First off, sorry about not posting something new yesterday. I got caught up in some stuff and didn't get a chance to get to the blog.
But, my failure to blog was really a blessing in disguise because it prompted some of you to post more comments on my last piece, which in turn led me to today's topic. I'd particularly like to thank the blog's resident white contrarian, Darth Whitey, and the always amazing sage, Lolo. Now, down to business.
Check out this scene. You've just been victimized by racism. Some authority figure, probably white, but maybe not, has decided to treat you differently than everybody else, and it appears to be connected to your skin color. You're understandably angry and hurt, and you decided to talk to some people about those feelings.
As you relate your story, you try to be as honest as possible about exactly what happened. However, you don't just provide a dry recounting of the facts, you also relate your feelings that the the injustice you suffered was directly related to the melanin in your skin. This makes sense to you because the possible racial aspects of this injustice are what make it so egregious.
Now, inevitably, if you're relating your story to a large enough group, there will be one person that will try to dissuade you from the notion that your mistreatment was related to race. This person could be of any race, although they're typically white, and their favorite way to convince you that you're overthinking the race thing is to relate to you that they themselves have been the victim of unfair treatment in the past.
They will helpfully point out that their victimization had nothing to do with race, so yours probably didn't either. In addition, if you're lucky, this person will also let you know that all of your outrage and indignation is unnecessary and unjustified. Finally, for the trifecta, this person will probably tell you that your accurate recounting of the way racism affects the lives of people of color doesn't reflect their reality. They likely will note that your comments about the predilections of some white folks are "unfair" to good white people like them.
Well, well, well.
My friends, this is an example of the pseudo-fairness doctrine. I'm sure most of you have encountered it in your lives in various forms. At its most basic level, this doctrine allows intellectually dishonest people to redefine "fairness" to benefit them. Instead of looking at the totality of a situation and deciding on whether something is "just," these people take small snippets of reality and try to make them fit some arbitrary concept of fairness that completely ignores all social context.
Darth Whitey, I'm looking at you right now.
I hate to pick on Darth. I like that he comes around to the blog and posts his thoughts, mainly because we differ so much on matters of race. I love opposing viewpoints, as long as those viewpoints are logical. Now, Darth isn't always logical, but he does provide me with what I assume are popular opinions among folks like him. I need that feedback.
That said, many of Darth's points utilize "pseudo fairness." Unfortunately, he's not alone in this. The vast majority of people in this country SUCK at having a logical and honest discussion about the prevalence and effects of racism. It doesn't make them unintelligent, it just makes them human. And as human beings in America, particularly white human beings, there aren't many benefits to dissecting exactly how race affects the lives of your fellow citizens.
It's much easier to concentrate on what's fair. That's because each of us gets to decide on our concept of fairness, and we can change that concept depending on the situation. For example, many white people think the whole idea of Affirmative Action is unfair. They point out that it's not right to give someone preference in their job or college search because of their race, and they also say this allows unqualified people to get jobs over more qualified people. On it's surface, this seems to be a "fair" argument.
But, when you dig a little deeper, you learn that Affirmative Action wasn't created to give minorities an unfair advantage, it was created to rectify a preexisting advantage created by white people. More importantly, due to the resistance of white folks to giving up that advantage, the program had to establish the quotas and other things people seem to hate. Finally, despite all those efforts, studies have shown widespread racial discrimination in hiring, home loans, healthcare and education, to name a few areas. In fact, one study found that a white guy with a high school diploma is more likely to get hired than a black guy with a college degree.
So, the concept of fairness in that issue is far more complicated than most white people want to acknowledge. My brief explanation didn't even talk about the way discrimination allowed white folks to accumulate wealth and how that benefited subsequent generations. This isn't a isolated incident. In this country's history, racism has always had obvious and subtle impacts that make it very difficult to be truly "fair" in any situation. That's because what one person may deem fair, will typically be unfair to someone else.
