In this episode of Drunk Ex-Pastors, Jason and Christian receive some much-deserved props for some past wisdom given, and then dispense even more by settling a dispute involving a caller, his girlfriend, and a lottery ticket. We weigh in on the Charleston shooting and revisit the McKinney pool party, after which we tackle the issue of Rachel Dolezal, the black white crusader for black rights. Is there a difference between her and Caitlyn Jenner, between being a white girl identifying as black and a man identifying as a woman? Is it racist to make a movie called White Men Can’t Jump? Can a guy be in the KKK if he’s black, but blind and doesn’t know it? Christian is biebered by Hollywood’s laziness, while Jason’s bieber involves feeling like he is living in Nazi Germany.
Also, say what you want about the adorable little child actress, Shirley Temple, as long as one of those things is that she was a total racist.
Links From This Episode:
Podcast #69: You’re Not Gonna Live Forever (or Learn how to Fly)
Podcast #89: Anarchy and Theism
Podcast #265: Foreign Accents, our Forties, and Faux Racism
Podcast #51: Amber Waves of Jesus
I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but is racist that I think Shirley Temple in black face is adorable?
Christian, I find it very strange that the concept of hell and fear drove you so much when you were a Christian. Even to point that you were deathly afraid of flying. In my experience, I find that belief in eternal life, being apart of God’s family, heaven, and God’s promises makes me have nearly no fear of the abstract thought of dying (whether I will fear death when imminently present I will have to wait to find out).
It seems you were worried about not having right knowledge. While knowledge is important, it’s importance lies in how it drives you to loving God and neighbor. Love itself is the ultimate thing. I know you will appreciate a Bible verse 😉 :
No matter what you say – without love – does not matter. No matter what you know and understand – without love – does not matter. What you give away, up to and including your life – done without love – does not matter. Even, shockingly, the strength of your faith ultimately does not matter if you do not have love.
Once that fear was gone, you felt you could explore things outside of Christianity. So in essence, would you say that you were only Christian out of fear?
Lane, the only thing I can think is that the concept of hell that you learned was different than the concept of hell that I learned. As a fundamentalist, I learned of a literal fire that burned you forever and ever without any chance of relief for all eternity. It’s pretty difficult to have any other concept negate that one, even one of love, if there’s even the minutest possibility that you or someone you love could end up there.
seems to me, and this is a conversation that’s been happening since ep 1 of the podcast, that a great deal of christianity, especially fundamentalist christianity, is rooted in fear. fear of god’s wrath, fear of hell (which i guess is the same thing as god’s wrath), fear of the icky gays turning our kids gay, etc.
Kinda 😛
Christian,
That is the correct and orthodox view of hell. You had it right. I think that it’s charming how much this doctrine affected you. Says a lot about your heart for others! It’s a difficult doctrine to tangle with. Perhaps the most difficult of all. I don’t fault you for hating the idea. How could a good and just God allow such a thing to occur? Why give people free will if the punishment for misusing it is so draconian? It seems ridiculous. However, I think that christians might have “over riding” reasons to accept hell despite the philosophical and emotional problems.
@Christian, Maybe part of the difference is experiential. I didn’t grow up Christian, so none of these concepts were engrained into me at an early age. I was attracted to Christianity as an adult not scared into it as a child. So, I don’t sit around obsessing about what exactly hell will be like, it is enough to know that I love God and want to be a faithful member of His family. Most of the concerns you bring up about hell are nullified by my understanding that God is perfectly Just and Merciful. Whatever hell is, the one thing that it isn’t is unjust. I’m much more likely to question the details of the traditional view of hell than I am the attributes of God.
However, as a parent, I have been thinking about when to bring up the concept of hell or how I will respond if questions go in that direction. At the moment it hasn’t really come up. Currently, I have a daughter who is about to turn to 6, a son who is 3, and a -3 week old about to be born. My daughter is really smart, and asks very perceptive abstract questions sometimes about God and sometimes about other things like math (i.e. “why is there no highest number?”), that I really enjoy getting the chance to explore the answer with her. The question of hell has simply not come up yet. I’m not sure how she will respond. But your response to it, Christian, has made me reflect on it more than I might have otherwise done; which I’m sure is a good thing.
Honestly, since I converted to Catholicism (without my wife), I’m more concerned about questions like “why does dad goes to church Saturday evenings by himself”, or “why does dad have another church that he also goes to”. I’m much more concerned over trying to explain division in the Church than hell.
Blackface is racist because when it was done historically in this country it was done by actors who over exaggerated black stereotypes in a mocking manner, for the sole purpose of mocking. So it has painful cultural memories attached to it here in America.
Interesting, I have some friends in Holland. Around Christmas time they have a character that assists Santa Claus called Zwarte Piet (literally Black Pete), which is typically done as a white guy in black face. I was shocked by it when I first saw it. The Dutch see no reason why it might be racist, it is deeply imbedded in their culture. My friends were surprised when I pointed out that it might be racist. Only until very recently (last year or 2) has it come up in their country politically that it might be racist, and even then it was because of the stigma from America, I believe.
For your edification, here is Zwarte Piet Gangnam Style (which was made with no second thought):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LurEuv7LjMU
I actually remember as a child in the 80s watching Bugs Bunny cartoons with Bugs in black face!
Random thoughts
• Son, having a happy girlfriend or spouse is worth a great deal more than $20. Give it to her.
• Regarding universalism and why one should believe, I simply ask: Is Christianity only about who is going to hell or who is going to heaven or is there a message in Christianity that is beneficial and useful to our everyday lives? Will you have a better life if you love other people unreservedly with your actions? Will you make the world a better place if you give expecting nothing in return? Will you make someone’s life better by remembering that society’s outcasts are human too and treat them as such?
I ask that sincerely. Because if Christianity is only or even primarily about who gets into God’s gated community, then it seems it would be a pretty piss-poor religion to follow and I think we see the fruits of that in American Evangelicalism.
