Are Blacks Being Eliminated in the US?

 

Whitney Curtis/The New York Times

Whitney Curtis/The New York Times

You’re probably already familiar with the events occurring in Ferguson, Missouri where an 18 year old unarmed black man named Mike Brown was shot and killed by a white police officer. The response from both social media and the ground has been that this is yet another instance of racist white cops killing unarmed black men in what is clearly an indication of systematic racism. The media has had a field day with the story, and it has clogged news sources for weeks.

I’m not here to argue that Mike Brown was or wasn’t at fault. Nor am I here to defend or deny my “white privilege”. I’m not even here to defend or condemn the white cop who did the shooting. You can find that material elsewhere.

I want to talk about a rap song that was trending on Facebook recently called “Don’t Shoot”. It’s a collaboration between rap artist The Game and about 13 other artists. Honestly, I rather enjoyed the song, which is a response to the events in Ferguson. While I don’t necessarily agree with their perspective, I liked it’s musical qualities and the fact that it was talking about something important (as opposed to sex, drugs, and alcohol). Check out the lyrics here.

One particular line stood out to me (from collab artist Problem): “The revolution has been televised/If I sit here and don’t do nothing/Homie that is genocide.” The message is that the African-American community needs to take notice of this event, and rise up and demand justice. This line really stood out to me because the rapper says that Mike Brown is the start of a black genocide and this is evidence that something needs to be done.

While I recognize that this is probably hyperbole to illustrate a point, Problem missed the mark. He decided it was worth his time to participate in a song and talk about black genocide from systematic racism. Yet, he won’t talk about the real black genocide that has been waged legally in this country for more than 40 years (and arguably much longer than that).

The Real Black Genocide

According to the CDC, since 1973 more than 16 million African-Americans have been aborted. If you think this is a solely a function of low-income demand for abortion, think again. The fact is that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America, has a long and storied history of racism against minorities, particularly African-Americans. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a vocal advocate for eugenics (the philosophy, infamous for its adoption in Nazi Germany, that seeks to create a superior race by eliminating those “unfit to breed”), birth control, and sterilization.  Her legacy is steeped in racist ideology, and while it is true that eugenics was mainstream in America in the 1930’s, she had no scruples about pushing her elitist agenda. Many of her contemporaries openly praised Nazi eugenic methods as “humanitarian” and “scientific”, positions that Sanger herself fiercely defended. She was a member of the American Eugenics Society and was a speaker at Ku Klux Klan gatheringsYou can read all about the legacy of Sanger here.

(To be fair, it should be noted that Sanger did live in a time where the “science” of eugenics was wildly popular. Some have used this as an end-all justification for her actions, but the ends never justify the means. Leben Magazine has a great article about the American church and eugenics in their July 2014 issue, which I will post here when it is available online.)

Think this is just in the past? Think again. Planned Parenthood has never renounced any of its racist history and its highest national award is still called the Margaret Sanger Award. In 2008, the CDC data revealed that 42% of all abortions come from black women, yet African-Americans make up only 12.6% of the population. Abortion centers overwhelmingly target minority and traditionally African-American neighborhoods and Planned Parenthood has nearly 80% of their abortion centers in minority neighborhoods. Life Dynamics, a pro-life advocacy organization, did their own analysis of zip codes and found that abortion centers were most likely to be found in minority neighborhoods, and they published their survey and methodology for public scrutiny. The abortion rate among black women is five times higher than among white women and it has been reported that in some states, such as Mississippi, black women get 78% of the abortions. Planned Parenthood claims it does more than just abortions, but the fact is that they referred out a mere 5,000 women to adoption centers vs. the more than 350,000 abortions they performed in 2007. (And it only makes sense: abortion pays. According to Planned Parenthood’s own website, an abortion will run you anywhere from $300 to $1,700. That’s a nice chunk of profit which keeps the corporation motivated to keep bringing in abortion clients as opposed to referring to an adoption agency, which doesn’t pay. Some abortionists charge more than that, with late term abortions running between $2-3,000.)

In New York city, more black babies are aborted than are born alive, with 1,223 abortions for every 1,000 live births. Yet, suspiciously, the rate of white abortions is a mere 265 abortions per 1,000 live births.  Finally, in a full circle to the events in Ferguson, the current President of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, surmised that the events in Ferguson show us how important it is for people to have the choice to abort their children. (Interestingly enough, Richards’ echoes the sentiment expressed in a 1950 pamphlet distributed by the Human Betterment League of North Carolina, which advocated sterilization of “mental defectives”. They said, ” No child should be born to subnormal parents and denied a fair, healthy start in life.”) Ferguson is the kind of community that Planned Parenthood has historically worked to eliminate.