That's why I've always preferred to do what's "just." That's another way of saying do what you feel is right and best serves the overall good. That may entail being unfair to some folks in the short-term because it will benefit everyone in the long term. I understand this is a trick concept because even when you're trying to be "just" you are still operating on your own ideas of what the world should look like. Shoot, there are probably some folks that would argue that slavery was "just" because the suffering of black people actually benefited the United States as a whole, and gave us the huge advantages we now enjoy over other nations.
Yet, the concept of being "just" appeals to me far more than worshipping at the altar of the false god of "pseudo-fairness." Too often, the simplified version of fairness that most people prefer really just maintains the status quo.
Y'all know that ain't right.
Share
Pay Attention
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
36 comments:
I try to always refer to the "repellant" in said arguement...
http://www.counter-racism.org/
The site is pretty good at breaking down similar disagreements.
Now that is some fine writing, outstanding, you are truly talented BM. All the more impressive considering it was surely written in the course of an hour or less.
And the content is much appreciated as well, food for thought. Thanks!
The thing I cannot get past regarding affac is that surely the solution would be to make it to be purely economically based as that would have the unfortunate but real side effect that blacks would benefit without penalizing non-black poor kids (talking college here, not prof.) But anyway that's a topic for another day.
You're right, I do have the gall to try to tell people how they _should_ feel when I think they're wrong but I'm not here to provide emotional support. I lack tact, that's for certain, and I need to work on that. The anonymity afforded to me by the interwebs makes me bolder than I am in real life.
So, sorry I've been insensitive and I will try to measure my words more carefully.
Ah, the benefits of white privilege. I can be oafish, rude, silly, and that's all it is. I'm an oaf, rude, and silly. But were I black, well, I don't have to tell you.
Excellent piece Big Man. I think another thing about affirmative action that most people don't know or think about is that studies have shown that white females have benefited more than any kind of minorities from AA hiring programs, so you could say that it has benefited whites more than it has blacks, b/c these women use the money they make to support their usually white children, white elderly parents, and to supplement the income of their usually white husbands. Ain't that blip?!
ch55
I love that site. The had a racism primer on their that was just wonderful.
Lisa
You damn right it's a blip and one folks often ignore.
Darth
Thanks for the compliment.
I'm not opposed to an economic reconfiguring of Affirmative Action, or rather giving more weight to economics. However, I'm not in favor of scrapping the racial aspect of Affirmative Action.
I think it's interesting so many white people see it as such an unfair situation that poor white people are not given special consideration when it comes to college admission. After all, poor white people have never been discriminated against when it comes to college admission, so why should they receive some sort of special consideration to make amends for that discrimination.
If the complaint is about scholarship money, then clearly many white people have overestimated exactly how much scholarship money is dedicated solely to minorities. The reality is that in the grand scheme of scholarships, race-based scholarships are no more prevalent than religion based scholarships.
And neither of them compare to legacy scholarships, which directly benefit white people more than any other group.
Thankfully, I've avoided falling into the pseudo-fairness thing very often. That's probably obvious, because anyone who's gotten any sense of Mrs. Blue through my writing can figure out she wouldn't trifle herself with me for 13 years if I did.
;-)
But I will say that...every once in a while...black folks do need to rein in the normally justified feelings about this. What I mean is that if you have someone in your life who isn't black, and they have your back 90% or the time or more, don't lump them in with the ignoramuses on some isolated incident.
There was one notable time a few years ago when my wife felt she had been slighted by a clerk. I had been waiting in the car, so I didn't witness the event. But the way it was described to me, I expressed that it might have been a racial slight, but there was another very likely reason as well, so perhaps deciding on the spot to never shop at that store again was a bit extreme...particularly since it was one clerk and not some pattern at the store.
Dear Lord almighty I got the riot act on that one. All of a sudden, any awareness I had shown for eight or nine years previous got washed away. My wife had wanted me to be righteously indignant, without me having even been witness to the event.
In the end, it was my wife having a bad day and making too much of an assumption that I was defending the white clerk and things just mushroomed...but it still felt pretty sucky to have my wife act like I had suddently put on my white privilege and white loyalty outfit when that hadn't been my aim at all.
