Prince William-Manassas Family Alliance
Is Freedom Of Religion The Primary Issue Of the 2020 Election?
What is the crucial issue in the 2020 election? Freedom of religion? Perhaps. Does that sound absurd? Are people actually trying to suppress religious freedom? Sadly, the answer is yes. Consider Virginia Forces Christian Ministries to Adopt ‘Government Ideology’ or Pay $100K (pjmedia.com).
Three Christian schools and a Christian network of pregnancy centers are suing Attorney General Mark Herring (D-Va.) in order to prevent Virginia from implementing two pro-LGBT laws that force “people of faith to adopt a particular government ideology under threat of punishment.” The two laws purport to prevent “discrimination” against LGBT people but, in reality, they force Christian ministries to choose between violating their sincerely held religious beliefs or paying hefty fines, as much as $100,000 per offense. (continued here (pjmedia.com))
Here are some other articles about the same law.
View original post 417 more words
“BTW. What do you think Jesus’ theme was in The Sermon on the Mount?“
In a general theological sense, like most things religious, that’s both crucial and endlessly debatable. However, as to the reference at hand, and depending upon the level of hypocrisy upon hypocrisy with which one defines the terms, a good bit of The Sermon is about “virtue signaling“. In fact one could say it’s a “how to” lesson on virtue and virtue signaling.
But that is another longer discussion. And you’ve rendered your half of this complex debate to the level of mere jingoism and platitudes.
This thread is too long as it is to start over from such simplistic beginnings again. However, if you want to continue in another post the exploration of white supremacy as it applies to Christian morality, you might ask yourself, as I did Liz, what truly represents “content of character”? Is it the elements most rewarded in a capitalistic meritocracy, or in other words: talent, beauty, brains, industriousness and/or good fortune? Or can a person who is blessed with less of these qualities still have great character content? What would The Sermon, and the Beatitudes in particular, say about that kind of character content? How should we as individuals or as a just society reward or appreciate such character content? Or must we only await such blessings in another life or on another earth?
As you say there is some debate about the matter, but I suspect the Jews were somewhat horrified by Jesus’ sermon. Why? The Jews wanted to believe that they could be saved by obeying the law. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told them what obedience to the law requires.
We cannot obey the law perfectly. Jesus saves us, not our obedience to the law, and the Sermon on the Mount helps us to understand why.
If your really want to understand at a greater social psychological motivations on the Left and the Right behind the primate cognitive behavior that the Right has derogatorily coined as “virtue signaling”, then I recommend reading “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt.
One example of this behavior spectrum is that the Left is mainly concerned with what we put in our bodies such as wholistic remedies, healthy foods, etc. whereas on the Right we are mainly concerned with what we do to and with our bodies such as tattoos, sex, etc.
We all exist on a spectrum, but we all virtue signal within toward one end or the other on that spectrum. However, one way to determine the hypocrisy of signaling our virtues is the amount of actual cost we are willing to incur in pursuit of the virtue we signal. If one is willing to put identifying tattoos of acts of loyalty all over one’s body to show gang membership, whether or not it is actual virtue being signaled, it it certainly not hypocrisy. And it’s the hypocrisy that the term “virtue signaling” is satirizing.
Liz, you in particular may enjoy this:
Black man & a woman both sent to the hospital after being beaten by mob of young white men wearing face coverings
Swap out the black Antifa masks for pointy white hoods and this looks a lot like the Jim Crow south.
I wrote all that before I read your next post which, by comparison, was quite thoughtful and interesting, so please don’t yell at me for just making fun of your hyperbole. Let me mull on it, and if I have something different to say, I’ll do so when it can be as thoughtful as what you last wrote. For now, life calls.
Did you know that in 2017 the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, now run by Franklin Graham, paid President Trump’s Washington hotel $397,602 to hold a lavish closing banquet there during its “World Summit in Defense of Persecuted Christians” so as to accommodate an overflow crowd? From a Beatitudes perspective, let’s see how many things you can pick out that are wrong with that whole idea? 🙃
Golly! Ain’t that wonderful! Now that you have found an excuse you can persecute WASP males to your heart’s content.
You were right at the beginning of this post Tom. Of the all the WASP male privileges that are supposedly threatened by a pluralistic marketplace, the perceived grievance that the actual crucified Body of Christ incarnate always in the universe is being or even could be victimized unless it uses political power to culturally dominate is perhaps the most spiritually counterintuitive and the most rationally absurd.
