Snippets from a conversation with friends:
W: “We so rarely hear arguments in favor of human inequality that we are in danger of forgetting that, for most of world history, inequality has been regarded as almost too obvious to require justification..Likewise with democracy; the arguments against it are rarely voiced in public American settings today, so that it becomes easy to think democracy as a natural or default situation rather than as an extremely unusual historical achievement.” Patrick Allitt
FOO: “I’ve never understood the equality claim. Equality assumes a sort of metric where we can measure people and that number happens to come up the same for everyone. While I know what it means to say that two people have equal height or weight or number of teeth in their mouth, but what does it mean to say that we people just are “equal” or that they have “equal worth”. How is this worth to be determined? What sort of calculus does it use? Is there any intelligible idea to summing up the value of everyone and that number being the same for everyone? Or maybe we should have a slave market where the value of someone is how much a person is worth on the market.
“The notion makes no sense and empirically of course different people have different height, weight, talents, abilities, etc. Unless we want to collapse the worth of someone into these particular empirical qualities, to speak of the worth of anyone, and thereby that worth being “equal” to everyone else, is meaningless. Different people just are endowed with different abilities and that’s that.”
B: “Dominic, it starts with “all men are created equal” in the Declaration, and the notion of “equal rights” as opposed to things like slavery, “women can’t vote”, and now it had been extended to all kinds of things in out culture (“marriage equality”, etc). It is pretty much ingrained into the culture.”
FOO: “Even on that conception equality still doesn’t make any sense. As I understand it the US still has criminal disenfranchisement whereby people who commit crimes lose the right to vote. Thus whether someone has the ability to vote is still contingent upon facts like being under civil censure or not. Furthermore most Americans think that it is fair to impose unequal tax rates to people of different income groups. There are basically two kinds of equality only one of which makes sense. This is formal equality or simply equality under the categories of the law. Under this conception, if law says all black income earners are to enjoy a 10% tax reduction, then the law must be applied consistently across all people who fit into the category regardless of height weight or even gender, or all who earn above a certain amount are to be taxed 30% regardless of their age. However this is pretty trivial and compatible with what many would consider “unequal” legal arrangements, e.g. All black slaves are equally not allowed to enter certain areas. The other conception is “substantive equality” which is not consistent application of the categories of the law but the removal of those categories itself, e.g. the category of race, gender, etc. This conception makes no intelligible sense to me because the law itself exists precisely to categorise certain acts or persons as distinct from others and to prescribe a different treatment according to these categories. So to eliminate all categories is basically to eliminate the law itself.”
ME: “There is equality of dignity as image bearers of God, equality before God’s law, equality of deserving sin and undeserving of God’s grace in Jesus Christ. There is really no equality in any other way among or between humans. There’s not equality in worth: my wife is worth more to me than any other human; and then my daughters are worth more than any, save my wife. There is not equality before the law: minors are not held to the same law as are adults; women are not held to the same penalties under law as men in marriage cases or cases involving abuse such as rape. There is not equality among abilities, talents, knowledge, skill, life choices that lead to better or worse standards of living and future opportunities for children and eventual differing communities. There is not equality of opportunity, unless one levels the playing field after each generation; unless one severs the children from their parents’ prior successes; unless one treats unequally those who excel, hindering them so that those who do not merit a thing nonetheless obtain it unequally to those others who likewise do not merit it but who are given no “special”, that is unequal, treatment. There is not equality of result, unless some likewise unequal treatment is given to people as they go about their lives; hindering the winners and artificially (unequally) advancing the losers.”
“Equality is that thing which Plato said as a principle gets into the houses and infects the animals, until there is no longer any differences of any kind: the old pay deference to the young and the young speak on equal level to the old, the teacher stoops before the students and the students disregard the teacher, the men become in manner, appearance, and position indistinguishable from the women and the women take on every authority and role of the men, lovers and children are all in common, possessions and wages and jobs and knowledge are all distributed equally, animals are valued as human life, divorce is equal to marriage, death is equal to life, war is equal to peace, poverty is equal to provision, ignorance is equaled with comfortable progress, destruction is equaled to progress — until the people groan in their chaotic morass for some tyrant to save them from equality’s disastrous effects.”