I don't know if there's any lesson in that, except that you can't expect non-black friends to always see things the same way or even sympathize 100%, no matter how open minded they are...and don't jump off the handle with someone who's shown you that they are really trying to understand and usually "get it" on some level, just because of something isolated.
Great post, Big Man. The great writer Anais Nin says a good writer is one who says the things that other people are either unable or unwilling to say. To me, this post puts you in that category. Most whites I know are unable to speak or write honestly about racism or Eurocentrism, which is, essentially, the same thing. And if they could, they wouldn't. Too painful. As a friend of mine is prone to say, there are some things more painful than the truth, but I don't know what it is.
Deac
Your story made me smile.
You're right, sometimes we black folks can assume something is racial when it's really not. And, we can get pretty indignant when people try to tell us we're overreacting. It's not just with white folks, it's with everyone.
Here's the thing. The reason why we are so sensitive is because we go through life all the time having to wonder about the reason why people slight us. I mean, everyday, I have people treat me in a shitty or condescending manner for no apparent reason, and I often find myself having a mental debate about whether something is because of my race or something else.
Not all black people have this mental debate, but I think most of us do. I think most of us don't want to issue false claims of racism anymore than white people want to hear them. However, I think we get insulted when white folks disagree with us so easily on racial matters as if they have the experience or knowledge to be experts on that topic. Now, I know you're more sensitive than most, but your wife was probably astounded that you were doubting her powers of observation and siding with a random white person. In her moment of hurt, you seemed to be telling her she was overreacting.
That's the wrong reaction, particulary as it relates to issues of race. Black people don't want to be told they're overreacting by people who haven't had to deal with racism on a daily basis. It bothers us.
I think this might make a good topic to blog about next week, so thanks for writing this. We need to talk about how to discuss and even debunk claims of racism.
Oh, believe me, I understand all your points, Big Man. I conservatively estimate that 99 times out of 100, I will accept my wife's observations on the racial front openly. And probably 85 times out 100, I genuinely agree in my gut and aren't just saying it because I want to sleep in my own bed.
;-)
Seriously, though, I do believe the onus is on white folks to trust that black folks aren't overreacting. The onus is NOT on blacks to humor whites in their perception of a color blind world.
I just hate to see misunderstandings ensue when a fairly aware non-black suddenly loses ALL of his or her brownie points (at least temporarily) for the occasional lack of agreement or lack of perception.
Of course, if one is being aware of their racial privilege and truly trying to have some small bit of real understanding, I suspect those moments will be pretty few and far between.
In any case, another of your very excellent posts.
Big Man says,
But, when you dig a little deeper, you learn that Affirmative Action wasn't created to give minorities an unfair advantage, it was created to rectify a preexisting advantage created by white people.
First, you need to explain why a white society that gives its own an advantage is immoral?
Secondly, you need to reject liberalism's pseudo-affinity with non-discrimination. Clearly, you favor discrimination is this context.
Third, if white women are the real beneficiaries of AA then why do black folk almost unanimously support AA?
Fourth, what is AA's end game? What does the "level playing field" look like so we can know when AA is no longer needed?
And lastly, isn't it more truthful to say that AA is premised on the notion that blacks of today are suffering equally to blacks of the yesterday? If not, then AA should be fading out of existence and not embedding itself further into the fabric of a free society.
Thor says, "First, you need to explain why a white society that gives its own an advantage is immoral?"
I would need to know more, such as why the need for the advantage? Is the white society unable to compete on its own merits? Are there obstacles in the way? If it's simply a matter of race preference, at the expense of competence? If that's the case that society lacks intelligence, so they are more stupid than immoral. If you believe that intelligence is the province of white folks, then some out and say so.
Thor says "Secondly, you need to reject liberalism's pseudo-affinity with non-discrimination. Clearly, you favor discrimination is this context."