Freedom of religion is for everyone, even WASP males. No one has the right to use the education system, even a supposedly secularized education system, as an excuse to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
There, there, poor dear . . . . 😢
All you have is childish ridicule. Should have left that in high school.
“All you have is childish ridicule. Should have left that in high school.”
You mean like your childish name caller-in-chief, Donald Trump does, the pious leader in your holy crusade of victimhood? 😆
In their debate, your candidate did all the name calling.
Did you ever notice that every atrocity by the dominant political group usually begins with a sense of victimhood on their part?
😂You are voting for a political party that has turned victimhood into an ideology.
The whole life and message of Jesus, especially in The Sermon on the Mount, makes clear that Christians have reached a kind of sweet spot of sorts when we are ACTUALLY persecuted because we practice virtue in our love with, in and through Christ. Retaliation, political domination, hatred and revenge are counterintuitive to the whole concept of such loving sacrifice in Christ, even when the persecution justifies it, which it ridiculously does not here. For the dominant political religious group to lavishly hate and whine from their ivory towers in the name of such faux Christian grievance is hypocrisy to the point where even satirical ridicule can’t do it justice. Unfortunately, the ironic twist often only makes it shamelessly double down in it’s shamefulness. But it’s still worth a try because, as MLK made clear, return hatred cannot overcome such a faux grievance based hatred – only love overcomes such hatred. 🙂
What idiot seeks to suffer for the sake of suffering?
There is no virtue in being a victim. There is virtue in affirming the Truth in spite of persecution.
Read Romans 13:1-7. We want government to do its job. Christians are required by their faith to uphold justice. Will we be persecuted for that too? Yep!
“There is no virtue in being a victim.”
Good point. And yet why do you ridiculously seek to proclaim yourself one. The Sermon on the Mount does not beatify faux victimhood and grievance as just a lame excuse to pursue political domination. It ultimately glorifies the virtuous in Christ who are actually suffering.
Next time someone shoots someone else would you please tell the victim of the shooting to stop engaging in victimhood. Justice just is not that important.
You are engaging in sophistry. Your response is to find fancy ways to attack the messenger. Meanwhile, you are the messenger of pure Biblical love. It would help your credibility if you actually point to the commandments of Jesus and tried to obey them.
“You are voting for a political party that has turned victimhood into an ideology.“
Do you mean the faux victimhood of White Identify Grievance Politics? That is a Trumpublican ideology. I may vote for a for a few traditional Republicans and some Democrats, but I’m definitely not voting for any Trumpublicans. I think we are all just about worn out with all that WASP male whining. The country needs a long break from all the petulant drama and corruption of Trumpism.
What is the faux victimhood of White Identify Grievance Politics? Is it:
1. wanting fair trade deals?
2. wanting secure borders, an immigration policy that preserves our nation’s culture?
3. wanting school choice, the ability to pass our religious beliefs onto our children? Wanting schools that don’t teach the opposite of what parents believe? Schools that don’t make Liberal Democrat activists of children? Wanting schools that don’t teach white kids to hate their race?
4. wanting to limit the power of government so our leaders don’t enslave us?
5. wanting low taxes and honest charity instead of handouts to bureaucrats?
6. wanting to live by Christian values instead of your values?
7. and so forth. What is it other than ridiculing babble?
Fact is you don’t debate. You don’t dare explain what you believe. You don’t dare defend the lies the news media and your candidates toss about. Instead, you attack. Trump is this, that, and everything else evil. His supporters are witless and brainwashed hypocrites. But all you have are your feelings. The fancy word for that is BS.
You don’t have the right to make everyone just like you, people made in your image. That is what you stand for. It is wrong! You can accuse me of the same thing, but you know it is not true. I believe we are made in God’s image, and I don’t know how to make everyone worship Him. I can only set the best example I can. I know I cannot remake the world in Tom’s image. When I became a Christian, I stopped being foolish enough to try.
Will you stop trying to create your Utopia, a world obedient to the will of tsalmon? Remaking others into the image of tsalmon? God knows. Yet that is the temptation Liberal Democrats offer you and others like you. The ability of man to perfect man. And you get to be part of the vanguard of the proletariat. You get to be one of those who remake everyone else. At least that is how those who lead the Democratic Party have made you feel. Lies. All lies.
That’s a fine list of grievances, but the underlying grievance to all your pretense is just that you want to retain a WASP patriarchal dominance, and so you’ve fallen for a sad promoter of populist nationalism. Trump would be dangerous if he weren’t so pathetic.