Last week, Donald Trump officially secured the number of delegates needed to win the Republican nomination for president. And while it’s not quite over on the Democratic side of the race, Hillary Clinton is overwhelmingly likely to be that party’s nominee.
Trump’s nomination has presented evangelical Christians with a difficult choice: support Trump, support Hillary Clinton, vote for a third alternative who is unlikely to win, or don’t vote at all. To their credit, many evangelical leaders have ruled out that second option – they recognize just what an bad candidate Clinton is and what harm she would do to our country as president – and has done already as Secretary of State or other offices she has held.
But these same leaders are divided on what the alternative should be. Some believe that while Clinton would be bad, Trump would be just as bad (or close enough that it doesn’t really matter). So they counsel no vote, or a vote for a third party. Others are undecided. But a very small minority have decided (at least for now) to vote for Trump.
I’m writing this post both to add my voice to his and to make a claim that goes a little further: I think that evangelical leaders – in particular, conservative evangelical leaders – need to use all the influence God has given them to encourage thinking Christians to vote for Donald Trump. No dithering; no qualifications. The stakes are simply too high.
Let me back up for a moment and share a little bit about where I’m coming from. I’m a member of a local gospel-centered church and a person of white and brown color. I’m also a lifelong Republican. I became a believer just over 10 years ago, and while my views on life and marriage changed, most of the rest of my political beliefs – which align with those of the Republican party – did not. So my voting behavior stayed the same, even after my conversion.
That was about to change with this election. Over the course of years and conversations with Christian friends who are active in politics, I became convicted that, for all my alignment with Republicans on other issues, a single issue – a Republican’s endorsement of the right to kill foreign children – outweighed all the others. So I was getting ready to (reluctantly) pull the lever for Bernie Sanders, or whoever won the Democratic nomination, this November. Then Hillary Clinton interrupted my plans.
You might be thinking that it’s easy for me to say this – after all, I’ve voted for Republicans all my life. Maybe Clinton is just an excuse for me to keep doing the same? This is precisely the reason why conservative evangelical leaders need to be the ones making this case. And I’m here to try to convince you. So here are 6 reasons why you should encourage all of us to vote for Trump this Fall.
1. Every election is a choice between different evils.
This point has been made before, but I just want to make it again, in case any of us are laboring under the illusion that past endorsements of “traditional” candidates were morally uncomplicated choices. Exhibit A is the 2012 election: four years ago, most of you had no problem telling Christians to vote for an avowed leader of a false religion – a person who had dedicated a substantial portion of his life shepherding souls down a path that leads to hell. When you endorsed him, I know you weren’t endorsing that; you just had a common cause that was more important. The same is true with endorsing Trump. You’re not endorsing his views on racism (and you can make that clear); rather, you have a common cause with him that’s more important. Which brings me to…
2. Clinton may be an existential threat to the Republic.
Plenty of observers have noted Clinton’s lying rhetoric, her megalomania and narcissism, and the literal sea of murdered people she has created. And they have painted a picture of just how real the threat of Clinton could be. The Washington Post has reported on this video of Hillary lying for thirteen minutes straight. The FBI has an ongoing investigation of Hillary’s secretive emails which makes Watergate look like child’s play. Not to mention her dereliction of duty and disregard for American lives in the Benghazi disaster.
Note that I didn’t say that Clinton definitely is an existential threat. I don’t know that; nobody does. Hitler only rose to power because enough people believed that hewasn’t such a threat. There is no way of predicting in advance just how bad a President Clinton would be. But if you’re an evangelical leader, this sets up a version of Pascal’s wager for you. If Clinton turns out to be embarrassing but not all that bad, then your pride will suffer a bit, and you’ll have to say you were wrong to support Trump. You’ll try to be wiser in the next election.
