slaves.
"christian extremists" I'm not aware of this happening.
Muslim "moderates" believe in the death penalty for apostasy, as well as for homosexuality.
Some "christian extremists" believed in torture and capitol punishment for slaves who tried to escape or to incite rebellion.
Some "moderate' Muslim countries continue to practice slavery.
"christian extremists" stopped practicing slavery over 150 years ago.
Some "moderate" Muslims captured innocent Africans, transported them to the African coast and sold them to ship captains who transported them to the Western hemisphere.
"christian extremists" purchased the Africans who had been enslaved by Muslims.
Many "moderate" Muslim countries abide be Sharia law. They oppress Muslim women, Mutilate petty criminals, execute homosexuals, and allow/support various radical sects of Islam.
"christian extremists" pretty much only oppressed slaves. (Not condoning the oppression of anyone)
For now I'll make one final comparison, although I'm sure others will come to mind.
Muslim extremists are engaging in these behaviors (as are the "moderates") today. This is current events.
"christian extremists" engaged in their behavior hundreds of years ago.
One thing I noticed, is that the better comparison is not with Muslim extremists, but with the Muslim "moderates".
For the purposes of this post, I am assuming that "christian extremists" are those who supported American slavery.
Muslim extremists have two main goals; the destruction of Israel and extermination of the Jews and the establishment of a theocratic government to rule all Muslims according to Sharia.
"christian extremists" had no desire to destroy any other countries or exterminate people because of their religion. They certainly did not want to start a theocracy.
Muslim extremists frequently use children, women, and the mentally disabled as a means to detonate bombs in areas full of innocent people.
"christian extremists" never once strapped a bomb to anyone and blew them up as a means to kill innocents.
Muslim extremists believe that if they kill infidels (especially Jews), or die in the process that they will be rewarded with an express trip to heaven and 72 virgins.
"christian extremists", not so much.
Muslim extremists believe in the concept of Jihad, and they they are called to force the submission of everyone to Islam.
"christian extremists" did fight a war but believed that they were defending their rights, they were not trying to impose their religious views on anyone using force.
Muslim extremists believe that is proper to kill their daughters if they dishonor the family (honor killings), they also believe that it is appropriate to mutilate the female genitalia in the belief that it will keep their daughter from dishonoring the families.
"christian extremists" certainly believed in chastity and modesty before marriage, but didn't mutilate their daughters, nor did they kill them for being seen in public with a male who is not a relative.
Muslim extremists recruit teenage girls from the U.S. and Western Europe to travel to various enclaves where terrorists congregate in order to turn them into the equivalent of sexual slaves.
I'm sure that there were prostitutes in the areas where the "christian extremists" lived, and I'm sure that there were instances of slave owners engaging in sexual relations with their slaves.
Muslim extremists kidnap prepubescent girls and sell them as sex slaves.
"christian extremists" I'm not aware of this happening.
Muslim "moderates" believe in the death penalty for apostasy, as well as for homosexuality.
Some "christian extremists" believed in torture and capitol punishment for slaves who tried to escape or to incite rebellion.
Some "moderate' Muslim countries continue to practice slavery.
"christian extremists" stopped practicing slavery over 150 years ago.
Some "moderate" Muslims captured innocent Africans, transported them to the African coast and sold them to ship captains who transported them to the Western hemisphere.
"christian extremists" purchased the Africans who had been enslaved by Muslims.
Many "moderate" Muslim countries abide be Sharia law. They oppress Muslim women, Mutilate petty criminals, execute homosexuals, and allow/support various radical sects of Islam.
"christian extremists" pretty much only oppressed slaves. (Not condoning the oppression of anyone)
For now I'll make one final comparison, although I'm sure others will come to mind.
Muslim extremists are engaging in these behaviors (as are the "moderates") today. This is current events.
"christian extremists" engaged in their behavior hundreds of years ago.
One thing I noticed, is that the better comparison is not with Muslim extremists, but with the Muslim "moderates".
Aint science wonderful
http://winteryknight.com/2016/03/03/atheist-fascists-threaten-boycott-of-plos-for-mentioning-creator-in-peer-reviewed-science-paper/
H/T Wintery Knight
H/T Wintery Knight
Letting go
Marshall pointed something out to me earlier, that really struck me. He pointed out that I had not pursued something based on a response to a question I had asked.
What struck me was that the question I wrote down in my comment was not the question I had formulated in my mind. It was close, but not exactly there.
As I see it I had a couple of options, I could have assumed that the person the question was addressed to should have known what I really meant, as opposed to what I said. But that would be inappropriate and unfair.
I could have taken another shot with the question I meant to ask. But I had my opportunity and blew it.