Injustice Demands A Response

Black genocide from racist cops in Missouri? No. The real holocaust has been going on for years, arguably since the end of slavery. The real black genocide has claimed more than 16 million victims at a rate of 363,000 a year, and is the number one killer in the black community. It masquerades as justice, flaunts itself as choice, and tears down the black community from the inside.

If rap artists are going to take a stand against injustice, against genocide, against evildoers, they need to start here. This is the real black genocide. Innocents are being slaughtered for profit, and the victims are disproportionately black. Worse yet, the worst offender of these crimes is a multi-million dollar pseudo-corporation that has hundreds of locations nationwide; the quintessential greedy conglomerate. When we ignore the decimation of the black population by abortion, we quietly fulfill the vision of the Margaret Sangers of the world; one where minorities are wiped out. This is the great civil rights debate of our day. The abortion industry in our country has its roots to an openly racist agenda and this is an agenda that has never been denied. Since 1973, over 25% of the black population has been eliminated through legal abortion.

I could go on and on about the racist practices of abortion practitioners, like how Planned Parenthood accepted donations that were specifically earmarked for black abortions. You can fool yourself into believing that it isn’t happening anymore, but the evidence points to the contrary. Want to help stop the black genocide? Start here. It’s much more important than what’s going on in Ferguson.

For more information about Planned Parenthood’s prolific racist history, watch the incredibly well-researched documentary Maafa 21.

 

The Worldview that Makes the Underclass

Image links to source

Image links to source

This is a really great article from Imprimis (publication of Hillsdale College) that discusses the mentality of poverty. It’s a really good read.

————————

ANTHONY DANIELS, who often writes under the penname Theodore Dalrymple, is the Dietrich Weismann Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. Born in London in 1949, he qualified as a doctor in 1974 and has worked in various countries in Africa and elsewhere. From 1990 to 2005, he worked as a doctor and psychiatrist in a prison in Birmingham, England. He has written a column for the London Spectator for 14 years, and writes regularly forNational Review and the Wall Street Journal. He has published more than 20 books, including Not With a Bang But a Whimper: The Politics & Culture of Decline, The New Vichy Syndrome: Why European Intellectuals Surrender to Barbarism, and Life at the Bottom: The Worldview that Makes the Underclass.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 20, 2014, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Dearborn, Michigan.

I worked for 15 years as a doctor and psychiatrist in a general hospital in a poor area of a British city and in the prison next door, where I was on duty one night in three. The really dangerous people were in the hospital, perhaps because of the presence in the prison next door of very large uniformed men who exerted a strangely calming effect on the prisoners. In the hospital, I personally examined many thousands of patients who had attempted suicide or at least made a suicidal gesture (not quite the same thing of course). They were overwhelmingly from poor homes, and each patient told me of the lives of the three, four, or five people closest to them—and I spoke to many of those people as well. I could not, of course, have spoken to so many people, and heard about so many others, without some general impressions forming themselves in my mind. One abiding impression was of the violence of their lives, particularly that between the sexes—largely the consequence of the fluidity of relations between the sexes—and also of the devastating effect of prevalent criminality upon the quality of daily existence.

Before I did this work, I had spent a number of years working as a doctor in Africa and in other places in the Third World. I also crossed Africa by public transport, such as it was, and consequently saw much of that continent from the bottom up. These experiences also helped me in my understanding of what I was later to see in England. As Dr. Johnson put it, all judgment is comparative; or as Kipling said, “What should they know of England who only England know?” Indeed, what should anyone know of anywhere, who only that place knows?

On my return to England, I used to visit the homes of poor people as part of my medical duties. Bear in mind that I had returned from some of the poorest countries in the world, where—in one case—a single hen’s egg represented luxury and the people wore the cast-off clothes of Europe that had been donated by charity. When I returned to England, I was naturally inclined to think of poverty in absolute rather than in relative terms—as people not having enough to eat, having to fetch water from three miles away, and so forth. But I soon ceased to think of it in that fashion.

In the course of my duties, I would often go to patients’ homes. Everyone lived in households with a shifting cast of members, rather than in families. If there was an adult male resident, he was generally a bird of passage with a residence of his own somewhere else. He came and went as his fancy took him. To ask a child who his father was had become an almost indelicate question. Sometimes the child would reply, “Do you mean my father at the moment?” Others would simply shake their heads, being unwilling to talk about the monster who had begot them and whom they wished at all costs to forget.