• I will say we need some sort of gun control. Period. Hey, you’re a responsible gun owner who would never think of ever pointing a gun at a human being and you lock up your guns responsibly so toddlers can’t shoot themselves in the head? Great. Other people aren’t. They shouldn’t have guns. We should do something about keeping guns out of the hands of those idiots and psychopaths.
• If a classroom full of dead Kindergarteners didn’t make us do jack shit about gun control, nothing will.
• If you wear or display the Confederate flag, you support treason in the defense of slavery. No, no, it’s about heritage. Yes. Your heritage where your ancestors broke their oath to the United States so they could keep black people as property. Your ancestors fucked up. Deal with it.
• In my understanding, they don’t operate or give a trans person drugs until they’ve undergone therapy, and they don’t operate until they’ve lived as the opposite gender for a year.
@fishercl64:disqus, in my opinion, as soon as you introduce a lake of fire that burns someone for all eternity, religion has to be primarily about who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I think you probably agree with that.
I agree on everything else you said.
Exactly!
Actually, I agree with every point you made. And I’m not sure how I feel about that…
I just don’t think blackface on its own is racist. Didn’t Robert Downey Jr. prove that to us?
I think you’re right. Just like the confederate flag on its own is not racist. It was how it was used historically that made it racist.
Yep. And you were born in this life destined to go there. Period. Didn’t matter that you were only 5-6 years old and hadn’t done anything worthy of prison let alone eternal torture. You were born wrong and God was pissed at you because your distant ancestor decided to listen to his rib woman wife who was deceived by a talking snake. Therefore, from the moment you were born, hell was your eternal destiny.
But if you believe, then God will forgive you and let you into heaven.
But it’s not that simple, because if you keep having issues with sin (and who doesn’t?) then God is still holy and he’ll get mad at you. And if you sin too much, or question things, or doubt, than it might just be proof that you didn’t really believe and God is still going to send you to hell, so repent now! Beg God for forgiveness. Or God will throw you into the fiery depths of hell where you will scream and be in agony forever.
Now, if you don’t walk away as a 6 year old with some pretty fucked up ideas about God and some deep seated anxiety, then you’re different than I was.
Don’t worry. I won’t report you to the bishop for heresy. 😉
Nah, the “burning forever in liquid hot magma” thing is tertiary at best. The main thing is Don’t Masturbate.
Interestingly, Original Sin works differently in Catholicism than in Protestantism. There is a different paradigm at work. Original Sin, unlike in Protestantism is not that everyone is automatically guilty and is going to hell. It is that Adam lost the gift of Sanctifying Grace (along with some other graces) that is required to participate in the divine life and couldn’t pass it to us. Just like a parent who loses wealth can’t pass it to their children, so we lost that gift of Grace.
Grace elevates nature, and natural man can’t participate with supernatural God. Natural man, even if he did live perfectly without sin simply can not merit the sanctifying grace require to be with God in heaven (Pelagianism denies this). Man can not earn Sanctifying Grace, it can only be given. Only Jesus’ sacrifice (not because He lived perfectly, though He did, but that His life was of infinite value as God) could earn the Grace back that Adam lost.
In Catholicism, heaven (the Beatific Vision), was not available to man until after the Cross. The OT righteous (there were many counted as righteous without faith in Jesus) were not in hell, however neither were they in heaven; they were in “Abraham’s bosom” (Luke 16:22). Only the unrighteous, who deserve punishment, receive punishment in hell. So in Catholicism, one can avoid hell, but not be in heaven with the Beatific Vision. Also, on a side note, Protestantism’s view of heaven is reduced to Abraham’s bosom.
Here is more discussion of the differences:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/09/nature-grace-and-mans-supernatural-end-feingold-kline-and-clark/
I’m with Christian on this. Having been introduced to the terror of the possibility of going to hell at an extremely young age, I didn’t really have a chance to respond to it any other way than as a toddler would. Terrified is putting it mildly.
I did something different with my fear than Christian did. I wasn’t really afraid to fly, but I was certainly terrified that I was going to be struck down by God who was dissatisfied with me, as there was no way I could ever measure up.
I have so much compassion for that little girl and also for Christian, as I really understand how terrible it is to be taught such things as a young child.
@christiankingery:disqus, I don’t think race is as clear as you seemed to make it out to be. If anything, it seems to me that race has the most arbitrariness. For example who is white, who is Mexican (as you guys like to joke)? At one point the Irish weren’t considered white in this country, nor Catholics. “White” seems to mean just the fully accepted races. In Europe there can be racism in between different country peoples (Germans, Dutch, French) that we would consider here in America all the same race. Also races mix, and no one is a “pure” anything. Races change over time, and are fluid. You go back far enough Asians aren’t from Asia, they are from Africa like everyone else (we currently think).
Also, different cultural heritages have influences as well, because we associate certain cultural ideas to race. For example, is an African immigrant as “black” as a black American whose family has been here since the time of slavery? They did not grow up with the same black experience. Should they be considered the same race? Why do we categorize by race anyway? What are we gaining by the categories?
So I don’t think race is a simple black and white issue.
Old cartoons were incredibly racist. I remember seeing several old WW2 era Bugs Bunny cartoons that would never air today due to their depiction of Japanese persons.
And I’m pretty sure Tom and Jerry cartoons at one point had an actual mammy character in them.
Yeah, go watch Dumbo again!
On a related note, check out this post by Dr. Anthony Bradley (my favorite PCAer) reflecting on the Dylann Roofs shooting and the history of racism in America. He makes the point that upper class white racism against lower class whites drove a lot of the Southern black racism in America. The problem in America has never really been about race, it has been about class. Just look how easy people say and depict derogatory things about the white lower class/southerners (rednecks, white-trash, hill-billy) and southern states without batting an eye. Even liberals who are supposedly the most sensitive to this, are usually the most guilty.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/6/dylann-roofs-struggle-for-true-whiteness.html?fb_action_ids=10102080866204368&fb_action_types=og.shares
I’m curious to get both of your thoughts on a country like Switzerland which has a very rich gun culture and high rates of gun ownership, but does not have the kinds of mass shootings that we have here. To me it seems like guns are just a means by which America’s violent culture manifests itself. It’s no surprise considering our nation’s history that we are a violent people. I hate to be a cynic, but that strikes me as a problem that simply cannot be fixed. We will never keep someone who wants to have a gun from being able to get one, nor should we in my opinion. In a world where guns exist and people are violent, I should have the freedom to meet a potential threat with like force.