You need to reject race prejudice. Between the liberal's pseudo anti-discriminatory position and the conservative ignoring any pretense of anti-discrimination. The only redress people of color have is to force you through court order to honor the words in the Declaration of independence, that all men are created...... Now, if those words are hollow or a bunch of lies then you need to say so to the rest of the world, and stop putting out the propaganda about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Just so you know, Affirmative Action is race, gender and ethnicity based. Contrary to media portrayal it's not solely race based. I don't see why it should be such a shock to you that white women are the beneficiary, after all, you did say that white racial advantage is not immoral. Many whites in a position to hire share your opinion.
POC are only one component of affirmative action. Once you have a more comprehensive
definition /understanding of AA, perhaps you'll be able to answer your own questions, or at least pose more insightful questions.
Thor, my gut feeling is that you asked your questions with your mind already made. I don't sense that you're interested in any open minded dialogue. I think your mind is stuck in the 1850's with the Dred Scott decision, when the U.S. supreme court ruled that a Black man have no rights that a white man have to respect. If that's your belief come out and say so, and stop with the pseudo questions.
Imhotep says,
I would need to know more, such as why the need for the advantage? Is the white society unable to compete on its own merits? Are there obstacles in the way? If it's simply a matter of race preference, at the expense of competence? If that's the case that society lacks intelligence, so they are more stupid than immoral. If you believe that intelligence is the province of white folks, then some out and say so.
Of course, you completely missed the opportunity to answer the question. Is a white society that gives advantages to whites an immoral society? I assume in your rebuttal of questions that you are implying it is and yet you are attempting to advantage yourself and presumably non-whites, no?
Next you say,
You need to reject race prejudice. Between the liberal's pseudo anti-discriminatory position and the conservative ignoring any pretense of anti-discrimination. The only redress people of color have is to force you through court order to honor the words in the Declaration of independence, that all men are created...... Now, if those words are hollow or a bunch of lies then you need to say so to the rest of the world, and stop putting out the propaganda about life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
All men are created equal and this is the premise on which you assert your "rights." Yet, if taken as a given then one wonders why you are seeking discriminatory advantages through the use of government force? Clearly, it is you that believes these words to be hollow. You do not see yourself as equal and therefore you would "force you through court order to honor the words." This is your nature and the force is palpable.
And then you say,
Just so you know, Affirmative Action is race, gender and ethnicity based. Contrary to media portrayal it's not solely race based. I don't see why it should be such a shock to you that white women are the beneficiary, after all, you did say that white racial advantage is not immoral. Many whites in a position to hire share your opinion.
AA may be advantageous to white females because it is inherently a female way of gaining advantage by claiming victimhood. The fact that females and blacks advantage from AA only implies to the rest of us that their proclamation of inherent equalness is not really felt from within.
But the talk is about the original premise for AA and its relation to the black "race."
Next you say,
POC are only one component of affirmative action. Once you have a more comprehensive
definition /understanding of AA, perhaps you'll be able to answer your own questions, or at least pose more insightful questions.
Why do I need a more "comprehensive" view of AA when I am only trying to find its original and fundamental premise? Could you be of some help on that account?
Lastly you say,
Thor, my gut feeling is that you asked your questions with your mind already made. I don't sense that you're interested in any open minded dialogue. I think your mind is stuck in the 1850's with the Dred Scott decision, when the U.S. supreme court ruled that a Black man have no rights that a white man have to respect. If that's your belief come out and say so, and stop with the pseudo questions.
Is that a response really worthy of rebuttal? Aren't you really attempting to avoid a situation where you have your premises questioned?
We already know what the "white" man thinks, but now we are really getting to know what the non-white man thinks and "they" have some very malevolent things wandering around in those minds about me and my own. Do you wish that I stay ignorant of such things?
A society that made its bones, so to speak, on the backs, blood and rape of an "other" AND continues to advantage its descendants while continuing to trumpet its founding premise of equality for all, is indeed immoral.
We proclaim to ourselves and others around the world, that we are a beacon, a model for all democracies, based on our founding principles. We should strive to hold ourselves to the very basics of those founding principles.
Thor said “First, you need to explain why a white society that gives its own an advantage is immoral?”