In a way, we are all lucky that we just got a flamboyantly corrupt and incompetent Berlusconi instead of a more deadly Putin to raise us this tattered old fascist flag. Trump’s failure in handling the COVID crisis made his weakness transparent to the most of the nation, but if it weren’t this one then so many other crises were already surrounding us and intruding on the illusion of Trump’s revanchist mirage, the nostalgic dream (or nightmare for most) of a return to a lily white male dominated 1950’s Ozzie and Harriet America that never really was for so many Americans.
There are way too many real problems in the nation and the world today, and the world is shrinking as these problem grow. Nationalist Isolationism wasn’t ever a viable possibility, even if it were lead by someone more brutally capable than the preening, self inflated orange one.
The ascending alternatives are the Chinese style Orwellian state with a mind control of advanced robotic precision that Orwell never imagined or a Putinesque social Darwinism of what is essentially increasingly brutal feudal mob rule. If the liberal world order that emerged after WWII is to survive human induced natural cataclysms, then it will need to provide a serious answer to these problems, an answer that compromises human rights and individual dignity with the ability to selflessly and virtuously sacrifice for each other toward a common future. There are no frontiers left for us to desecrate and murder the inhabitants. We need to scrap our rapacious individualism for something more virtuously sustainable, harmonious and loving because a dystopian future won’t wait for us to wake up from nostalgic dreams.
Trump was never a serious person in an increasingly serious time. But the times they are getting serious whether we get a decent serious leader or not. Soon, perhaps before you and I leave this mortal coil, our grandchildren will look at us with hunger and real want in their eyes, and wonder what we were thinking when we were playing with Trumpism while watching the world flood and burn around us.
You want to address my list of concerns? Nope!
So, you deflect, and you spout nonsense that is trite, but not the least bit germane. You are not saying anything except telling us how much you hate Trump. I think we already know that.
What is it that you dispute? That Trump’s appeal to his cult like followers is one of good ole fashioned nationalist populism, an emotional revanchist nostalgia for a WASP Patriarchal monocultural dominance? You think what Trump is selling is some rational policy plan rather than pure grievance based emotion? Trump doesn’t even dog whistle it anymore. There’s no plan. It’s just pure white identity tribalism. Trump’s answer to every problem is some impractical form of xenophobic and ethnocentric isolationism:
Build a stupid wall to unsuccessfully keep the brown people out. Then stupidly tax the American consumer to keep the cheap Chinese products out of Walmart’s fully integrated Globalized market capitalism. Now it’s a ridiculous blue “Law and Order“ wall to keep the scary black men away from white suburban womanhood, but it’s too late and nobody is buying that kind of Republican race baiting anymore.
Trump was felled and laid low by a a single wealthy Chinese person buying exotic bushmeat from a wet market in Wuhan. The world is just that small and it can’t be walled out anymore and white supremacy can’t be walled in anymore.
Trumpism never was going to be practical, but it might have been more dangerous. Luckily, Trump is just as incompetent at political leadership as he is at business acumen.
More of the same thoughtless BS.
“Wanting schools that don’t teach white kids to hate their race?“
I can’t even count all the ways that statement amazingly proves everything I just said about the fantastic world of Trumpism’s white identity grievance based politics. Thanks. It seems that your “concerns” “address” themselves, if you just think about it good brother, because inside that white grievance mindset is the only place they actually exist.
Consider it this way Tom – only someone who fancies himself superior can be insulted by being told that he is actually just inferior, like everyone else. A skin pigment didn’t enslave and persecute another skin pigment for hundreds of years. Self affiliated groups of actual people did that to other groups of actual people. Race was just the cultural construct of tribal group affiliation or identity that engenders their implicit biases toward their in group and against the outgroup.
And yet that is how you define one of your grievances, or “concerns” as you put it. You pretend not to participate in “identity politics” unless you feel that it is the self superiority of YOUR “racial” (and religious and sexual) identity that you somehow feel is bring threatened with something even a little less than exclusive superiority, even just will historical truth.
You don’t see it yet do you? We all have very good reason to hate what our nation’s white identity groups did to other humans of other pigments and features based on the notion of white supremacy. This happened and our nation’s founders, framers and ratified and actively participated in that evil. To just point out in schools that that enslavement, persecution and genocide historically happened in our nation with the complicity of our government only can make someone “hate their own race“ if they accept race as a their identifying group construct. To feel such faux group grievance without any of the group guilt is the ultimate self delusion of all mob tyranny.