Switzerland also has conscription. Part of the problem for the US is lack of gun safety training and education.
I see in your photo you’re holding a baby, possibly yours, if so, then that’s a very sad view to hold. Even granting your assertion, if Adam Lanza didn’t have multiple hand guns and a semi-automatic rifle but just knives, he would not have killed nearly as many people as he did.
It’s funny how I have a different reaction to the scratchers from everyone else — Christian makes a good point about the intent. From the voicemail, it simply sounded to me as if the boyfriend bought two tickets and gave one of the two for his girlfriend to scratch, NOT gifting it to her.
“It’s our heritage yo.” Said every racist ever.
http://www.vqronline.org/who-zwarte-piet
Some more background on the incredibly racist zwarte piet.
Well, my view is that guns are instruments and not agents of murder. But they are instruments of murder, and very effective ones at that.
And I just find it hollow for Americans to want to be the “gun country” and yet moan and wring their hands when a kindergarten gets shot up. In the same way that we can’t have freedom of religion without having to put up with Jerry Falwell, same here. It’s what happens when we make having access to firearms so easy.
My personal preference would be to eliminate guns altogether. To whatever degree we regulate gun access, to that degree there will probably be fewer mass shootings. But it’s never going to happen because we are in love with guns.
So guns, coupled with all this backward racism and misanthropy, will inevitably result in lots of senseless deaths. Oh well.
Reminded me of a meme…
Having listened to the original 3 episodes, admittedly a while ago now, I didn’t think the audio quality was noticeably bad.
The two movies whose names you guys forgot are:
It Could Happen To You (not actually a horrible movie and somewhat rewatchable) and Soul Man, which is incredibly racist.
@JasonStellman:disqus recognizing that you are simply trying to tease out a line of thinking but you contradicted yourself quite a bit with the idea that we’re moving into a post-racial world. We’re not. We still live in an incredibly racist world, as exemplified by what happened in South Carolina! Will we get there one day? That’s the hope but we’re a long way from that.
@christiankingery:disqus & @JasonStellman – race is not simply a cultural construct though it does play into it somewhat. Shows like Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and Blackish all address this issue somewhat, and especially Fresh Prince had several episodes where Carlton experienced first hand the fact that he is black despite his silver spoon upbringing.
There is also the idea of transracial, which is defined as people of different racial ethnicities as their adoptive parents. A very different concept from transsexuality.
I also don’t think the audio quality was noticeably bad in the first few episodes.
Of course written by an American.
We absolutely should try to keep some people from having guns. The mentally imbalanced, the stalker, the abusive spouse or parent, felons convicted of violent crimes, the irresponsible, etc.
Just because we can’t stop every whackjob from shooting up a place or killing their spouse and children or leaving their loaded gun in a crib doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
I hate this line of reasoning, too. It’s part of the conservative tactic of insisting that since we can’t completely solve a problem we should just do nothing. They apply it to everything.
Plus, if guns were only available on the black market, there’s no way these racist high schoolers could afford to shell out the thousands of dollars to buy one. But when they’re given as gifts by parents, well.
Liberal logic:
1. only police officers and the military should have guns.
And then….
2. Police officers and the military do an aweful job and continually abuse their power.
Awesome. 😉
Story time.
So when I was 13 years old i ran away from the police on a jetski. I was going too fast in a “no wake zone”, panicked, and hauled ass home as fast as I could. We were having a reunion so literally my entire family was outside at our lakehouse in conroe. I remember pulling up and hearing someone in shore (maybe my uncle) joke “are they coming after you!” The horrified look in my eyes probably gave him an answer he wasn’t expecting.
The police had been chasing me in the water but also had been following me on land too. Officers swarmed through my grandma’s front porch and also came out of boats onto our deck. When I finally got off the jetski and stepped on dry land I was BRUTALLY slammed into the grass with a knee on my back and a hand shoving the back of my head into the dirt. The crowd went wild, and everyone was shouting, cursing, and going berserk. My point is this… I’m not sure how much of the news lately on the police has to do with race. It’s common knowledge no matter what your race that you don’t screw around with the police. Their in constant danger, the job is difficult, and a mundane situation can turn deadly real quick. If you don’t want to get roughed up, it’s yes sir, no sir, I’m sorry sir. It’s really that simple. These people put their life on the line to protect us every day of the week. I think we should all show some respect.
If you haven’t seen the video watch when a police protester takes on the job police training on when to use force and fails miserably.
https://youtu.be/yfi3Ndh3n-g
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-top-10-dangerous-jobs-country-tanks/
Yes, yes, bow and scrape like a good powerless subject before the agents of the state. Nothing more American than that.
#2 is true.
#1 is bullshit. Are you a responsible gun owner? Great. I don’t want to take your goddamned guns.
I do want to prevent psychopaths, sociopaths, abusers, violent felons, and irresponsible assholes from obtaining an arsenal that would rival some third world militaries.
It is interesting that while right wingers bemoan both the expansion of “big government” and the loss of freedom by regulation, they seemingly love the militarization of police forces.
I use the same logic with abortion, just because we can’t stop all doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Just saying.
Great points all of you. I never meant to imply that nothing at all should be done, though after re-reading my post, I can certainly see why that was inferred. Jason, I was responding to your statement that your preference is that guns should be eliminated altogether. That is simply not realistic. That’s what I meant when I said you can keep someone who wants to get a gun from getting one. I did not mean that we should not try. I have no issue whatsoever with stricter background checks, psychological screening, safety training, etc. My “nor should we…” statement was intended to communicate that in a world where the threat of gun violence exists, people should have the right to defend themselves, but if we could speak guns out of existence, I’d be all for that.