Thor, I did answer your question, perhaps it was not the answer you were looking for. Besides the question of morality is way too subjective, you need context with any question of morality, and you failed to provide context. I tried to help you out with context, but you totally avoided my questions. So my question remains, why does the white society need an advantage? You did not like my first list, so I’ll add to it. Are you concerned about racial extinction? genetic annihilation? minority status? need to protect assets? Or is it simply an advantage due to pigmentation? Let me know why you need an advantage, then we can address the morality issue.
You asked several other questions, I’ll suspend response to those questions until you can bring context to your initial question.
Lolo,
The wonderful thing about the internet is that is gives a real voice to all those malignant thoughts that persons such as yourself have swirling around in your head about America and white people, both generally and particularly.
Ironically, the same society that "oppresses" you, also allows you to say the most incendiary and noxious things about it. It gives one the impression that you don't have any real experience with "oppression?"
Imhotep,
If morality is way "too subjective" then it seems this discussion is moot. You can no more claim the "wrongness" of past actions than you can claim the "rightness" of present-day AA. Yours seems like an evolutionary understanding and so once again the implication is that YOU don't believe "All men are created equal." In fact, such a claim is a subjective moral one that in no way reflects known reality.
So again, I ask... What is immoral about a white society giving its own advantages? In fact, how is it not perfectly normal?
So, giving special advantages to people of a certain color simply because they are the largest color contingent is perfectly acceptable.
Which means that you think it's OK to make things harder for other colors of people simply because they are another color.
And yet you challenge Lolo's assertion that there is oppression.
Can you say, "Cognitive dissonance"?
No, no, don't answer. I already know you'll just trot out the same answers as before. Save yourself the trouble.
Deacon Blue,
Only a radical autonomist thinks that giving his own advantage is "special." The rest of us think it's just normal.
But then again, you are willing to use the force of government to get what's yours. Sounds like YOU have an oppressive streak? Should the rest of us, who are the target of your government coercion, take kindly to your two-faced nature?
No, Thordaddy...I already have white privilege. I don't need the force of government to get what's mine. I just have a thing against using my privilege to actively shit on someone else's head just because they aren't white like me.
I'm funny that way.
Deacon Blue,
Can you give us an example of this "white" privilege and how in the past, before you were so enlightened, you used it to "shit" on others?
So, because I can point out my observations on the internet and even in RL without being beaten or arrested, that somehow cancels out my experiences? Wow. That's the same sort of logic as "You're not really poor as long as you can afford a cellphone and don't have to dig through the garbage for sustenance".
We are citizens of the first true democracy, based on the founding principles of Life, Liberty and Equality for ALL. Based on those soaring and noble principles, we are entitled to hold ourselves and each other accontable when we fall short. Without being "oppressed". Just as we are a first world nation and should have quality education, redress in the courts, adequate food and shelter, etc. Just because I am guaranteed immunity from unlawful arrest doesn't mean I'm supposed to give up my duty to point out the glaring inequities.
Your question was whether or not it is immoral and I gave an answer. You then moved the goalposts to whether or not I have any personal experience with actual oppression. What, in your opinion, is actual oppression?
Thordaddy, I don't get any sense that you have any willingness or desire to expand your knowledge or see the other side of things. I understand why you feel the way that you do to some extent. When I had limited exposure to black history, black culture or black people, it was easy for me to not think about things that I and others did on a daily basis to ignore them, marginalize them and even demean them.
I am not going to give you the laundry list you have asked for (though I could) because you have already shown that you are inflexible and I have no wish to feed a troll on someone else's blog.
Thor
You've found my blog!
Welcome!
Everyone, this is Thor.
He's like Darth on steroids.
If you plan on engaging him in debate, be prepared for him ignoring obvious logical fallacies in his arguments, and engaging in gross hypocrisy.
Thor, I'm still waiting for you to explain that sin hierarchy you established with abortion at the top.
Still waiting....
And y'all can thank the folks at Denmark Vesey's blog for Thor coming on by.
what about us folk wh0o right handed lol u be killing me and darth whity - classic
I'm offended that you would compare my positions to Thor's BM :-(
Thor, I find what you said a bit disturbing, the part where you seem to imply that this country "belongs" to us (whites) and that as such "we" have the right to ensure our continued supremacy or some such.