I should mention a rather startling fact: By the time they are 15 or 16, twice as many children in Britain have a television as have a biological father living at home. The child may be father to the man, but the television is father to the child. Few homes were without televisions with screens as large as a cinema—sometimes more than one—and they were never turned off, so that I often felt I was examining someone in a cinema rather than in a house. But what was curious was that these homes often had no means of cooking a meal, or any evidence of a meal ever having been cooked beyond the use of a microwave, and no place at which a meal could have been eaten in a family fashion. The pattern of eating in such households was a kind of foraging in the refrigerator, as and when the mood took, with the food to be consumed sitting in front of one of the giant television screens. Not surprisingly, the members of such households were often enormously fat.

Surveys have shown that a fifth of British children do not eat a meal more than once a week with another member of their household, and many homes do not have a dining table. Needless to say, this pattern is concentrated in the lower reaches of society, where so elementary but fundamental a means of socialization is now unknown. Here I should mention in passing that in my hospital, the illegitimacy rate of the children born in it, except for those of Indian-subcontinental descent, was approaching 100 percent.

It was in the prison that I first realized I should listen carefully, not only to what people said, but to the way that they said it. I noticed, for example, that murderers who had stabbed someone always said of the fatal moment that “the knife went in.” This was an interesting locution, because it implied that it was the knife that guided the hand rather than the hand that guided the knife. It is clear that this locution serves to absolve the culprit, at least in his own mind, from his responsibility for his act. It also seeks to persuade the listener that the culprit is not really guilty, that something other than his decisions led to the death of the victim. This was so even if the victim was a man against whom the perpetrator was known to have a serious grudge, and whom he sought out at the other side of the city having carried a knife with him.

The human mind is a subtle instrument, and something more than straightforward lying was going on here. The culprit both believed what he was saying and knew perfectly well at the same time that it was nonsense. No doubt this kind of bad faith is not unique to the type of people I encountered in the hospital and the prison. In Shakespeare’s King Lear, Edmund, the evil son of the Earl of Gloucester, says:

This is the excellent foppery of the world: that when we are sick in fortune—often the surfeit of our own behaviour—we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars, as if we were villains on necessity; fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and treachers, by spherical predominance; drunkards, liars, and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on. An admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!

In other words, it wasn’t me.

This passage points, I think, to an eternal and universal temptation of mankind to blame those of his misfortunes that are the natural and predictable consequence of his own choices on forces or circumstances that are external to him and outside his control. Is there any one of us who has never resorted to excuses about his circumstances when he has done wrong or made a bad decision? It is a universal human tendency. But in Britain, at any rate, an entire class of persons has been created that not only indulges in this tendency, but makes it their entire world outlook—and does so with official encouragement.

Let me take as an example the case of heroin addicts. In the 1950s, heroin addiction in Britain was confined to a very small number of people, principally in bohemian circles. It has since become a mass phenomenon, the numbers of addicts having increased perhaps two thousandfold, to something like 250,000 to 300,000. And with the statistically insignificant exception of members of the popular culture elite, heroin addiction is heavily concentrated in areas of the country such as the one in which I worked.

Heroin addiction has been presented by officialdom as a bona fide disease that strikes people like, shall we say, rheumatoid arthritis. In the United States, the National Institute on Drug Abuse defines addiction quite baldly as a chronic relapsing brain disease—and nothing else. I hesitate to say it, but this seems to me straightforwardly a lie, told to willing dupes in order to raise funds from the federal government.

Be that as it may, the impression has been assiduously created and peddled among the addicts that they are the helpless victims of something that is beyond their own control, which means that they need the technical assistance of what amounts to a substantial bureaucratic apparatus in order to overcome it. When heroin addicts just sentenced to imprisonment arrived, they said to me, “I would give up, doctor, if only I had the help.” What they meant by this was that they would give up heroin if some cure existed that could be administered to them that would by itself, without any resolution on their part, change their behavior. In this desire they appeared sincere—but at the same time they knew that such a cure did not exist, nor would most of them have agreed to take it if it did exist.

In fact, the whole basis of the supposed treatment for their supposed disease is rooted in lies and misconceptions. For example, research has shown that most addicts spend at least 18 months taking heroin intermittently before they become addicted. Nor are they ignorant while they take it intermittently of heroin’s addictive properties. In other words, they show considerable determination in becoming addicts: It is something, for whatever reason, that they want to become. It is something they do, rather than something that happens to them. Research has shown also that heroin addicts lead very busy lives one way or another—so busy, in fact, that there is no reason why they could not make an honest living if they so wished. Indeed, this has been known for a long time, for in the 1920s and 30s in America, morphine addicts for the most part made an honest living.