My point was that the problem is much larger than the prevalence of guns. The problem is a culture that glorifies violence and diminishes the value of human life. Our culture praises a guy like Chris Kyle for murdering hundreds of people in the name of “liberty”, but dismisses and ignores peaceful protests of police brutality.
You make a good point. It’s a culture of violence coupled with easy access to such effective killing machines, not necessarily one or the other.
I push back against my natural inclination to be a cynic, but some days it’s a losing battle. In a world where I will spend hundreds of dollars on a device that gives me access to the internet whenever I want it while hundreds of millions of people are starving, its hard to maintain a belief that humans are anything but selfish. But do not fear for my daughter. She gives me hope, and my wife and I will teach her that she has a responsibility to resist the urge to throw up her hands and give up. Yes, I feel the mountain cannot be scaled, but that won’t stop me from strapping on a harness and climbing.
I did not know that about Switzerland. Interesting. I have no problem with education and safety training as a prerequisite for gun ownership.
@JasonStellman:disqus and @christiankingery:disqus, An interesting show topic at some point might be your views on conscription/draft vs. a professional army.
As someone who is a veteran of the Navy, I can say that I gained a lot of social mobility from being enlisted both from general respect and experience to tens of thousands of dollars for college (which I used!). So that is a plus. Also a professional army is well – professional; so it is probably more effective over against conscription in general.
However, that social mobility that I gained was at the expense of me potentially putting my life endanger, not to mention potentially putting me in morally ambiguous situations where I might be forced to do violence to others. The burden (in terms of both life and virtue) of fighting wars with a professional army fall almost exclusively on the middle and lower classes of society. The upper classes who have lots of power in society, and may play a huge role in determining when and where we go to war, do not share in those costs. Countries with compulsory conscription (like Switzerland), where everyone (or at least every male) services in the armed forces in some capacity, I find appealing from a social stand point.
Seconded! Sounds like fodder for a great discussion.
Uh, you evaded/resisted arrest, so obviously the police would be on alert when you were apprehended. Was it excessive force? That’s not necessarily for us to decide but just because the police has a badge and a gun, it doesn’t automatically confer a higher status to them. Police, along with all other government employees, are still known by their other name: public servants.
Your single anecdotal example tells us nothing, especially when matched against the countless examples of inexcusable police brutality.
Precisely. As I wrote below though maybe not so clearly, I agree with gun toting friends of mine, guns are tools. And just as we should observe safety when handling other dangerous tools (like chainsaws), we need to exercise caution and safety around this particular tool. The problem is conservatives don’t want to hear any of that. The NRA and its even crazier cousin GOA (Gun Owners of America) think that ANY safety rules NECESSARILY means no more guns. How stupid is that?
Countries with conscription (South Korea, Switzerland, and Taiwan just to name a few) also have professional armies. It’s just that all citizens (male & female in the case of SK & Swiss) need to serve for a year or two when they graduate high school or college in order to receive basic training. Some would naturally choose to stay after their mandatory service time but even conscripted soldiers, while soldiers are considered professional.
While I agree with you that a lot can be gained in the military (discipline, etc etc), the social mobility aspect, as with all other things, is in short supply these days. The class system exists in the military and in many cases are exacerbated. For example, the overwhelming majority of enlisted men and women are drawn from the south, people for whom there are no other choices, meaning they join out of high school and their ability to rise beyond NCOs is slim to none. As for the social stand point issue, it would only work if there are no loopholes. Just look at the Vietnam War when a draft was instituted and how many of the rich and famous, like George W Bush got out of it.
This is sadly a position that many/most of your fellow gun owners do not share.
Culture can and does change, often quite rapidly. Just look at gay marriage. It’s obviously still not accepted amongst some religious people but look at how quickly general opinion has changed of it.
Sadly, because of entrenched interests, I wonder what it would take for America’s obsession with rampant gun ownership to change. As someone else said somewhere, if 25 dead kindergarten kids couldn’t change anything I don’t know what will.
And? It often takes an outsider to recognize the fallacy of something.
I refused to own a gun until I was properly educated on handling, safety and trained on marksmanship. Now I do own a gun to protect against the unlikely scenario of a home invasion, but it stays locked and out of reach of children. Everyone in my household that is old enough (no Uzi wielding 9 year olds here) is also educated on how to handle it. I’m not sure why these so called “responsible gun owners” would be opposed to such requirements. It seems to me that if you are a gun enthusiast you would want gun owners to be properly trained and educated.
@boywonder23k:disqus, go watch videos of police brutality on YouTube. They’re nothing like this video you’ve posted. One problem with this video is that this guy has zero training. He’s not taught how to subdue a person or what to look for, he’s just given a gun and thrown into a situation. Pretty sure our police are trained better than that. The other problem is that beyond that, I don’t really have a problem with anything in this video: 1. You can’t just shoot a guy because he walks behind his vehicle (that’s just one of the dangers of the job), 2. No problem with that shooting, 3. Seemed like it went OK – guy was subdued and they found a knife afterwards. I’m really not sure what this video is supposed to prove other than that a completely untrained guy off the street can get it right 2/3 of the time and the other 1/3, no one would have gotten it right.
One thing I forgot to mention in my comment below is with respect to Christian Kingery and JasonStellman’s love for Elon Musk and specifically his hyperloop idea.
Musk is obviously smart and talented and driven but SpaceX exists because the government decided that they no longer wanted to be in the reusable shuttle business (and to correct you guys, currently SpaceX is only delivering payload, the Russians are still the only game in town when it comes to delivering people into space), Tesla is around partly because of the billions of dollars of DOE loans they got and basically a free factory from Toyota & GM up in Fremont.
As for this hyperloop, all the people at SpaceX did was to sketch out an idea, and if you look at what people in the industry thought at the time, many doubt the feasibility of the system. And your lament about how sucky government is? The sucky government is there to protect us if and when an accident occurs and people die as a result of this technology.
Some reactions from when this was first announced: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/16/elon-musk-hyperloop-going-nowhere && http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/15/could-the-hyperloop-really-cost-6-billion-critics-say-no/ && http://www.technologyreview.com/view/518076/experts-raise-doubts-over-elon-musks-hyperloop-dream/
None of this is to deny that we shouldn’t strive for bigger and better things but let’s not put Musk on a pedestal — he’s still just a businessman looking to get rich.