I am supposed to want schools that teach white kids to hate their race? I don’t believe race has any practical reality. Racial differences don’t amount to a hill of beans, but they are observable, and they have been used as an excuse for slavery. Evil does not require a “real” excuse. Yet, when you should know better, here you are babbling away, so ridden with guilt you cannot think straight. You, because you are so superior, have the right to inflict your guilt upon other people’s children. Nobody but you has the right to define what a proper grievance might be.
“I am supposed to want schools that teach white kids to hate their race?“
When do you stop beating your wife?
“I don’t believe race has any practical reality”
So you’re color blind.
“Racial differences don’t amount to a hill of beans, but they are observable,”
So no one is actually color blind.
“and they have been used as an excuse for slavery.”
“They”? By exactly what “groups” have “they” been used? A nation group? A government group? A church group? Do any of us still belong to or hold citizenship in any of these groups?
“Evil does not require a ‘real’ excuse.”
Ok, you are just saying lots of opposite things here: It is/was an excuse and then it is/was not an excuse, and then it is/was not the real excuse because no excuse is/was needed, but quite obviously it is/was needed and used because it actually was used for 400 years and counting of human atrocities, and counting.
“Yet, when you should know better, here you are babbling away, so ridden with guilt you cannot think straight.”
You are making about five absolutely contradictory statements at the same time, but I’m the one not thinking straight?
“You, because you are so superior, have the right to inflict your guilt upon other people’s children.”
Now you’re just projecting.
“Nobody but you has the right to define what a proper grievance might be.“
Again, what is your “proper” white “grievance”? The mere teaching of historical and current truth, if it makes a racist person, nation, church or culture feel guilty of their own racism, then it’s a proper grievance?
Projecting? No. You are missing a critical point. Kind of funny you IGNORE it. You are the one demanding conformity to your views.
I am just trying to justify everyone being allowed to make their own choices. Why is that too complicated for you? Why do you have to see self contradictions when they are not there.
The USA did not invent slavery. The blacks the slavers imported from Africa had already been enslaved. The word slave comes from the word “Slav”. That is because so many of the Slavic peoples were enslaved.
All of us are descended from sinners. That renders the problem of who owes who rather impossible to solve. Therefore, the Bible makes each us responsible for our own sins.
I have an idea for teaching WWII history.
Let’s take out all context and blame US whiteys.
First, we invaded North Africa, then bombed some other places in Europe. Then we sent a couple of nukes to Japan and they finally folded after we’d killed masses of people.
That a good representation of history?
Without context history is meaningless. What was the context of everything happening around the world when our founding fathers took the risk of a traitor’s death (which didn’t just stop at the father) to start this country?
“Hey! they were a bunch of racists! Ignore…white men never did anything for this country….only a racist could object to teaching that!”
Is quite the fallacy.
If we want to throw ashes on our heads for what happened 200 years ago that no one was around to see or do, shouldn’t we start by giving the Native Americans back their land?
Sarah Hoyt knocked this subject out of the park in this writeup a while back:
“I was trying to come up with the whole idea that there needs to be a narrative, some way we see ourselves.
Humans are made only partly of physical being, the other part of us story, a myth that extends beyond us. We’re none of us stupid – or too stupid – we know where we come from and we’ve seen what happens to the generations before us.
Leaving religion aside for a moment – yes, religion is part of a narrative that encompasses everything around us and extends into the future from us, but it’s not the only narrative – if you look at the normal course of human life, we know we are born, we live, we die, and (in all but very few cases) we’re forgotten. To a certain extent, unless you’re a king or your name happens to be Shakespeare, we’re all forgotten – even if we’re remembered in some historian’s footnote. Heck, even most of the kings are not that important. When is the last time you were fascinated by every small detail in the life of Ethelred the unready? (Suburbanbanshee, do not answer that one.)
Now why I said leaving religion aside—yes, religion is a narrative that makes sense out of life, and it’s always been there. It’s still there for those who believe, to the degree they muster their belief – is that there used to be a civic narrative too. Patriotism. In the old world, this amounted to the belief that your “race” defined as your nationality was the bestest ever and supposed to recreate the feats of the Romans (Portuguese poems went on about this a lot) or to civilize the world, or whatever.
These narratives weren’t questioned openly, though of course no one but the youngest school children took them literally – no? Read any books written at the time. They had as many doubts as we have about the purity and heroism of the past. They just didn’t obsess on them, and elevate them above the “narrative.”
People might have had doubts aplenty about good queen Bess, but they didn’t tell their children that, when the children were learning the national narrative. And that meant when the children grew up, somewhere, in the inner recesses of their being, they still took pride in and believed in the greatness of their country and their past.