Withdrawal from opiates, the fearfulness of which, reiterated in film and book, is often given as one of the main reasons for not abandoning the habit, is in fact a pretty trivial condition, certainly by comparison with illnesses which most of us have experienced, or by comparison with withdrawal from other drugs. I have never heard an alcoholic say, for example, that he fears to give up alcohol because of delirium tremens—a genuinely dangerous medical condition, unlike withdrawal from heroin. Research has shown that medical treatment is not necessary for heroin addicts to abandon their habit and that many thousands do so without any medical intervention whatsoever.

In Britain at least, heroin addicts do not become criminals because they are addicted (and can raise funds to buy their drugs only by crime); those who take heroin and indulge in criminal behavior have almost always indulged in extensive criminal behavior before they were ever addicted. Criminality is a better predictor of addiction than is addiction of criminality.

In other words, all the bases upon which heroin addiction is treated as if it is something that happens to people rather than something that people do are false, and easily shown to be false. This is so whatever the latest neuro-scientific research may supposedly show.

I have taken the example of heroin addiction as emblematic of what, with some trepidation, I may call the dialectical relationship between the worldview of those at the bottom of society and the complementary worldview of what one might call the salvationist bureaucracy of the government. In the old Soviet Union there was a joke in which the workers would say to the party bosses, “We pretend to work and you pretend to pay us.” In the case of the heroin addicts, they might say, “We pretend to be ill, and you pretend to cure us.”

One of the possible dangers or consequences of such a charade is that it creates a state of dishonest dependency on the part of the addicts. They wait for salvation as Estragon and Vladimir wait for Godot in Samuel Beckett’s play; they wait for something that will never arrive, and that at least in some part of their mind they knowwill never arrive—but that officialdom persists in telling them will arrive someday.

Dishonest passivity and dependence combined with harmful activity becomes a pattern of life, and not just among drug addicts. I remember going into a single mother’s house one day. The house was owned by the local council; her rent was paid, and virtually everything that she owned, or that she and her children consumed, was paid for from public funds. I noticed that her back garden, which could have been pretty had she cared for it, was like a noxious rubbish heap. Why, I asked her, do you not clear it up for your children to play in? “I’ve asked the council many times to do it,” she replied. The council owned the property; it was therefore its duty to clear up the rubbish that she, the tenant, had allowed to accumulate there—and this despite what she knew to be the case, that the council would never do so! Better the rubbish should remain there than that she do what she considered to be the council’s duty. At the same time she knew perfectly well that she was capable of clearing the rubbish and had ample time to do so.

This is surely a very curious but destructive state of mind, and one that some politicians have unfortunately made it their interest to promote by promising secular salvation from relative poverty by means of redistribution. Whether by design or not, the state in England has smashed up all forms of social solidarity that are independent of it. This is not an English problem alone: In France the word solidarité, solidarity, has come to mean high taxation for redistribution by state officials to other parts of the population, which of course are neither grateful for the subventions nor find them sufficient to meet their dreams, and which are, in fact, partly responsible for their need for them in the first place. And not surprisingly, some of the money sticks to the hands of the redistributionist bureaucracy.

By a mixture of ideology and fiscal and social policies, the family has been systematically fractured and destroyed in England, at least in the lowest part of the society that, unfortunately, needs family solidarity the most. There are even, according to some researchers, fiscal and welfare incentives for parents at the lower economic reaches of society not to stay together.

Certainly the notions of dependence and independence have changed. I remember a population that was terrified of falling into dependence on the state, because such dependence, apart from being unpleasant in itself, signified personal failure and humiliation. But there has been an astonishing gestalt switch in my lifetime. Independence has now come to mean independence of the people to whom one is related and dependence on the state. Mothers would say to me that they were pleased to be independent, by which they meant independent of the fathers of their children—usually more than one—who in general were violent swine. Of course, the mothers knew them to be violent swine before they had children by them, but the question of whether a man would be a suitable father is no longer a question because there are no fathers: At best, though often also at worst, there are only stepfathers. The state would provide. In the new dispensation the state, as well as television, is father to the child.

A small change in locution illustrates a change in the character and conceptions of a people. When I started out as a doctor in the mid-1970s, those who received state benefits would say, “I receive my check on Friday.” Now people who receive such benefits say, “I getpaid on Friday.” This is an important change. To have said that they received their check on Friday was a neutral way of putting it; to say that they get paid on Friday is to imply that they are receiving money in return for something. But what can that something be, since they do not appear to do anything of economic value to anyone else? It can only be existence itself: They are being paid to continue to exist, existence itself being their work.