I didn’t mean necessarily social mobility within the military, but the social benefits of putting on my resume afterwards. Although the officer vs. enlisted distinction that exists within the military, and how it goes back to the old nobility vs. surf distinction is interesting in and of itself.
1. Who says that???
2. Yes. As a matter of fact, don’t most NRA members agree with this too? Isn’t that why we need guns, to defend ourselves from our own government who is overreaching its power? LOL
What I mean by that, Greg, is that if you go back far enough, we’re all the same race, and like Jason mentioned in the podcast, with globalization, it won’t be long before our races start blending together more and more. Society decides to recognize people with different features and skin colors as different “races” but we’re really all the same race and have developed different features and skin colors by living in different locale’s more long periods.
Look at how many veterans come out of the military disadvantaged? I applaud and think that all good soldiers should and ought to be able to find good jobs after leaving the military but for many people who choose to go into the military initially it is often because there are no other choices for them. How much of a volunteer army is that?
Yes, the right says we need guns to defend ourselves against an overly aggressive government (thus the 2nd amendment), which the police represent. However, if you are black and the police are overly aggressive with you, it’s the private citizen’s fault not the government’s. Not particularly consistent.
No doubt that’s an admirable goal to strive towards but I think it’s easy for two white guys to say it won’t be long before our society becomes colour blind. And I don’t mean to say that pejoratively, I wish for that too, I am just a bit more measured in how long we’ll get there.
Right, I agree with that. In general, any benefits that might be gained make up for disadvantages they were born into.
I’m just not surprised that it was an American that wrote an article about how the Dutch’s blackface is racist. It very well might be, but it is the American who is sensitive to it.
http://religiondispatches.org/how-marketers-invented-old-time-religion/
I’ll have to read this book, I think.
It’s weird for me to think of the religion I was raised in as something that was put together, packaged, dressed up to appeal to a certain demographic, and unleashed as the ‘pure’ Christianity. It makes me think of walking through a supermarket and seeing a shelf full of different Christianitys with plain labels, shiny labels, promises of new and improved, 100% pure!
The cynical side of me thinks we’re all just being sold a bill of goods.
Sorry for the lengthy block quotes but I thought that some might find this illuminating:
The whole thing is quite short and well worth a read.
@patrick_flanigan:disqus, I don’t know much about the guns they own in Switzerland. Are there assault rifles and hand guns that hold 18 rounds, etc? Are there restrictions on who can own guns, how long it takes to get a gun, etc.? I know from your subsequent comments that you’re not against gun regulations of some sort. I think that if we could snap our fingers and have guns disappear off the planet, that would be great. Obviously we can’t, and there will always be a black market for criminals to obtain guns, and I like the option to defend myself in that scenario, although I need to recognize that without extreme caution on my side, my gun is much more likely to be used in an accident or a crime than it is in self-defense.
I have a problem with our gun “culture.” I have a problem with the NRA and the GOA and the fact that we can’t even have a conversation as a country about guns. I have a problem with the glorification of guns and gun violence. I have a problem with the fact that America is the only developed country with mass shootings on the scale that we have them. Surely we can examine that and see if there’s anything we can do to fix that. However, we can’t. When there’s a mass shooting, the first thing that happens is all of the NRA-lovers jump up and say, “It’s not about the guns! You can’t make any regulations on guns!” and claim that any regulation at all will lead to all guns being taken away because that’s what “liberals” want even though it’s not even remotely true.
I can see some of the benefits of young people spending some time in service of their country, but living in a country that I deem to be controlled by corporations who profit off of war and to be continually fighting unjust wars, I would never want my kids to have to do it. Perhaps if I lived in New Zealand or something…
Yeah, I mention in another comment that we’re all actually the same race. We’ve just developed differently due to locale and other environmental factors, and with the globalization of the world, our races will blend together more and more as we move forward, especially in America. My point is that race is just a fact of who your parents are. How you develop physically in the womb does not determine your race. It may determine if you resemble your race or not, but your race is not dependent on how you look. It’s simply dependent on the race(s) of your parents.
LOL!
Glad to know I had it right. I still do, in my opinion then. 🙂
On a completely unrelated topic, I just saw the Pixar movie Inside Out. It is brilliant.
Great article.
I think you may have Elon Musk wrong a bit. If you have some time, check out this article: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/05/elon-musk-the-worlds-raddest-man.html
I’m not naive enough to think we’ll be color-blind. What I’m saying is that because America is a melting pot and marriage between “races” is common, it’s not going to be long before our physical characteristics all start blending together and the distinctions between our races start actually disappearing.
I saw it with my kids and girlfriend on Sunday. We all loved it.
Not that I expect you guys to fact check, but the US ranks number 7 in the world per capita for mass shootings.
The U.S.’ index of 0.12 per 5,000,000 places it behind Norway (recall the Anders Breivik massacre), Finland, Slovakia, Israel, and Switzerland – at half the ratio.
Another thing one might note: The top 5 countries for mass shootings per capita all have “restrictive” gun policies.
One truth that bureaucrats and lawmakers are choosing to sweep under the rug is the signal largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes.
Now consider that 1 in 5 people in the US are on prescription psychiatric drugs. If 1% of the 63.7 million individuals on these drugs are effected with similar violent tendencies, the US has over 635k of these potential drug induced lunatics living among them.
Just a thought, but I don’t think that this is gun issue as much as it is big pharma issue.
Ricky, first off, thanks for not expecting us to fact check things. 🙂
Second, the chart you reference is clearly sortable by different criteria. If you sort by “Total Rampage Shooting Fatalities” or “Total Fatal Rampage Shooting Incidents” we are clearly #1. (Go ‘Merica!) As a matter of fact, #1 is Norway the way you have it sorted, which has a total of ONE incident for the specified timeframe, whereas America has 38. Furthermore, of the six countries “ahead” of us, the most incidents any of them has is 2, whereas we have 38. The 2nd most deaths from an incident in those countries is 11, whereas we have 227.