Then came the twentieth century. First, the insanity of Germany in WWII was taken as an indictment of all patriotism. I don’t think this was right to do, just like it’s not right to assume if you prepare for war, you’ll have war. And second we got deconstructionism and the charming art of laughing or sneering at the past, and thereby – with no accomplishments, no new ideas, nothing to our credit – considering ourselves more important than them. George Washington? Pah, he wore dentures, and he was an “ambitious man” and that invalidates everything he did, right? Thomas Jefferson might or might not have slept with a slave, thereby of course he was an awful man, and everything he did was tainted and should be forgotten.
And so it goes, taking down one by one the giants of the past.
If that fails, if we have nothing concrete to level against them, then we point our finger and say they didn’t conform to our prejudices: they were racist, sexist, homophobic. As though someone running around their time holding the opinions of our time wouldn’t be killed or locked up. (And no, don’t tell me our opinions are superior. No, I don’t agree with them on race or their beliefs about homosexuals – though even in those cases I understand how they formed their opinions in their time – but the entire crazy idea of women being exactly the same as men except where their superior should still get people locked up for insanity.) And in the rare cases it’s fairly sure that the people were none of those, we can point our finger and accuse them of being rich. How much could they care about the poor, when they were rich?
What about the people who gave it all, to be ascetics, or missionaries? Well, clearly they were clinging to an outmoded and intolerant religion, so how good can they be?
I sometimes wonder if this is yet another way of salving the wounds of WWI. Europe looked the carnage they had created in the eye and decided the thing to do was sever all ties with the past and at the same time prove themselves superior.
Like the little kid who found his dad is a secret drinker and runs around saying his REAL father is a prince, we run around telling ourselves stories that make us feel better, but have nothing to do with reality and create nothing new in the world.
And meanwhile the only coordinated narrative is Marxism, which is an evil and a blight onto the world, disdaining humans as they really are, considering all wealth theft, and holding up as its highest ideal the sort of equality that’s only possible when everyone is desperately poor.
How can young people feel inspired to achieve, to invent, to create, when they’re taught the civilization they are born into is evil and that all its ever done is steal from others? Even though this is patently false, and they should be able to tell by looking around them that no other civilization has tried so hard to achieve prosperity and equal opportunity for all, they’re taught the opposite when they’re very young, and some of it sticks.
So they want to go up to be government bureaucrats; to work at redistributing wealth; to fight the evil “rich” who cause all he problems.
How could we doubt it? It’s the narrative.
They will become reporters who don’t see the malfeasance of one side, because well, how could they? These people are against western civilization and therefore on the right side of the internalized narrative. They become politicians who hate their own homeland and the military who are the means of that land’s defense. They become teachers who teach the kids to spit on the heads of those who made us what we are because “Racist, sexist, homophobic.”
The problem is that this narrative doesn’t conform to the real world any more than the extreme hagiographic narratives of the past did.
Look, I’m not advocating lying to the young. Yes, men and women in the past were human, with foibles and follies, just as we have them. Great and visionary kings had sexual peccadillos and, worse, sent to the block people they didn’t like. There might have been cannibalism among early colonists to the new world (out of hunger, mind.) Yes, the Puritans were rather insane and thought they could live in a proto-communism of sorts. Yes, medieval Christianity had elements of totalitarian political system.
But does Jimmy in first grade need to know only the bad things about the past? Can’t he be told that so and so financed the discoveries, and that very brave people came across the ocean to settle in an utterly strange land and create what they hoped would be a better way of living, and that Christianity stopped the human sacrifices that were common to the ancients and introduced the idea that man, being made in the image of G-d, is in a way sacred, to all of what used to be barbarous Europe?
Later on in their sneering phase you can let them know about the warts. And still later on, when they’re coming out of the sneering phase, you can bring them to understand that no work of humanity is perfect. Yes, these great people had warts, but that didn’t mean they were less great. No, they were more so, because they were great despite their warts. And they too – the new generation who surely knows themselves as flawed – can be great, if only… If only they try to combat their baser nature and look for something great.
Instead, we teach them that there are no heroes, that the narrative of history is one of one man beating the other for a slice of the finite pie. And then everyone dies.
And we wonder why the kids have no direction? We wonder why they aren’t getting married and having kids?
The wonder is that the suicide rate isn’t higher.
If you look at it objectively, it is rather childish to pretend that only the dark and dreary view of society is “right” — it is the view of posing teenagers and not adults. And such an infantile narrative can’t propel a grown up civilization.