It has been said that the lamentable state of affairs I have described has been brought about by the decline, inevitable as we now see it, of the kind of industry that once employed millions of unskilled workers, whose wages, though low by today’s standards, were nevertheless sufficient to sustain a stable, though again by today’s standards not rich, society. And I do not think that this view can be altogether dismissed. But it is far from the whole story. One of the curious features of England in the recent past is that it has consistently maintained very high levels of state-subsidized idleness while importing almost equivalent numbers of foreigners to do unskilled work.

Let me here interject something about the intellectual and moral corruption wrought by the state in recent years—and I don’t know whether it applies to America. The governments of Britain, of both political parties, managed to lessen the official rate of unemployment by the simple expedient of shifting people from the ranks of the unemployed to the ranks of the sick. This happened on such a huge scale that, by 2006—a year of economic boom, remember—the British welfare state had achieved the remarkable feat of producing more invalids than the First World War. But it is known that the majority of those invalids had no real disease. This feat, then, could have been achieved only by the willing corruption of the unemployed themselves—relieved from the necessity to seek work and relieved to have a slightly higher subvention—but also of the doctors who provided them with official certificates that they knew to be bogus. And the government was only too happy, for propaganda purposes, to connive at such large-scale fraud. One begins to see what Confucius meant when he said, 2,500 years ago, that the first thing to do to restore a state to health was to rectify the names—in other words, to call things by their right names rather than by euphemisms.

There are three reasons that I can think of why we imported foreign labor to do unskilled work while maintaining large numbers of unemployed people. The first is that we had destroyed all economic incentive for the latter to work. The second is that the foreigners were better in any case, because their character had not been rotted; they were often better educated—it is difficult to plumb the shallows of the British state educational system for children of the poorest homes—and had a much better work ethic. And the third was the rigidity of the housing market that made it so difficult for people to move around once they had been granted the local privilege of subsidized housing.

I will leave you with an anecdote. As Mao Tse-tung might have put it, one anecdote is worth a thousand abstractions.

I had been asked by the courts to examine a young woman, aged 18, who was accused of having attacked and injured her 90-year-old great-grandmother, with whom she lived, while under the influence of alcohol and cannabis. She had broken her great-grandmother’s femur, but fortunately it did not prove fatal. (Incidentally, the homicide rate, it is said, would be five times higher than it is if we used the same medical techniques as were used in 1960.) I asked the young woman in the course of my examination whether her mother had ever been in trouble with the police.

“Yes,” she replied.

“What for?” I asked.

“Well, she was on the social,” she said—“on the social” in English argot means receiving welfare payments—“and she was working.”

“What happened?” I asked. “She had to stop working.”

She said this as if it was so obvious that my question must be that of a mental defective. Work is for pocket money, the public dole is the means by which one lives.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the view from the bottom, at least in Britain: but it is a view that has been inculcated and promoted from the top.

 

View Original Post Here

Why I’m Not A Heterosexual Anymore

funny wedding pic

Marriage!

I’m not a heterosexual anymore. That may seem strange coming from someone like me, but hear me out.

Let’s talk about what it means to “not be heterosexual.”

You’re probably thinking, “Oh boy…he’s gay.” But that’s not the case. I’m not gay, I’m very happily married to a woman. But I’m also not a heterosexual anymore…and neither is my wife, for that matter.

Here’s the thing: heterosexuality is a myth. By implication, this also means that homosexuality is a myth. In an article published in First Things magazine by future-monk Michael Hannon entitled, “Against Heterosexuality,” a case is clearly laid out against sexual orientation. Hannon writes:

First of all, within orientation essentialism, the distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality is a construct that is dishonest about its identity as a construct. These classifications masquerade as natural categories, applicable to all people in all times and places according to the typical objects of their sexual desires (albeit with perhaps a few more options on offer for the more politically correct categorizers). Claiming to be not simply an accidental nineteenth-century invention but a timeless truth about human sexual nature, this framework puts on airs, deceiving those who adopt its labels into believing that such distinctions are worth far more than they really are.

Basically, what he is saying is that the idea of a sexual orientation is deceptive in that a LOT of people believe that heterosexuality is the norm, the eternally changeless state of how people “should be” and homosexuality (and by implication, homosexuals) is a giant mistake. It’s deceptive because the concept of sexual orientation is less than 150 years old.