I realize that it’s sorted per capita, but my problem with that is that I don’t think you can just multiple the incidents by the population. That’s like watching one quarter of a basketball game and saying you can predict the score by multiplying it by four. Also, why is 2009-2013 the only years included in the statistics? I’d be curious what it would look like if you did 1995-2015 or if you excluded the year of Norway’s anomaly, etc. If you went back 20 years, you’d get to a horrible incident in Australia which would skew the data as well, but for the last 19 years, they haven’t had anything because they changed their gun laws.
If you want to find the “developed” country with the most deaths, the most incidents, and consistent year after year massacres, America is clearly number one.
I agree with you about the prescription medication being a major factor. As far as I’m concerned, prescription medication and guns mix as well as cars and drunkenness.
Fantastic interview, gonna see if it’s available at my library.
FYI, I just wrote a post on this topic:
http://drunkexpastors.com/bang-bang-youre-dead/
Didn’t have any bad guys. Didn’t have any romantic relationships. Did have the protagonist admitting a mistake, instead of being vindicated against all odds. Had a interesting take on growing up and maturing. And it presented the idea that your personal choices effect who you are as a person pretty well. It was great.
Our good friend Jason Stellan agrees with 1. In the comments of this very post he writes…
My personal preference would be to eliminate guns altogether.
Many, many, liberals would like to see guns only available on the black market. Then, right after making their case, they will whine about policy brutality and government over reach. It’s just not reasonable to hold those two opinions together. Which you seem to agree with 🙂
I’m not defending police brutality. However, my own story was very similar in nature to the story of the pool party that’s been all over the news. I was probably even younger than the black girl who got roughed up. My point is that in these kinds of instances people need to remember that police are human and their job is tough. If you don’t want to catch one on a bad day then watch your mouth and comply with their instructions. It’s that simple.
1. The point wasnt that you shoot a guy for going behind his car. The point is that tjings can change in a blink and its difficult to know when your life is in danger.
2. You have no problem with the shooting in number two and yet you bemoaned the michael brown shooting in ferguson?!? I find that incredible.
3. Shows just how dangerous it is when someone is not cooperating and listening to police commands.
The point is that these judgments are often extremely difficult. Sure, some cops abuse their power and cross the line, but the majority of these headline stories are just liberal bullshit.
EDIT- even if you didn’t learn anything from the video, the outspoken critic sure did
So when you read “eliminate guns altogether,” you interpret that as “only police officers and the military should have guns?”
Good thing you have the pope doing your bible interpretation for you.
1. I’m not sure who doesn’t understand that. It’s why being a police officer is a dangerous job. (Especially since guns exist.)
2. I missed the video of Michael Brown doing what the guy in the video did. Please send me the link. Thanks.
3. Again, no argument from me. I’m glad the police are trained to deal with such situations, recognize the danger, and respond accordingly without using excessive force.
Yes, difficult situation. I have zero problems with the cops that don’t abuse their power.
I was giving him the benefit of a doubt. Surely that comment doesn’t mean the Marines should be using nothing but ninja stars and night sticks? Or that swat teams should carry samurai swords and battle axes? Although that would be pretty sweet
Personally, I’d rather go back to the days of swords and bows and arrows.
The forensic evidence for michael brown wasn’t enough? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Police are guilty until proven innocent everytime in the liberal dream world. Any story of police brutality is probably legit. The vast majority of the “police brutality” on blacks this year have been embarrassingly ridiculous displays of ignorance. A few exceptions, sure, but by and large the liberal diarrhea of whining about police doing their jobs is just plain ghastly.
I wish you guys would accept the testimony of Paul with HALF the zeal that you accept some of these silly complaints from African American communities. From my perspective it’s like the world is drinking from a literal fire hose of bullshit
ADT systems could have automated tar and feather traps on the front door…. for solicitors 🙂
I always wanted a moat… You know what I am a home owner with no HOA, and I do have a shovel…
I would only want a moat if it came with a really slick draw bridge. Also every man should have a secret passage way that leads from the restroom to a secret mancave
Secret passages… I like your thinking.
Yeah, well, send me a YouTube video of Paul on the road to Damascus and I’ll consider it.
What you miss, Kenneth, is that the anger from the black community is not coming from nowhere. They are continually mistreated and abused by authority. Are there specific cases where lethal force is warranted? Sure there is. If Michael Brown was such a case, that doesn’t negate the fact that they’ve endured decades of abuse, unwarranted suspicion, excessive force, unjust imprisonment, and racism. Michael Brown was just the spark that ignited the fuel. You’re missing the raging forest fire for the tree on fire.
Right. The problem wasn’t the Michael Brown case, it was: why does this much tension exist in the community in the first place? The reaction is the symptom of a larger problem.
As an analogy, take my toddler. Sometimes he will start acting up and throwing tantrums over seemingly nothing, noticeably different than normal. When I’m on top of my parenting game, I don’t just respond to the tantrum. I step back and ask myself, why is he in this bad a mood? Sometimes it is because he is sick, sometimes it is my fault that I delayed lunch and he is hungry, or sometimes his older sister has been teasing him without me noticing. I try to identify and address the underlying problem.
People who point out instances where white people get abused by cops and don’t riot, just proves the point. There was no underlying anger against police in the white community.
Wish granted.
https://youtu.be/9eRXq-cKmr0
Now fall on your face and worship Jesus as Lord you pagan hell basher
Or we could just fire the assholes on the force who lose their temper and beat up or shoot kids for not being sycophantic enough to placate their poor little bruised egos.
God damn Christian, didn’t you just recently lament the loss of your
stewflight attendant girlfriend? And you’ve already managed to acquire yourself a new one that hangs out with your kids? Bald men do move fast.HA HA HA!
There are lots of people out there who love Elon Musk, I don’t deny the guy’s brilliance (in many ways I appreciate him more than Steve Jobs) but none of what Urban writes contradicts what I wrote above, Musk is a business man.