As a matter of fact, this is probably the only country on earth (and Canada) that no ethnic group can lay a serious claim to as it was sort of a blank slate before the British, Dutch, and French arrived. Before that you had these meandering tribes of natives that killed one another for this and that parcel of land for eons, but no real dominant single "nation" as it were (everything from Mexico down to Argentina is different because large native populations existed when the Spanish and Portuguese arrived.)
So if you mean that you are of direct lineage to those first settlers, well even then it does not belong to you anymore than it belongs to say, a Rudy Giuliani, a Dennis Kozlowski, a John Yoo, a Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, or an Alberto Gonzalez. All these groups faced major obstacles upon arriving as immigrants but now they have integrated and are as American as you or I.
Now for education I myself dislike affirmative action but it doesn't bother _too_ much because after all, which ethnic group in America is the only one who did not emigrate willingly? There was some long term retardation of prospects by slavery that no other ethnic group suffered, and it does persist to this day, to some extent.
White privilege.. well I myself am white (of course) and I'm pretty sure my life would be a little more difficult than it is now if I were black. For instance, I can be a douchebag or a loon or act stupid whenever I feel like it and nobody thinks anything of it. But if I were black and I were screwing around not getting my work done and what now, well, come on, you know what the office would say!
Just chill. heh.
Darth, don't take Big Man's comment too literally as a comparison of you and Thordaddy.
Steroid use isn't just about beefing up the body. It also takes away from other physiological functions and damages the body. It can also alter perceptions and personality.
So, using Big Man's metaphor, Thordaddy is too messed up to see straight, whereas you are sometimes contrarian but not delusional, nor addicted to your position on all matters.
;-)
Big Man,
I figured I'd give you a few rounds to see the self-evident truth of "thou shall not spill the blood of innocence" and how such a commandment is fundamental to any hopes of a civilized society?
Maybe you know of some other Christians equal to the status of the President who also proclaim a fundamental "right" to spill innocent blood? I don't! I don't know of a single prominent Christian who claims a "right" to sin and then says, "looky, I'm a real Christian."
So again, what was AA premised on in its original manifestation if it is not what I claim?
Lolo,
All I said was that I was glad that others now get to hear what you really think. I wish more people had the opportunity to hear how much hatred and animosity you have for America and white people. I wish more people knew that your "oppression" didn't actually include the supression of your radical thoughts. This way, we could actually judge as to whether your claims were legitimate.
Deacon Blue,
You act as if you have some insider knowledge on the matters at hand rather than some academic highfalutinous deconstructionism about "white" privilege.
What does that actually mean and can you give us just ONE example of this jargon in practice? Preferably, you will give us an experience of your own "white" privilege before you became so enlightened?
Darth Whitey,
Perhaps you've crossed your posts. I can't really respond to things I haven't discussed.
No, Thordaddy...it's not academic highfallutin-ness. I've been white without exposure to black culture, and I've been white dating a black woman, and I'm now white with a couple black kids.
I can look back at my own preconceptions and behaviors and what I did wrong and hurtful, and I can look at what my loved ones must deal with on a weekly and sometimes daily basis, and I can speak from first-hand experience to my own culpability in empowering white privilege and my own experience in witness oppression large and small against people I care about. I don't know any white people who've ever been harmed one bit by affirmative action...but I've seen blacks oppressed by daily bullshit that the have to swallow down most of the time and not speak up about.
But I don't believe for one damned second that my first-hand experience would matter to you. Just as you would dismiss an academic knowledge, you will dismiss my experience as being tainted by too close a proximity or selling out to the other side or something.
There is nothing about you that seems sincere, so I will not honor you insincere request for elaboration. Most of the readers here are black and don't need me to point out to them what they already deal with...and Darth Whitey hasn't asked me to clarify (nor have any other white folks who might care around here) so I'm not going to waste any more of Big Man's space on this.