Hannon argues that sexual orientation is something we should dismiss from our minds and vocabulary precisely because it goes about defining people and sexuality entirely backwards. Sometime in the 19th century, scholars decided to start defining sexuality, not by it’s obvious natural function (aka, having kids), but by the object of sexual desire. This short circuit of the old view of sexuality removed the motivation for chastity by removing the common good from marriage: children. Sex became purely about passion and feelings, and without a concrete tie between it and nature/reality, the very idea of “heterosexuality” began to lose its meaning. (See Hannon’s article for a deeper analysis of this thought.)

Perhaps the most powerful truth that Hannon unlocks is that when we think about people in terms of heterosexuality (or “normal”) and homosexual (“abnormal”), the sexual orientation lens we are looking through colors our view of people’s actions. Suddenly, we aren’t seeing sexual sin the way the Bible describes it, as equally damning no matter the sin (by that I mean that any sin, no matter how small, is enough to incur God’s holy justice). We see “heterosexual” sin as one thing, and “homosexual” sin as another. Do we see what has happened here? In essence, we are using categories that classifies one group as socially normal (“heterosexual”), and thus free from moral judgement, and the other group as socially unacceptable and the target of all moral judgement. As Hannon so succinctly says:

The most pernicious aspect of the orientation-identity system is that it tends to exempt heterosexuals from moral evaluation… Nevertheless, as a general rule, identifying as a heterosexual person today amounts to declaring oneself a member of the “normal group,” against which all deviant sexual desires and attractions and temptations are to be measured… Of course, we do have a model norm for the evaluation of sexual deviancy. But that model is not heterosexuality. It is Christ Jesus himself, the God-man who both perfected human nature and perfectly exemplified its perfection, ‘one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.’ For the self-declared heterosexual to displace our Lord in this position is the height of folly.

By saying we are heterosexual, we are putting ourselves into a special category that has a different standard of judgement than the homosexual category. Not to mention that the very idea of sexual identity removes responsibility from one’s attractions. We’ve all heard the refrain, “I was born this way.” It’s offered up as an excuse for one’s actions, but as Christians, we know that we are born sinful, and yet are still responsible for our actions. The sexual orientation idea clouds this truth.

In accepting this paradox of heterosexual vs. homosexual, Christians have given up their greatest weapon in combating sin and immorality. For years, people have said that homosexuality is sinful, when such a thing is impossible for the Bible to condemn, simply because the idea of sexual identity and “homosexuality” is less than 200 years old! What the Bible has always condemned is sexual sin outside of marriage, same-gender sexual acts included. By putting these acts into their own category, then inextricably attaching them to the individual performing them, we have denied the power of the Gospel to free sinners by denying that they really are sinning.

In light of this,  the question, “What do you, as a Christian, think about homosexuality?” becomes meaningless because it’s the wrong question. The question is, “What do you, as a Christian, think about sexual sin?” We have had such difficulty answering questions about homosexuality, all while struggling to convey that the Bible has a message of love and redemption. We are seduced by the pridefulness of being “normal heterosexuals” because at least we aren’t “abnormal homosexuals”. It’s strongly implied that “homosexual” sin is worse than “heterosexual” sin. And that has been a fatal mistake.

We are all sinners. We need Jesus Christ and His redemptive blood covering our sins. It’s time to repent of being prideful because we’re “normal”. We’re not. We are broken and in need of healing, “heterosexual” and “homosexual” alike.

Because we’re all human.

I highly recommend reading Hannon’s article. It was incredibly enlightening for me and he covers a lot of ground that I didn’t. I hope I gave a good account of this subject; please let me know in the comments!

3 Things More Important Than the Duck Dynasty “Controversy”

A+E Networks 2013 Upfront

So if you haven’t noticed, there’s a show on A&E called “Duck Dynasty”. Quite frankly, I don’t really know what it’s about because I saw one episode and thought it was kind of cheesy, but a lot of Christians I know like the show because the Robertson family (the stars of the show) are all Christians. Which is awesome! Well, Phil Robertson, one of the stars, gave an interview stating the Biblical position on homosexuality (plus some crude/vulgar terminology that could have been entirely avoided) and now he’s been suspended from the show.

Christians everywhere are in an uproar and a Facebook page called, “Boycott A&E Until Phil Robertson Is Put Back On Duck Dynasty” now has over 700,000 likes. I could go on, but I really think it’s a predictable narrative and ultimately, it may not matter. Christians are going to continue to be marginalized in this country and I think it’s important to remember how bad things aren’t. Consider these 3 things that are more important than this current controversy.