I found this to be insightful as well: http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-first-wife-explains-what-it-takes-to-become-a-billionaire-2015-4
Most Conservative positions aren’t consistent /snide remark
I do apologize for an outdated chart and I totally respect your opinion. There were more mass shootings and deaths related to mass shootings in the US during that 5 year period (09-13) than any other five year period in US history so the numbers may be skewed a bit.
I think that is pretty obvious that for overall mass shootings the US wins the gold medal, go ‘Merica!, even if they do have 315 million people as opposed to 5 million.
Most of the statistics we hear on this topic compare apples to oranges without taking the population into consideration. I choose to take population into consideration to make sense of the data. Ultimately, if you and I are enjoying cocktails in a crowd of a 1000 people, we have a much better chance of getting killed in a mass shooting in 5 other countries that have “restricted” gun laws, over the US which does not have them.
I guess the irony is I don’t currently own a gun or live in the US. Nor do I care to do either. I just feel that taking away the guns does not fix the problem as much as it covers up the symptoms. If someone wants to get a gun, they can get one. Even today it is much easier to get an unregistered gun in the US than it is a registered one. Making guns illegal will ultimately mean that more ‘bad guys’ will have them than good.
Over the past 30 years an average of 16 people died each year from mass shootings in the US. Each of the mass shootings were performed by individuals on prescription drugs. This is a small comparison in regards to the 100,000 people who die each year taking prescription drugs.
Getting to the bottom of what is causing these people to want to commit these mass shootings should be part of the conversation. It is not normal for specie to act this way, it is a cancer that needs to be fixed. The US will not fix the problem until they face it head on. Mainstream media and Obama sure as shit are not going to have the conversation about what all these killers have in common because they are on the culprit’s payroll. So maybe guys like you will.
On a side note, congratulations on the big 50 coming this week. Keep on, keeping on!
From your ears to the rest of society!
I also recognize that I am being quite negative here when I don’t really want to be, I am curious, were you or Jason particularly pessimistic before having children and if so, did you become more optimistic after having them?
Thanks, Ricky!
I do think there are things that can be done to make it much more difficult for people who shouldn’t have guns to have access to them. I mean, just spitballing, but what if every gun were registered and if your gun was used in a crime and you were found to be guilty of carelessness, you could be charged as an accessory. I bet that would cut down on people giving guns as gifts and keeping them lying around, etc. Sure, it might make life slightly more difficult for us law-abiding citizens, but it would save lives and still allow for “self-defense.” Unfortunately, we cannot even have this conversation because you mention something like that and all anyone on the right hears is “I’m Hitler and I’m going to take away your guns.” (Man, I really hate that Hitler guy. He ruined everything for everyone!)
I don’t think guns should be made illegal and I think that the way we prescribe medicine definitely needs to be examined as well.
Ha! That was last year!
Damn really? Time flies…
Having read the Musk piece, I’ll agree with him on this: we should talk less about him. That is to say, we should all talk less about and treat businessmen as if they were somehow better than us. Nothing that Musk and his team of engineers have done would be worth a damn if there weren’t people around to buy it. That’s also why I always give the middle finger to Ayn Rand too.
Elon Musk is a bit different than just a businessman to me. The things he’s working on are things that could better our world, and he’s willing to risk everything for them. Yes, he’s also a businessman, but he strikes me as a visionary who refuses to bow to the current system. Simply look at his model of making high-end to sell to the rich in order to make more affordable electric cars for everyone else. I don’t think money is his end game and I don’t think we have many businessmen like him in the world, at least not with his success.
Obviously, he’s quite fallible, and obviously what he’s doing is more important than who he is, but that doesn’t make him any less interesting to me. I also like that he speaks his mind.
I could not see a reference to the chart. I found this summary (although I disagree with the treated of Obama’s comments as two separate items – not the way I took them ) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ All these statistics are messy to deal with, should terrorism be included or not (and if it’s not included is a guy shooting coloured base on the basis of their race terrorism?). What proportion of homicide victims are innocent’s and what proportion criminals who came out on the wrong side of a bad deal? I wonder how you deal with the idea of not taking away guns while at the same time highlighting police overuse of force including guns, any process that was able to screen potential gun owners for suitability more thoroughly than you should be able to expect police screenings to be is going to be pretty intrusive. I’ve touched on this previously but as an outsider I don’t get the devotion to guns that seems to be very mainstream in the USA. I grew up on a farm around guns, did some target shooting as a teenager and hunted feral animals once as an adult but I’ve never got the love affair with guns that seems so common in the USA. Likewise for the apparent idolisation of military power and seemingly of military institutions. To some extent it seems that many people (including your police) treat self defence as an arms race, if your neighbour is armed then you better be more heavily armed. If the population is armed then the police should look like an army unit etc. So if nobody can or should take away your guns then how does that play out in the real world when it comes to keeping guns away from those who you think should not have them? No system will be fool proof but the mix of cultural attachment to guns and the ready availability of them does not produce outcomes that are consistent with so much else about the USA that can be valued and respected (and a lot of the current highlights about the USA at the moment for me seem to be tied up with work done by Elon Musk).
I’ve been reading a bit about Musk and seen a number of interviews and presentations by him. My impression is of an engineer who does business to fund the engineering. He is working on a couple of fronts to try and meet some major needs of humanity (as he see’s it), in particular energy and the all our eggs in one basket problem. Tesla is not just working to make electric cars a widespread reality they are also working on energy storage for the home and I expect to change some underlying assumptions about energy and how we deal with it. Early days but they seem to be having an impact that might help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. SpaceX is doing some amazing work on reusability of space launch systems that should have a massive impact on the cost of access to space. If you’ve not seen it have a look for the video’s of the SpaceX Grasshopper test flights or their not quite successful yet attempts to land a booster on a barge in the ocean. The Shuttle was an great craft but nothing I’ve read suggests that it was a cost effective way of getting to space. SpaceX craft are not currently human rated but that is on the agenda. It’s not just about what SpaceX achieve in my view, it’s also that by pushing some boundaries they will be forcing other players to change they way they operate as well.