Finally I could have hung on tight to what I said and defended it even though I know it wasn't what I meant to say.
I wonder how often we say something, realize that it's somehow not right, but remain so committed to what we said that we end up defending something that is really not defensible simply because we don't want to admit we misspoke.
This time, I think I made the right choice. Admit my mistake, let it slide and move on. I hope that I can do a better job of doing that more often in the future.
What struck me was that the question I wrote down in my comment was not the question I had formulated in my mind. It was close, but not exactly there.
As I see it I had a couple of options, I could have assumed that the person the question was addressed to should have known what I really meant, as opposed to what I said. But that would be inappropriate and unfair.
I could have taken another shot with the question I meant to ask. But I had my opportunity and blew it.
Finally I could have hung on tight to what I said and defended it even though I know it wasn't what I meant to say.
I wonder how often we say something, realize that it's somehow not right, but remain so committed to what we said that we end up defending something that is really not defensible simply because we don't want to admit we misspoke.
This time, I think I made the right choice. Admit my mistake, let it slide and move on. I hope that I can do a better job of doing that more often in the future.
Speaking of "christian extremists"
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/03/pro-abortion-protesters-outside-supreme-court-are-asked-when-does-life-begin-and-they-give-brutally-honest-answers/
I have no idea if he specific people in this video are Christian, christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever. It really doesn't matter.
What does matter is that there are thousands of people who identify as Christian, many of them in ordained pastoral leadership positions or in positions of leadership of Mainline Christian denominations who support this kind of thing. They support it with their lips, with their votes, and with their dollars. They use their positions of authority to advocate for it.
So, let's talk about Christians who support this horrific practice which targets those who are in the most literal sense, "the least of these", and which has resulted in disproportionate numbers of children of color being aborted.
If you've even seen a sonogram of an abortion, you'd see terror of the most horrific kind.
I have no idea if he specific people in this video are Christian, christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or whatever. It really doesn't matter.
What does matter is that there are thousands of people who identify as Christian, many of them in ordained pastoral leadership positions or in positions of leadership of Mainline Christian denominations who support this kind of thing. They support it with their lips, with their votes, and with their dollars. They use their positions of authority to advocate for it.
So, let's talk about Christians who support this horrific practice which targets those who are in the most literal sense, "the least of these", and which has resulted in disproportionate numbers of children of color being aborted.
If you've even seen a sonogram of an abortion, you'd see terror of the most horrific kind.
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Liberals are idiots
OK, OK not all liberals are idiots. Yes, I know some non liberals are idiots too.
But this last week I've noticed a growing number of my liberal/DFL/socialist/communist friends and relatives on Facebook and Twitter passing on and re tweeting all manner of anti Trump articles,memes, and videos. I believe this to be idiotic for 2 reasons.
1. Hilary's best chance to win is to face Trump. All the polls plus common sense tells us this. If these folks were smart they would be doing everything possible to help Trump win the GOP nomination, not lose it.
2. Trump has spent the majority of his life as a Democrat. He is the least conservative potential GOP candidate in recent memory. If Trump win's they'll get a liberal SCOTUS nominee, more love for Planned Parenthood, and all the other stuff he's donated money to liberals to support. He'll also more than likely flip congress so there is no chance of the wall getting built or any of the stuff they don"t like.
So please, all you liberals, keep it up and hopefully we'll see the anti-Trump sentiment coalesce around anyone else left and give us a chance to beat Hilary.
I say Hilary because as screwed up as the GOP nomination process is, the Democratic process is just flat out rigged.
But this last week I've noticed a growing number of my liberal/DFL/socialist/communist friends and relatives on Facebook and Twitter passing on and re tweeting all manner of anti Trump articles,memes, and videos. I believe this to be idiotic for 2 reasons.
1. Hilary's best chance to win is to face Trump. All the polls plus common sense tells us this. If these folks were smart they would be doing everything possible to help Trump win the GOP nomination, not lose it.
2. Trump has spent the majority of his life as a Democrat. He is the least conservative potential GOP candidate in recent memory. If Trump win's they'll get a liberal SCOTUS nominee, more love for Planned Parenthood, and all the other stuff he's donated money to liberals to support. He'll also more than likely flip congress so there is no chance of the wall getting built or any of the stuff they don"t like.
So please, all you liberals, keep it up and hopefully we'll see the anti-Trump sentiment coalesce around anyone else left and give us a chance to beat Hilary.
I say Hilary because as screwed up as the GOP nomination process is, the Democratic process is just flat out rigged.