#3.  North Korea’s  psychotic leader is making everyone nervous

The Issue: North Korea is one of the last truly Communist nations left in the world. As such, their leadership is kind of crazy. When Kim Jong-un took over the country a few short years ago, the international community wondered if this signaled a change for the country of 24 million.

Apparently not.  Kim Jong-un recently executed his uncle who had been his adviser. Like, straight up had him killed after he had him accused of treason. Until now, everyone kind of just didn’t really take Kim Jong-un very seriously. But now that he’s acting crazier, it’s making some people nervous. Like China.

Why It’s More Important Than Duck Dynasty: Because North Korea could actually turn into a threat, politically or economically, to the US. Duck Dynasty? Not so much.

#2. Russia just bought Ukraine; citizens of Ukraine aren’t happy

The Issue: Ukraine has been involved in political turmoil and government protests for weeks now, and the country’s president just announced that he signed an agreement with Vladmir Putin of Russia that basically amounts to a government bailout.

Russia agreed to slash gas prices for Ukraine and buy 11 billion euros worth of government bonds in exchange for…? No one is really sure what Russia’s angle is, but the citizens of Ukraine aren’t buying it, as this is widely seen as a move to pull Ukraine into a tighter relationship in order to keep the small industrial country from joining the EU.

Why It’s More Important Than Duck Dynasty: Well, because it actually matters in terms of international politics. Russia wants to be a world superpower again, and that affects the whole world. Phil Robertson got suspended. Have we gotten some perspective yet?

#1. South Sudan is about to be launched into a civil war

The Issue: South Sudan became a nation in 2011 after nearly 25 years of civil war in Sudan finally ended. Now, there is political unrest in the region, and violence has been escalating in the past few days.  As EuroNews reports, “The violence pits loyalists of former Vice President Riek Machar against the administration of President Salva Kiir.”

The two forces are largely aligned with two warring ethnic groups, the Dinka tribe, which is aligned with President Kiir, and the Nuer group, which is aligned with former Vice President Machar, but there is debate on whether or not the conflict is ethnically or politically motivated. 

Why It’s More Important Than Duck Dynasty: Because a lot of people have already died, and if this gets worse, a lot more will die. This poses a major threat to Christians in the nation, because South Sudan is generally considered the more Christian nation, with Sudan in the North having a much larger Muslim population. This could be a really bad situation for the Church over there, so please be praying about it.

I don’t want to completely downplay the Duck Dynasty situation, because I do think some of what happened is unjustified. But really, in comparison to what’s going on in the word, it’s not as big of an issue as South Sudan. 

The Cold War is Happening Again in Ukraine

If you haven’t been following the events in Ukraine, you should go check it out on Twitter. The hashtags is #euromaidan. Basically, it’s Russia vs. The West all over again and the battleground is Ukraine. Essentially, the president was going to sign an agreement with the EU but balked at the last minute when Russia threatened sanctions. So protestors gathered on the Maidan in Kyiv to protest and things have gotten interesting. I would expound with better commentary but I have to keep it short tonight. Just keep an eye on things over there…it’s going to get interesting.

The Shooter’s Saviour

I had originally intended to write my thoughts on the Sandy Hook incident and the political implications it has for us as a nation. I’ve read a lot of news coverage on the events of last Friday and I’ve read multiple perspectives on what happened there. I’ve read the pros and cons of banning assault weapons and other guns. I’ve examined the arguments for more mental health services and more guns. I’ve read about how a Christian is to respond to this situation. Now, I feel ready to write a little something about my own thoughts on the matter.

There’s been a lot of emphasis on the shooter’s choice of weapons and how we should respond to that. There have been cries for greater gun control by the left and the right has pushed back, per usual. It’s not my intent to really examine the merits of gun control, but I will say this: evil does not originate from objects. It originates from the human heart. No amount of well-meaning legislation will make a significant impact because people are evil regardless of what laws are placed on them. Evil is still evil.  (To get a glimpse of what I mean, watch this testimony of a shooting victim explaining the futility of banning “high-capacity magazines”.) It doesn’t make sense to me that banning a certain kind of weapon will somehow lessen the intent or willingness of an individual to murder.

As mentioned, the responses from both sides of the political spectrum have been typical and expected. Being a conservative Republican, I obviously agree more with the GOP’s general sentiment that if there had been an armed guard at the school, the shooting would have been much different. However, there is something lacking in the “conservative Republican” response and that is that there has been a call for more “mental health” resources to help those deemed mentally ill. Let’s be honest here and call this incident what it is: sin. The shooter at Sandy Hook didn’t have a mental instability that forced him into the school and let loose a violent carnage that resulted in 20+ people dead. He had an evil desire, and that desire grew and when it matured, it resulted in death (eerily similar to what James 1:15 says). Now, that’s not to say that he wasn’t “chemically affected”. In fact, his medication may have actually contributed to the incident. Young men who experience “mental instability” and are then medicated are often the ones behind the trigger.