Clear enough? Keep talking to me if you like, but I'm done with you as of this moment. You're a troll and I'm not giving you any more meat to swallow so that you can throw your feces around.
Thor, I am quite plain in RL about how I feel about my fellow citizens' unequal treatment and while I do hate injustice and violence I do not hate my country for it is made up of the very people that I've met in RL and on the internet. Silly Thor. My parents lived through and taught me about oppression and they managed to still keep an open mind. What happened to you and your family for your mind to be so closed?
Look, I thought y'all would figure this out, but let me intervene.
Do not talk to Thor.
I repeat, do not talk to Thor.
He is free to post whatever he likes in the comments section in response to my blog, unless things get out of control and then I will have to take action. But, y'all know I don't mind people thinking I'm stupid. It's good for me.
However, do not try to get into a logical debate with Thor. It will not work.
He will not answer your questions, he will make intellectually dishonest reponses and he will tell you that you are the one who has the mental problem because you do not see the world according to Thor and his mighty hammer of ignorance.
Trust me on this, I've tried this already.
Thor, I'm not answering any of your questions. I'm treating you the way Cnulan and Michael Fisher treat you.
I'm going to keep repeating the questions you seek to ignore because that illuminates your hypocrisy. Or, I'm just going to ignore you.
So, once again, explain the biblical basis for your sin hierarchy that places abortion above all other sins, and then hot that allows you to decide that a politician's refusal to outlaw abortion is a sign that they are not a Christian.
Then explain what it means that politicians and most Americans do not want to outlaw fornication, adultery, lying, cheating, gossiping, backbiting and a whole host of other sins.
Are these people not Christians as well? Where do you stand?
Hello there!
I love that you said this:
"But, when you dig a little deeper, you learn that Affirmative Action wasn't created to give minorities an unfair advantage, it was created to rectify a preexisting advantage created by white people."
{raised black glove}
Tru dat!
Big Man,
Is it really a sign of intellectual vigor to command your readers to not respond to someone that doesn't share their assumptions and fundamental paradigm about life?
You ask,
So, once again, explain the biblical basis for your sin hierarchy that places abortion above all other sins, and then hot that allows you to decide that a politician's refusal to outlaw abortion is a sign that they are not a Christian.
And I answer,
It should be self-evident that "thou shall not spill the blood of innocence" to be near the top of the commandment hierarchy. In fact, I believe it is the 6th commandment with the preceding 5 all in relation to putting nothing before God.
Now, abortion is clearly a violation of this top commandment unless you think:
What is being aborted isn't the blood of innocence?
or,
Women have a fundamental "right" to spill the blood of innocence, but euphemistacally call it abortion or choice?
Now, in order for someone to claim faith in Christianity, he can't claim the latter and leave ambiguous about what he thinks of the former.
Barack Obama claims to be a Christian abortion advocate, but he's really a charlatan.
Next you ask,
Then explain what it means that politicians and most Americans do not want to outlaw fornication, adultery, lying, cheating, gossiping, backbiting and a whole host of other sins.
And I answer,
Again, you conflate the issue of whether Barack Obama needs to either renounce his Christian faith or whether he needs to renounce his belief in the fundamental "right" to spill innocent blood with some call to outlaw this and that. That was never the discussion and only keeps being put forward so as to give you the opportunity to obfuscate on the issue at hand.
Deacon Blue,
Maybe you were in a position to "oppress" people of color? Maybe you were in a position to thwart the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of some non-whites? And maybe you need to make up for all that nastiness you put forth in the past?
But what about the vast majority of us that have never been in your position?
Oh wait... We have, but we just don't know it. And certainly don't ask us who have practiced "oppression" to give some real concrete examples of such practice.
Again, what is "white privilege" other than some academic jargon for how humans usually behave?
Are you "better" because you no longer "oppress" others? I say good for you, but don't extend this idea to the understanding that because you oppressed non-whites so did everyone else. That soothing feeling is a false and dangerous one.
Lolo,
Just because someone claims to be oppressed doesn't make it so.