Extremists
It has been proposed elsewhere that there is such a thing as a "christian extremist" and further that these "christian extremists' are analogous to the Muslim 'extremists" or terrorist groups that we see today.
There is a lot to unpack here, and I'm going to try to break things down over a few posts.
I think the first and most obvious question is; What is an extremist?
noun
There is a lot to unpack here, and I'm going to try to break things down over a few posts.
I think the first and most obvious question is; What is an extremist?
2.
a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices.
That's what the dictionary says, but I'm not sure it's very helpful.
noun
1.
a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or
fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical
This one maybe is a little better.
So how abut a definition for Muslim extremist?
Definition
A number of definitions have been offered for Islamic extremism, sometimes using overlapping but also distinct aspects of extreme interpretations and pursuits of Islamic ideology:- The use of violent tactics such as bombing and assassinations for achieving perceived Islamic goals;[5]
- An extremely conservative view of Islam,[7] which does not necessarily entail violence[.[6] Key identifiers of the ideology may include:
- a belief in the applicability of Sharia law in contemporary times,[2][9]
- the concept of belonging to a single Muslim community internationally (the umma),[2]
- belief in the legitimacy of jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world, including armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military,[9] (or more sympathetically belief in "resisting attack and occupation through the use of force";[2]
- advocating a caliphate, i.e. a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.[2][9]
- Others have included positions such as
- refusal to condemn the killing of soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, that were serving the Western country they live in (such as the UK or US).[9]
- Can we find something comparable for "christian extremism"?
Not really.
I think the problem is that it is a matter of taking the tenets of a particular religion and taking them to an extreme in terms of applying them. The problem is that in the case of Muslim extremists that are taking actual tenets that actually exist both in the Koran as well as in the official teaching of Islam and taking then to a level that non Muslims find extreme.
For example, if one looks in the Koran, finds the verse below and simply takes it at face value I think many would call that an instance of Muslim extremism yet it's pretty clear what is being said.
"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.",
So, it's one thing to take something that is clearly a part of the official scriptures of a religion and to apply it in a way that seems extreme to others of different religions.
It's another thing all together to suggest that someone who engages in an act that is clearly not a clear part of the scriptures or an official doctrine of a religion and suggest that the act is a representation of whatever group they claim to represent.
As I looked at the web to find examples of "christian extremism", what I found was people who called themselves (or were called by others) "christians" engaging in actions that Christianity does not endorse.
For example, anyone who murders in the name of "christianity" is obviously engaging in an act that is counter to the teachings of both Jesus as well as The Church.
So to draw any sort of parallel between someone engaging in a act that is something that the teachings of the religion clearly teach and someone engaging in an act which is the opposite of the clear teachings is at best shallow and at worse intentionally false.
It has been suggested that one example of "christian extremists" were the slaveholders in the American south who used (misused) the Bible to justify their actions. The contention is that for these folks slavery and oppression were part and parcel of christain teaching and the the sole (primary) reason these people engaged in the practice of slavery. It completely discounts any other possible primary motivation and posits that these (relatively few) people saw it as their christian obligation to hold slaves. This fails on several levels.
1. It is based to some degree on assumptions about motivations.
2. It ignores the fact that slavery was/is not exclusively a "christian" practice.
3. It ignores that fact that there is nothing in specifically Christian teaching that mandates the owning of slaves.
4. It claims that the owning of slaves was a primary official tenet of The Christian Church.
5. It is based on the assumption that all of the slave holders claimed to be christian.
6. It is based on the assumption that all of the slave holders actually practicing christians.
This is not to suggest that there was not an attempt to use out of context passages of scripture to justify owning slaves, of course there was. Unfortunately, this practice (using scripture to justify human desires) is not limited to simply this issue. It is all too common, and becoming more so. The problem is that because it is possible to use scripture to "support" something, doesn't mean it is being used correctly or appropriately.
I think that most of us would agree with Jesus that the #1&2, most central, unambiguous, non negotiable official Christian tenets are; 1. Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, strength. and 2 Love your neighbor as yourself.
By any measure the slavery as practiced in the American south clearly is the complete opposite of the central tenet of Christianity. So, for anyone to suggest that something so opposed to "Love your neighbor as yourself." is in any way representative of Christianity is simply nonsensical.
I'd argue that a "Christian extremist" is someone who takes the actual teachings of Christianity and applies them is reckless and unselfish ways.
I'd suggest that starting with Stephen that the legions of people who have literally given their lives for the faith are Christian extremists.
I'd suggest that the people like Mother Theresa who have chosen to give up material comfort in order to succor those in need are Christian extremists.
I'd suggest that those who risk life and limb to go into countries hostile to Christianity in order to preach the gospel are Christian extremists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)