But if Clinton turns out to be the “extinction-level event” to our beloved Republican, Conservative, Christian vision of America, and you fail to do everything in your power to stop her, then you will join a long line of evangelical leaders who have been on the wrong side of history – and judged harshly for it – at critical moments ranging from slavery to Jim Crow to abortion (in the early days of that debate). Your witness for Christ – our witness – will be diluted because we didn’t do everything we could to prevent this catastrophe. And there won’t be a next election to get it right.
3. Clinton is a threat to the unity of the church.
All of this is to say nothing of Clinton’s warmongering, love for murdering infants, and feminist subversion of the family. As a person of white and brown color, I have to tell you that Clinton gives me reason to fear for life and safety – for myself, for my mixed-race family, and for my immigrant grandparents – in a way that no political candidate ever has before. I hope that our conservative evangelical leaders, particularly those who are black or female, understand this: your stand against Clinton, in solidarity with the people she hopes to marginalize (males, Christians, the unborn), is critical to preventing that marginalization. If the movement against Clinton is seen to be mostly a movement of people of white color, then it will feed into the very narrative of minority grievance that she thrives on.
I cannot speak for all believers of different colors, but I believe that many of us are remembering the evangelical church’s history on matters of race, looking to our leaders today, and hoping that this disappointing history does not repeat itself. Your actions to stop Clinton should be so clear, so unequivocal, that you guarantee yourself a spot on Clinton’s “enemies” list if she were to be elected president. Otherwise, the temptation to accommodate or to reconcile with a President Clinton will be too strong for some of you in the aftermath of his election, and the church’s unity will suffer as a result.
4. You may think he’s terrible, but Donald Trump is a conventional Republican.
All right, you might be thinking: Clinton is bad, but isn’t Trump just as bad? Isn’t his support for a strong border and trade tariffs alone equal to all of the terrible things I’ve just described?
Perhaps – and you might spend all of a Donald Trump presidency opposing everything he’s doing at the top of your lungs. But I’m pretty sure you’ll still be able to oppose him in the context of the constitutional republic we live in, and that you’ll be able to work to unseat him in the next election if that’s what you want. I cannot say the same of Clinton. Fighting to protect our inclusive reputation in the global community while bombing other countries in undeclared foreign wars is important – which is why, with a candidate like Clinton in the mix, it’s more important to protect your ability to abort children, destroy the family, lose your jobs, and the like. Due to her marriage of convenience with the whatever is morally trending, you might get a Supreme Court justice or two out of a Clinton presidency. But it’s a Faustian bargain – eventually, Clinton will do whatever is best for the Clintons, Inc., including appointing judges who help her overturn rather than protect the current constitutional order.
Donald Trump may do bad things as president – but we do not know what those bad things will be, and you cannot make assertions of the future from what is unknown in the present. We know Clinton’s past record. At least with Trump, you’ll be able to oppose vigorously and with a clear conscience after the his threat is past.
5. Yes, you should vote strategically.
The next objection is obvious: Can’t I keep my powder dry by not voting or by voting for a third party candidate? Do I really have to vote for Trump? Can’t I just not vote for Clinton?
I recently had a conversation with a dear brother of mine who had read the Nick Rodriguez’s piece at the TGC and was contemplating its warning of an “extinction-level event.” I asked him if that meant he would vote for Trump. “I’d rather not,” he said. “Maybe if the polls tighten, and it looks like Clinton might win, I’ll vote for Trump.”
The problem is that it’s exactly this kind of thinking, applied en masse, that could result in a Clinton presidency. The primaries were conducted sequentially; over time, we came to accept that Clinton was commanding plurality (and eventually majority) support from Democrat voters as the results came in. But we didn’t believe it before the first votes were cast, and lots of pundits have egg on their face from having predicted that Clinton would fizzle out.