The problem with the narrative offered, at all levels, from history to fiction, from science (“humans are a plague upon the world”) to religion (where in most streams churches redistribution is preached instead of charity and using the power of the state to make everything “just”) the whole “progressive” narrative is not only that it’s at variance with real history (any narrative is, to an extent) but that it’s a dark, dreary vision of history that in the end amounts to a condemnation of humanity with all it entails.
We need to give kids – and adults – something to dream on.
That is of course part of the Human Wave project when it comes to stories, but we need Human Wave history, too – history that shows the flaws and the struggle, but which lets the greatness shine through, as something to aspire to.
History that feeds the soul.
The deconstructionist plague has laid waste to everything of value humans do. It’s time to gather the pieces and rebuild.”
Why the fallacious overreaction and hyperbolic false equivalencies to mere truth, to mere facts? Most of our own founders and framers were indeed white supremacists. If you asked every one at the time, what is your moral justification for slavery, they would have openly (and did say), it was the superiority of their whiteness and the inferiority of their slaves’ blackness that justified their right to use humans as property (and to commit genocide upon native Americans because of practical difficulties and that supposedly savage group’s resistance to bondage).
You say that those mere facts must be equivocated or excused with a moral relativity of time and place? First of all, to do this, one has to accept that the most enduring tenants of morality, and particularly the form of Christian ethics that our founders proclaimed, is not eternally truth, but simply relative. Second of all, who is actually advocating not judging the White Supremacist racism that our founders and framers openly advocated and practiced by both the moral standard of the times along with the eternal standards we Christians profess to believe in?
As to the former question of eternal standards, the founders writings are replete with statements that slavery was morally wrong (Jefferson’s, Washington’s and Adams’, in particular, are just not that hard to find). Recognizing the inherent moral contradiction between slavery and the natural rights polemically stated in the Declaration’s manifesto of rights, at the time of the founding, Jefferson wanted to put a sunset law on slavery, but was overruled by the economic benefits of the practice to his fellow founders.
Evidence that Washington knew slavery was inherently wrong is given by the moral penance he attempted to pay to rehabilitate his legacy by freeing only HIS slaves in his will, but only after he obviously had no use for them and not until his wife, by her death, had no use for them either.
As far as the relative morality of the times goes, the argument is often made that slavery was a common human institution that preceded and went back to and was even morally accepted by Jesus and Paul in their writings, so the founders could also be excused for innocently believing it was moral even though we superior modern folk have supposedly wised up now. Notwithstanding the fact that this argument simply mischaracterizes Christian teachings about love, it also excuses the particularly brutal and dehumanizing characteristics of white supremacy as our a justification for slavery.
Within a generation or less, human tribalIstic differences that justify enslaving “the other” with particularly cruel prejudice tend to disappear. People who have studied the history of slavery say that in most cases slaves taken in battle simply become part of the family within a generation or so, and even where slavery has become part of the economic institutions of the society, same race slavery was not near as cruel and dehumanizing as could be justified by the enslavement that included stark racial differences. As such, historical experts on slavery tell us that there is simply very little precedent for the moral depravity of the institution of black African bondage in this country from the beginning through Jim Crow, and even its lasting vestiges present only a generalization later. Indeed, one of the factors that made bringing black African slaves to this country was that their brutal separation from their native culture and race, once they got here, gave them no place to hide and no where to run, permanently and totally subjugating them to the hopelessness of their fate. This may not have been a reasoned conspiracy by slavers but instead just an economic reality that manifested itself and was expanded upon, to some extent even to this day. That’s how resilient the economic legacy of white supremacy is. 400 years and still crawling out of our heads like the determined beast our tribalism makes us.
The founders and framers can still stand out in our history as an important and very flawed beginning step in the progress of human moral development. However, idolizing these WHITE ELITE MEN ahistorically as gods does a revisionist disservice to those first small steps, minimizes the actual heroism and monumental accomplishments of those that fought for the major changes that have thus far realized the dream that was actually a lie at the founding, and worse, concretizes the lie in our history, thus making it more likely to be repeated over and over.
Ok, Liz now throw some more fallacious over-the-top hyperbolic examples at me, and we’ll continue the actual history lesson if you like, or I can just recommend some book for you.😉
You want to blame Washington for not ending slavery? How was he supposed to do that. He had enough trouble freeing his own slaves. They barely got the Constitution approved as it was.