I think that it’s a mistake to focus on mental illness because it denies responsibility to the shooter or their parents (if applicable). It’s easy to pass off a tragedy such as this as the actions of “a lunatic”. But it’s harder to face the reality that this kind of atrocity is a calculated kind of evil. We don’t like facing that kind of reality because it informs us about something within ourselves. If this young man is capable of such violence, am I? (For a more succinct and in-depth exploration of the responsibility Christians have to reject psychobabble in favor of a Biblical doctrine of depravity, see this excellent post by blogger ChantryNotes).

There is one element that is missing from the conversation. Of course, I certainly don’t expect the media to pick up on it. There has been a lot of focus on the children who lost their lives, and rightly so. I don’t know the final destination for any of those who died, but I pray that those children are with Jesus. On the other hand, the shooter is generally portrayed as a monster beyond saving. But…

He is just as much a monster as I.

Think for a moment if this guy had been radically transformed by Jesus Christ before he died (for the sake of argument, we can assume that he was captured and had a chance to hear the Gospel). By God’s grace, he would be transformed from a degenerate into a living member of God’s adopted family, and he would go to heaven. We indignantly ask God, “How can someone who murdered more than 20 children be welcome in your kingdom?” He gently responds, “Because of the blood.” Jesus took the punishment for sin, and if the Sandy Hook shooter can be welcomed into God’s kingdom, in spite of what he did, then it means that the blood of Christ is far more precious than we can ever imagine. The vilest atrocities in this life cannot bar us from the love of Christ. If the same blood that washes us could wash that man, then that is a humbling reality. It means that our sins are far more evil than we ever thought possible because Jesus died the same death for us. The same blood that can save a mass murderer also cleanses us.

Every time something like this occurs, it is an opportunity to return to Christ. Don’t let this one pass you by.

SDG.

It’s Not Your Job

So after a long hiatus from my blog, I’m back. The congressional campaign I worked on was a tremendous experience and I treasured every moment of it. Unfortunately, my candidate (Kim Vann, who ran against liberal icon John Garamendi) did not win, but she lost by less than any other Republican challenger in the state of California. Anyway, I am no longer working 12-14 hours every day and thus have a little extra time to write in cyberspace. So I have some thoughts and encouragements for conservatives nationwide.

First of all, as many of us saw, conservatives were the losers in last weeks election. Not only did we lose virtually every race we contested (and I do mean virtually every one), but we failed to knock off some very vulnerable Democratic members in key Congressional battleground districts. I won’t get into the nitty gritty details, but the overall picture is that we failed. Such a massive failure gets one thinking about the state of society as a whole; I did what I suspect many of my conservative and Christian friends did. I analyzed everything that could possibly have gone wrong, not just with the election, but with our society and I tried to come up with solutions to fix all of it.

Now, here’s the problem. That’s impossible. Any one of us could talk for hours about everything wrong with society: the entitlement mentality that is rampant in our society, the licentiousness and debauchery that’s accepted and encouraged, the sins of our fathers visited upon our sons. To try and come up with solutions for all of that is a really big responsibility.

And you know what? In a lot of ways, it’s unbiblical. Where in His Word did God every grant to me the responsibility to fix all of society’s ills? Where did He say that His work can only be done if Republicans win elections? Where did He tell me to go and fix all of it? I don’t think He did. But I do know what He did tell me to do. He said to go into all nations and teach and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 18-20). He told me to serve Him and follow Him (John 12:26). He told me that He does things a little differently than we do (Isaiah 55:8). He said to take care of the widow and the orphan (James 1:27). But He never said, “Things are really messed up down there. Come up with a plan to fix your society, present it to me and I’ll approve it.” My job is to serve God in the capacity He has carved out for me. It is not my job to fix the world. That’s someone else’s job (Jesus, maybe?).

I think what these recent events teach us is that God is still in control no matter what. It’s also important to remember that “quality of life” is not why we exist on this planet. If the Republicans win, yes, theoretically taxes are lowered and quality of life increases (if we didn’t believe so, we wouldn’t vote for them). But in the end, we are on this earth to glorify God. And that is why, ultimately, elections are insignificant. Of course, it’s important to be good stewards of our resources and government. But God is the ultimate aim.

Those are my thoughts. What are yours?

SDG.