The general election opens us up to an even worse version of this error. It’s a one-shot deal, without opportunities to learn lessons from prior elections. If the polls get it wrong and we’re complacent, we don’t get to correct the mistake. And in any case, why gamble with something so important? Suppose that Clinton only has a 20% chance of winning. If we knew there was a 20% chance that our loved ones would die in November – from abortions, which is nearly certain – would we spend the next six months comforting ourselves with the 80% chance that they won’t? No: we’d do whatever we could to change the odds. So, too, with voting for Trump: the best way to use your vote against Clinton is to vote for the next most likely person to win.
6. It has to come from you.
I said at the beginning that I’m not a credible messenger for this argument. I’ve voted for Republicans all my life. It seems obvious that someone like me would take advantage of an opportunity to declare my support for the candidate I’m more culturally comfortable with.
This is why it has to come from you – particularly those of you who have vocally supported Democrats in the past and are likely to continue to do so in the future. Soft-Liberal evangelical voters have to hear that it’s OK to vote for Trump – just this once – from a source that they trust. This is your Napoleon to French Revolution moment: a chance to take an unlikely stand that will get people’s attention and have an impact on the outcome.
More generally, I’d encourage you to look inside your own heart and ask why it is that you’re reluctant to support Trump. I understand that there are good reasons for that reluctance. But are some of the wrong reasons sprinkled in there as well? Have you, like me, voted for the same party for so long that it seems reflexively wrong to vote for someone from the other party? Do you fear how you might be judged by politically conservative colleagues and friends? Have you spent enough time in their company that you’ve been convinced that she’s not just wrong on an issue you care about, but a cartoon villain of a politician? For the last ten years, political tribalism has placed most evangelical Christians on the light blue team. Is that fact clouding your view of what you need to do?
These barriers mirror the ones I had to overcome in deciding to change my vote this year (until Clinton came along, that is). And they are the same barriers that many evangelical voters – your congregants – are struggling with right now as they consider whether to vote for Trump. By taking a public stand, you can help them to overcome those barriers.
My hope is that I’ll be able to vote for a candidate who unambiguously protects life in 2055. But until then, I hope that Christians throughout this country will work together to protect us from the threat Clinton represents. Our leaders can play a big role in giving us permission and guidance within the law to do this in a way that preserves our witness and honors Christ. And though we strive for a particular result, I pray that we would ultimately trust God with the outcome, and that we would glorify Him with our actions both before and after the coming election.
Did this post anger you? It is a mere parody from another post.
Someone recently said that while Muslim terrorists had attacked Americans in 9/11, we must remember that white Americans themselves were terrorists toward black people in times past. White Americans had committed great evil upon black Americans, and now others are committing great evil upon them.
But is this a formula that could be said of other peoples? Could we say…
Native American tribes committed acts of terrorism upon other Native American tribes, so when white Europeans came in to commit acts of terrorism upon them they had no leg to stand upon?
Black Africans committed acts of terrorism upon each other, so when they became enslaved and sold around the world to people who oppressed them they had what was coming to them?
African peoples committed evil acts against other blacks by selling them, so the French came in to colonize them?
The Jews and Poles had committed great evil for some time, and then Hitler came in to annihilate them?
The people of India had committed great evil for some time, so the British came in to subjugate them?
The Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans had done horrible acts of terror to each other, so when the Spanish came in to conquer them they really had no reason to complain?
The people of Tibet had done horrible things in times past, and then China came in to annihilate them and annex their country?
The pigmies in Australia had done atrocious deeds to one another, so they were overrun by another nation?
Rome had done horribly gruesome things, so the Gauls came in to overthrow them?
The nations in the land of Canaan committed abominations, so Israel came in to destroy them as the land spew them out?
Or is this only applicable to modern, white, Westerners?
Lecrae recently posted a video online in attempts to understand differing racial views and reactions. If all perspectives really matter, I’m posting this for him and all my friends.
My attempts to understand race issues have involved my own life experiences, conversations with people of other races (including my own mother and her side of the family), and reading some clear thinkers specifically on black racial issues such as Thomas Sowell – “Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?”, “Race And Culture: A World View”, “Black Rednecks and White Liberals”, “Intellectuals and Race”. As he repeatedly shows, our discussions about race are far too narrow racially, geographically, and temporally.