In addition to getting the slave masters to give up their “property”, there was also a very practical problem. During reconstruction, many of the former slaves died or were effectively reenslaved. They were not prepared to be free. When people have been raised and treated as slaves they are broken to accept their enslavement. They become dependent upon their masters.
Think about the story of the Hebrews when they left Egypt, We wonder why the Hebrews would ever want to be slaves again, but that was the life they knew and understood. It was a life they had accepted.
Contemplate the welfare dependent in this nation. Those are the sort of people your Liberal Democrats want to make of all of us. Decisions are stressful. Responsibility is stressful. Slaves want none of either. You are voting for slavery.
However, idolizing these WHITE ELITE MEN ahistorically as gods does a revisionist disservice to those first small steps, minimizes the actual heroism and monumental accomplishments of those that fought for the major changes that have thus far realized the dream that was actually a lie at the founding, and worse, concretizes the lie in our history, thus making it more likely to be repeated over and over.
He says, while accusing me of hyperbole and fallacious overreaction.
I have chickenpox (probably from a dirty mask, as masks are required everywhere here, wish Mom had told me I’d never had it and I would’ve gotten the vaccine). When I feel better I might respond. That day is not today.
Per “books” thanks. I seem to be reading your articles yet you aren’t reading mine. Sarah Hoyt already answers your post better than I could, above.
I hope you are feeling better by now. Been really busy working as an election officer. So, I have had trouble keeping up with the comments.
Thanks for trying to reform Tony even when you are sick. That’s heroic!
Ugg! Put the comment in the wrong place. Liz please hold your fire and see up top. Tag, rah!
Sorry about the pox. That must suck big time. Get better, and we’ll solve the world’s problems later.❤️
Thank you. ❤
It does suck! But it's better than Addison's (which was my first guess).
Getting chickenpox in my late 40s just seems par for the course in 2020. 😆
“The USA did not invent slavery. The blacks the slavers imported from Africa had already been enslaved.”
You obviously did not read what I wrote. This is a bit of an overblown myth Americans like to use to ameliorate the national guilt of what is likely the most brutal, lasting and inhumanly evil institution of human bondage in human history. And the reason why it was the worst is because if the concept of white supremacy.
Why was our institutions of bondage, first with slavery and then with Jim Crow, dramatically worse in the breadth and depth of its inhumanity? As I wrote, earlier historians who study slavery tell us:
1. Because masters began to relate to their slaves, captive slaves taken in battle rarely remained in bondage beyond a generation. With the concept of white supremacy, racial differences perpetuated a myth of inferiority that enabled permanent economic institutions that relegated black Africans to a lower caste system that persists to this day. Thus branded by the meaningless, but genetically impermeable characteristics of race features, blacks found it impossible to generationally slip the prison of bondage by blending in to the dominating culture.
2. Even in history where bondage was more institutionalized into the agrarian economic system, such as as you mention, white supremacy allowed a more permanent level of callous brutality than existed historically anywhere in the history of same race slavery in Africa, Rome, Greece, or anywhere else. Institutionalized white supremacy in America was a quantum level, in its inhuman barbarity and it’s legally self perpetuating depravity, above anything in human history.
3. Unlike captive slaves that were simply uprooted and transplanted into bondage by another tribe or culture, when Africans were uprooted and transported thousands of miles in slave ships that doubled as pacification torture and death devices, white supremacy placed black Africans into a dehumanizing cultural and physical prison that they found almost insurmountably difficult to escape. Native Americans, at least initially, could fall back or escape into endless wilderness where they could return to their tribe or eventually earn their way into another tribe that valued their contribution to the common survival. Although some slaves did escape to the Indian tribes, because of white supremacy, the compete uprooting of black Africans racially and culturally, made this avenue simply unavailable for the large number of slaves being brought to the New World. This became an economic advantage for Black African slaves over other forms of bondage (such as indentured servitude) that was not lost on plantation owners and it was rather rapidly capitalized upon.
4. The creation of a caste system through the institution of White Supremacy also had economic advantages to plantation owners and Northern capitalists in that it created a race to the bottom competitive stratification between blacks and poor whites. MLK realized that this economic caste system was the real enemy to racial equality and until poor whites realized that they were captives to white supremacy and being played in the game of class competition, then everyone would continue to unwittingly support and defend the racist institutions that promulgated their own bondage.
MLK realized that this would require, not only racial equality, but also a new rise in the equality in the value of our basic humanity, our basic human decency, or in other words, a new appreciation of the God in Whose image we all gain our common value. This value by its vary nature is not a material value, but a spiritual one which must exist outside and even override the capitalistic system that has its own particularly mercenary valuing system in which basic human dignity has very little purchase. But that is another discussion, and another dream.