And if someone claims oppression while having the freedom to voice their conscience on a global scale by declaring the evilness and diabolical nature of her "oppressors," doesn't one have a right to question someone's notion of "oppression?"
thanks for responding. ill respond tomorrow
Thor
The issue has always been about whether Obama supports killing babies, or whether he supports allowing women to choose to have abortions.
Why?
Because the two things are not the same.
I personally would not advocate for a woman who was pregnant to have an abortion unless her life was in danger. It hurts my spirit. However, I would never support a law that made it illegal for women to have an abortion. There is a difference. I do not believe allowing women to have an abortion is a violation of God's will for me as a Christian. I have reached this conclusion through repeated study of the Bible and through listening to other ministers I trust.
Obama has expressed this same sentiment on numerous occassions. YOU have decided that there is no nuance in this issue despite the attempts by myself and by DV to show you that nuance.
That means that you don't want there to be any nuance because you want to follow the path you have already chosen. That's cool, but let's not pretend that you are actually giving these issues a fair shake.
Second
Your answer on the sin question was telling. First, you called the fifth commandment a "top commandment" despite the fact that it's fifth. You tried to justify this by pointing out this is the first commandment not dealing with how people should serve God. However, my reading of the Bible show that honor thy father and mother come before murder, which comes RIGHT BEFORE ADULTERY.
Once again, you refuse to discuss a core point of mine. Adultery is a sin. It's even one of the ten commandments. So is lying and coveting. Yet, I have not heared you say that if someone support an individual's "fundamental right" to commit adulutery or lie, than they cannot be a Christian. I have not heared you say that if a politician refuses to outlaw adultery and lying, they cannot be a Christian.
Why is that?
I'm thinking it's because your entire premise is built on hypocrisy and you know that it has no Biblical backing besides the scriptures you pick and choose out of context. You refuse to discuss the adultery, coveting and lying issue because you know that if you used those sins it would be much more difficult. After all, it is very hard to find anyone who believes that adultery, lying and coveting should be against the law. Why? Because far more people are guilty of these sins on a regular basis, while far fewer people have abortions. Therefore, it's much easier for people to scream and holler about outlawing abortion than it is to scream and holler about outlawing the aforementioned three sins, let alone all the other sins that are listed in the Bible.
Finally
Thor, I told my readers not to bother with you for the same reason I won't be bothering with you after this.
Your arguments are pointless.
You claim that Obama "advocates" for abortion, while knowing that he has said that he does not want people to have abortions but believes in a woman's right to make that choice herself.
You claim that it's not about outlawing abortion, but you have yet to explain what it is about.
You ignore a host of other sins to focus on abortion, yet don't adequately explain the biblical basis for this decision.
In short, you are creating your on set of rules and your own reality and then trying to force other people to live according to it. And you're pretending that you're not doing this. The Bible tells Christians to live a certain way, but it makes it clear that this is a choice, and it restricts us from forcing others to live by our beliefs.
It's pointless to discuss anything with somebody who uses the techniques you use, so I told my readers to ignore you.
But guess what? Just like all humans, they have the free will granted to them by God, so they will make their own choices.
Big Man,
That rebuttal was weak.
If a jihadist lets me choose death by rusty jungle sword or death by a thousand rocks, does that mean the jihadist supports an infidel's "right to choose."
Again, WHO are these avowed Christians that are claiming a fundamental "right" to lie and commit adultery? WHO???
If Mamma Obama said she wanted to abort Malia and Natasha then the President father would assert that she had the "fundamental right" to do so and he would assert this as a proclaimed Christian. This is nonsense and you know it, but you can't come to grips with the fact that Obama's "Christianity" is soiled and charlatanesque.
All these other issues are an attempt by you to take the discussion somewhere else other than on Obama, the abortion advocate (one who believes a mother has a "fundamental right" to spill the blood of her child), and Obama, the pseudo-Christian.
Please name JUST ONE OTHER prominent Christian that claims a mother's "fundamental right" to kill her child in utero.
Big Man, you don't have to think I'm a liar just because you were "educated" to think such things. It damn near borderlines on some kind of subtle racism in which only I can perceive.
Post a Comment