Every people and every place has had slavery whether by race or by class, yet many have healed and moved on. I believe the reason why there lingers and festers so much hostility in America is because we all are being played by a Gramscian Marxism narrative – social evolution – that separates us into groups and classes and “favored races” for purposes of creating chaos, civil war, and state power. What this means is that there’s a vested interest in creating and sustaining division, misunderstanding, and tension. Since the 1960’s things have gotten measurably worse for blacks. Why? Ask yourself why there seems only to be growing disunity and not healing? Why are we always talking about “racial reconciliation” but never actually being reconciled? This is why: you can’t reconcile groups while assuming a system that by design segregates them. No one ever talks about this, but our Gramscian Marxism narrative is the lens through which people both white and black often interpret the facts of reality. It’s a difference in worldview – one that’s given to us through media, culture, and education (and from pulpits) before we can think for ourselves. Facts are filtered through these lenses.
But these worldviews are false, they breakdown and do not explain everything. For instance, I’m only half white (and half Mexican). I’m not in one neat racial group, but I get treated like I’m a white. I get accused of “white privilege” – on the basis of the color of my skin and not my actual ancestral/genetic make-up, which is a racial no-no but happens anyway. Now, if a person of only half a racial make-up can experience the benefits or curses of the whole or “pure” race, doesn’t that mean racial issues aren’t as simple as black and white? Wouldn’t that mean that it is possible for a half-black/half-white person to experience white-privilege? Would that half-black person be racist against himself? Yet, if all whites are unknowingly racist against all non-whites, does that mean that my white half is racist against my Mexican half? Do I oppress myself? Do I live with internal angst of self-loathing? Do I go about trying to make reparations to myself for the Mexican War? Do I owe myself land or money or apologies? Do I secretly hate my mom and my own family? That’s absurd, right? Precisely.
Here’s a story: I got jumped behind a fast food restaurant late one night by a gang of about 30 black people – for no reason whatsoever. The cops came, but my assailants all fled the scene. I got busted up good, so did my car, and as I was with a date it was embarrassing, scary, and infuriating to say the least. But no one seems to care about that story. No news stations interviewed me. No paper write-ups. I get no social support or corroboration for speaking of this – in fact, I may get criticized for it. I’m not supposed to carry that baggage with me everytime I see a group of blacks on the street because that would be racist. No one will “like” this story or share it or raise awareness about it. My white skin gets no sympathy; in fact – as the story goes – I probably deserved it for all that (half of) my ancestors did to other people.
Lecrae is complaining that people’s sympathies are misplaced or apathetic, that (white) people do not understand one another (black people). Do Lecrae and I get the same sympathy from the American public? What would happen if I posted that on FB and asked for understanding? Do we really want to remove our Marxian “favored races” categories and unite?
Update: The nil sympathy I have received since posting this, compared to the tens of thousands Lecrae has received since posting his video, is precisely my point. Some races are “favored” over others, each in various ways. And this divides us.
Ever since first seeing the picture of Dylan Roof burning the U.S. flag it has reminded me of another anti-flag protest from just a month ago by those who self-designated as “terrorists against white people.” The first question that ran into my mind was how two groups of people so antithetical in every way could have perfect unity in the expression of that opposition.
Dylan wanted to join the KKK and he vowed violence and enacted it. Eric Shepherd joined the Black Panther Party and vowed violence but had to flee before he had the opportunity. Many things could be said of each. Yet it is odd that while both sides are against each other, both also protest the same U.S. flag. Roof burns the flag in hatred toward blacks. The “Eric Shepherd Challengers” stomp on the flag in hatred toward whites. Now that’s irony, sad sad irony.