1. The only thing special about slavery in America is that Americans fought a bloody Civil War to end it.
2. DEMOCRATS supported slavery, and they still won’t give up promoting racial bigotry, which is exactly what you are doing.
3. Most Americans are descended from people who had nothing to do with slavery. Yet you want to promote Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality, which is racist, stupid, and anti-Christian.
“1. The only thing special about slavery in America is that Americans fought a bloody Civil War to end it.”
That’s true to some extent, but then again, despite the blood and struggle, it didn’t really end it, did it? One hundred years of bondage in the form of Jim Crow followed.
They say that the victors write the history. For those supposedly emancipated by the 13th Amendment, the South won ultimately won that war.
“2. DEMOCRATS supported slavery, and they still won’t give up promoting racial bigotry, which is exactly what you are doing.“
And you believe the Civil Rights Era, lead by Democrats, never happened? This is an old, tired Republican trope Tom. There is a reason why most people are of black African decent have predominantly voted Democrat for the last 50 years or so despite voting the Party of Lincoln before that. After years of race baiting, gerrymandering, and outright voter suppression, Republicans’ latest denial of racism is an inane historical revisionism, and when that doesn’t work they assuage each other with the patronizing trope that people of color are just too stupid to understand that they are the real racists. That may work for Republicans, but I think that you’ll find for the folks who lived the last have century and for those continuing to experience racist now, this ain’t working.
“3. Most Americans are descended from people who had nothing to do with slavery. Yet you want to promote Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality, which is racist, stupid, and anti-Christian.“
Broad bigoted statements don’t really settle the argument, do they? They just deny the need to even face the truth It seems that most of the time that people say something is “anti-Christian” it is for a very unChristian political intolerance of the mere truth about our own sins. You claim to be in the truth business Tom, but ideas about implicit bias that go back to the story of Cain and Abel seem to scare you. The real truth is that jChrist just isn’t tribal for any side and that truth is distorted when we attempt to weaponized Christ into propaganda simply to exclude others and rally hatred just to achieve momentary political dominance. The Body of Christ is like Salomon’s baby, He probably least belongs the one who is most willing to cut Him in half just to claim Him.
The South won that war? No. The South lost. Democrat power brokers won.
You scare me. You are too ready to give away your freedom and everyone else’s freedom. What is so complicated about leaving other people in peace? Leaving others alone doesn’t feed our egos. That is why we have to turned to Jesus to be good. No other solution works.
It is a documented fact of history that Republicans have consistently supported civil rights for blacks. Are Republicans saints? No. All human beings are sinners, and that is the problem with some of the civil rights legislation. It empowered the Federal Government too much, and that power has been abused. Except perhaps for those working on government contracts, civil rights law never should have been applied to private businesses.
This article describes the claptrap your virtue signaling party is peddling => https://melwild.wordpress.com/2020/08/18/why-critical-race-theory-is-not-compatible-with-christs/
Christianity teaches us to serve each other, not to boss each other about.
I find the whole “virtue signaling” accusation perhaps the most hilariously pretentious of Right Wing projections. It’s part of human nature to signal our virtues to each other. To pretend that you don’t do it is to pretend that you are not a human. However, among Conservatives lately, fomenting the charge of virtue signaling is the latest method of signaling your “real” virtue to your fellow tribesmen conservatives. And proclaiming one’s sinful nature (when you really mean “their” sinful nature) while doing so is perhaps the ultimate in virtue signaling hypocrisy. Don’t you think that if Christ were alive today and rendered The Sermon on the Mount that our modern Republican Pharisees would just accuse Him of extreme Leftist virtue signaling? Sure they would.😄
Now you have reduced your argument to the virtue of virtue signaling?😕
Would you mind signaling your virtue without using the government to demand the conformity of others to what you consider virtuous? There is this little problem. Many consider some of your beliefs evil, and using the government this way is a clear abuse of power.
There is age-old wisdom you have plainly chosen to ignore. “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Instead of dealing with such fundamental issues you engage in sophistry and attack Trump. Yet the candidates you support are obviously corrupt and all you do is blow that off. That sort of makes your virtue signaling absurd.
BTW. What do you think Jesus’ theme was in The Sermon on the Mount?
“Now you have reduced your argument to the virtue of virtue signaling?”
Nah. I just find the whole concept of virtue signaling humorous. But now you’re resorting to old worn out and trite truisms so really, who is the one being reductionist here?
It’s been interesting.