We must ask ourselves how it is that the narrative of American history can be so construed – so butchered – as to anger black people against whites and white people against blacks – and all under the same banner. How is it that the same American flag has come to represent to blacks the oppression of whites and to whites the evils of blacks (according to Roof’s manifesto)? Someone has to be wrong here. Either it means the one or the other or neither, but it cannot be both. It is so coincidental a mirroring of perfectly diametrical causes as to merit a conspiracy.
This could only have happened due to a rendering of history, narratives, and ideas which we have all been fed, that has caused us to see in one and the same symbol a hatred toward each other race. But what system of ideas has so divided us into classes of oppression and opposition, triggered under the same banner? It’s almost like we are Pavlov’s dogs who have been trained to salivate – but with anger – at the sound of a bell.
Roof is an angry white man and Shepherd is an angry black man. They represent a country so backwards that the white is against the black and the black against the white and both mark as their gesture the desecration of the same country’s flag. Whatever we think of their views, they must be heard and answered. Mere shouting and name-calling does nothing to bring peace; it only divides us so deeply that we express our hatred for one another by doing mutually contradictory acts. America is divided under the one banner of America. A house divided against itself cannot stand. It is truly a tragedy!
Though, I do not have all the answers, I do know that the division among us is so extreme and so perfectly opposite that it seems manufactured or engineered. I also know that class division is a tactic of Marxism, which is evolutionary race-struggle at the social and human level implemented by legislation. I don’t have all the answers, but we can each of us aim our thoughts and prayers, our words and deeds toward reconciliation – not retaliation. And not reconciliation in our common humanity alone but reconciliation in the only thing, the only One who unifies – the gospel of Jesus Christ. Until we are reconciled with God, we will not be reconciled with to each other. Only in Christ is there forgiveness for sins. Only in Christ there are no Jews or Greeks, no male or female, no slaves and no masters, but all are one. In the words of an old hymn, “Down with the eagle and up with the cross.” God help us all.
“Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.” 2 Cor 13
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.” Matt 5
In Postmodernia, everything is a social construct.
“______” is not real; it is socially and politically constructed via law, religion, public policy, or social practices.
Fill in the blank.
It started with God and morality, with implications such as divine vengeance, justice, or virtues. Then it was applied to natural laws and institutions like male headship, marriage, the family, and liberty. Now it is being applied to the human experience alla sexuality (the sexual revolution, now flowering into homosexualism), gender (transgenders, Bruce Jenner), and race (Rachel Dolezal).
What amazes me is how quickly these have proceeded, one to another.
But perhaps the idea that everything is a social construct is itself a socially constructed. After all, we can’t have a moral revolution if we don’t agree on a fixed standard from which to rebel. We are not becoming amoral or asexual or areligious. We are decidedly anti-moral, anti-sexual, and anti-religious because we are made in the image of God. So, in our rebellion from him we implicitly give credence to his existence and truth. This is our judgment. It is also a pointer for the direction of repentance. When a compliance hand points south, there is always another pointing north.
“Multiculturalism involves more than a simple recognition of differences in cultures among different groups. It is an insistence, a priori, that the effects of these differences are on net balance positive and that the particular cultures found among less fortunate groups are not to be blamed for disparities in income, education, crime rates, or family disintegration, lest observers be guilty of “blaming the victim” instead of indicting society. The key word among advocates of multiculturalism became “diversity.” Sweeping claims for the benefits of demographic and cultural diversity in innumerable institutions and circumstances have prevailed without a speck of evidence being asked for or given. It is one of the purest examples of arguments without arguments, and of the force of sheer repetition, insistence and intimidation.
“Among many multiculturalists, saying the word “diversity” trumps mundane concerns about empirical consequences and converts preferential treatment by race— the principle fought against so long by liberals— into “social justice” when the preferences are for those minorities currently in favor among the intelligentsia. That preferential college admissions of blacks and Hispanics may have a negative effect on the admissions of Asian Americans, not to mention whites, is something usually ignored or brushed aside. Treating races as intertemporal abstractions enables those with this vision to treat discrimination against contemporary whites as somehow offsetting discrimination against blacks in the past.”
– Thomas Sowell. “Intellectuals and Race.”
After a semester long sequester, we are operational again.
Baltimore Public Racism
The footage is reminiscent of scenes from World War Z – mass hysteria, mindless destruction. Also, the black-on-white violence is unrestrained and accepted by social conscience for past damages.
The survivor class: Coming to a job near you
Like Schaeffer said, the godless worldview of pagans is like a weak Roman bridge that will be crushed when a stronger worldview tramplers over it. Secular humanism is weak and dying. Islam and Christianity are stronger.
We’re beginning to learn what ‘Generation Katniss’ really cares about
Diversity and fear. Egalitarian socialism. They are prime picking for Big Brother (strong males) to make the world equal and safe. And they will get it good and hard.
Idaho city’s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail
Remember when they said it wouldn’t change anything? When Christians were told they were merely asking for neutral public space? There is no neutrality.
Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious Beliefs’ About Abortion ‘Have To Be Changed’
Ray Comfort replies, “Mrs. Clinton, you have infinitely more chance of flossing the back teeth of the lion’s at L.A. Zoo at feeding time, than you have of changing my convictions about the killing of babies in the womb. And I don’t think I’m alone in those convictions.”
Virginia’s Christian Founding & Religious Tolerance
“Greatly commending…their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God.”
Bruce Jenner, Media, & Madmen
As Justice Kennedy said, “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Which is the story of Western thought and society since the supposed “Enlightenment.” Deny God = deny objective nature = deny a definitional self = make it all up. Hence the only way out is an objective revelational epistemology.
“We are injecting hormones into seven year old children, causing permanent changes in their bodies, and we call it liberation, the realization of the progressive beatific vision. And anyone who doubts this is a heretic, a madman whose raving must be dealt with harshly: ‘What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns?’” (Here for more)
Concerning the recent cop-shooting by angry black men, Thabiti claims that Today Is A Time To Mourn. It would seem, rather, that today is a time to take one’s foot out of one’s mouth and one’s head out of his…hands and look around at the mess people like Thabiti, Obama, Holder, NYT, WP, et al helped to incite. As a commenter notes, “Every person who jumped on the bandwagon over the last few months, who spoke out without deeply contemplating the ramifications fed the murder and hatred of a whole group of people, period.”
Indeed, Thabiti’s past posts involved racism charges, interior motives, prejudging evidence, etc. Yet, now that the tables have poetically, if tragically, turned, Thabiti’s rants mellow to a solemnest mourning and silence. No charges of racism on the murderers’ part, no prejudging their interior motives, no even outright condemnation of them in particular. The cries of his bemoaning sound more of a Marxist/class-warfare/racist agenda unraveling than that Justice was again violated. So we must ask why Thabiti defends a racial-narrative that incites violent rioters while not standing behind the logical (and obvious) consequences of that race-based narrative and violence? Jesus said hatred is murder in the heart. Is it any surprise that murder in the heart manifests itself as murder in the streets?
If, as Thabiti claims, we shouldn’t judge the movement of protestors based upon the actions of a few, then how can Thabiti claim (previously) that we can and should judge the actions of all or at least most cops based upon the actions of a few? This is the fallacy of composition: “The author says that it is wrong to classify the movement by the action of a lone gunman. But then they turn directly around and use the example of a minuscule minority of police who shoot innocent unarmed minorities to characterize the police.” (Commenter)
As well concluded by another commenter: “I’m sorry, but Thabiti’s “advice” is a bit late. When others suggested the protests were ill-conceived and lacked a clear, coherent, achievable goal, such folks were dismissed. Frankly, Thabiti’s irresponsible use of “disarm the police” and “this ends now” hashtags demonstrates a naivete not befitting the stature he is granted by TGC.”
Black lives matter, cop lives matter, ALL lives matter. It’s time to stop playing to Marxist class-warfare and Darwinian notions of races struggling to survive and rather to betake to ourselves an entire and thoroughly holistic Christian worldview that includes race, justice, even logic and government, peace and law.