All these “fact truth” sites are generally pretty useless as you’ve found out.
Just because you’re a criminal it doesn’t it’s okay for you to die. A homicide is a homicide. Although I suppose self-defense (justifiable homicide to an extent) would be a carve out.
I think part of the idolization comes from the fact that it’s so removed from most Americans — both of the things you write about are not things that most Americans have any sort of regular contact with.
So I thought I will share this here. Dr. Anthony Bradley is one of very few black scholars in the PCA (largest conservative/evangelical Presbyterian denom.). He does a lot of research on racial reconciliation, especially within evangelicalism. Here is his recent blistering take on the confederate flag dynamic within evangelicalism:
I’d like to point out one of the many incoherent thoughts from Jason. But specifically pertaining to the Rachel Dolezal story. He basically said that the difference between Bruce Jenner and Rachel Dolezal what the fact that she engaged in lying about her race and deceiving people and that’s what made it reprehensible. Well I’d like to point out that many Transgendered folks including Bruce Jenner kept or keep it a secret for many years and the fact that he came out to the public is what made him so “heroic.” So what’s the difference between him and Rachel Dolezal? She was afraid to admit that she was white for I’m sure many reasons many of those selfish but one of the reasons was the public outcry that it would cause. So Jason cannot separate the two for that reason. Therefore, there IS no difference between Rachel Dolezal and Bruce Jenner or anyone that identifies as anything they want to. Because, the only thing that matters in leftist thought is “feelings.” So when you come across an example that stifles 2 liberal dogmas race and sexuality the people on the left are baffled as to what to think. Bottom line, liberals had it right 60 years ago; race does not matter so who cares what or who Rachel Dolezal identifies as, or someone that has a white father and a black mother identifies as… it doesn’t matter. Liberals are so caught up in race their heads are spinning. We as a society would better off focusing on individualism as opposed to constantly aligning ourselves in this group or that group. Ultimately that would alleviate the race problems in this country, when people circle the wagons around their “group” by definition they are opening themselves up to be treated as said “group” and it becomes self fulfilling at that point.
You kind of disproved your own point here… the difference between Dolezal and Jenner is precisely what you’ve written here. The issue is Jenner didn’t trade on her sexuality while Dolezal traded on her non-race.
And Dolezal is no saint, about ten years ago, she sued Howard for racial discrimination, so quite possibly her “come to Jesus” moment came along as conveniently as she moved across the country.
Jenner isn’t trading on his gender crisis?!? Seriously?!?
So the topic of slavery came up again today, so I’m curious how other folks deal with the bible and it’s seeming endorsement of the moral evil of slavery and other things like genocide?
A few months ago, a rapper by the name of Propaganda was a guest on the Bad Christian Podcast and he made the argument that a member of the oppressive or privileged group can never be truly sympathetic to those in the oppressed group. For a white person to say racism is dead is in itself proof that racism is still alive and well, because in that statement a member of the oppressive group is telling members of the oppressed group how they should feel. That interview really opened my eyes to how pervasive institutional racism is in our culture. As members of the privileged group, we simply cannot comprehend institutional racism. If anyone is interested, it’s podcast #71 of the Bad Christian Podcast.
This is playing out in a big way right now with the debate over symbols of the Confederacy, specifically, the Confederate flag flying on public lands and over government buildings. I can’t count the number of people on my Facebook feed who are defending the flag saying that it’s part of our heritage and a symbol of southern pride. What these people are missing is that it doesn’t matter how you perceive the flag. The fact is that to an entire segment of the population, that flag represents a time in our history when people were property. To defend that symbol on the basis of “Southern Pride” is reprehensible.
God is really more concerned with the weave of fabrics in your clothes and who you are having sex with. He can’t be bothered with petty issues like people owning people.
In all seriousness though, this is one of the biggest roadblocks of my faith in the Bible as the unfiltered and perfect word of God. The best explanation that I’ve heard, and I’m still trying to decide how I feel about it, is that the slave/master relationship of that culture was the only analog of the employee/employer relationship of our culture. Slaves are commanded to obey their masters, but masters are also instructed to treat their slaves fairly. One way to treat your slaves fairly is not to abuse them and to provide them with all of their needs (food, water, shelter, etc.) When done that way, it’s not really the kind of relationship we think of when we hear the word slavery. It’s much more akin to the relationship between an employee and employer. I obey my employer and do the things she or he asks me to do, and in exchange my employer provides me with the means to feed, house, and clothe my family. We are all slaves, in that sense, to our employers. It’s a relationship contingent upon mutual respect. I think those scriptures could be read that way.
Now, that interpretation becomes problematic when you read passages that say that it’s okay to beat your slaves so long as you don’t kill them. I’m not really sure what to do with that other than to say perhaps something was lost in the divine translation. My advice is to put your faith in a kind, loving, and fatherly God, rather than the attempts of man to interpret God’s divine message and write in down. An infinite God cannot be reduced to words in a book. Anything that contradicts that characterization of God must have been misinterpreted either by the person who wrote down the divine message, or the person reading those words.
The question that anybody should ask themselves is, what exactly IS Southern pride, as exemplified by the Confederate flag? It really means white pride, doesn’t it?
Not being a Christian myself, I’ve found the Bart Ehrman book “Misquoting Jesus” and Timothy Gloege’s “Guaranteed Pure” that Comraderead links to below as particularly interesting. There seems to be a tension within Christianity, a religion that focuses so intently upon the text while at the same time papering over some very problematic issues with that self same text in the 21st century.
In this context, that is exactly what it means. I am from the South, and am proud of many aspects of Southern culture, but our history of racism is not among them. Any symbol that evokes that history should be a source of shame, not pride.
I’m curious, why does it matter so much to you that Jenner wishes to be identified as a woman? That you can’t even do her the courtesy of referring to her in the correct pronoun? The hatred and mockery towards Jenner (not necessarily by you but certainly from a lot of religious type) is even more of a tenuous stretch than gay marriages. After all, whether Jenner is a man or a woman has less than zero impact on you and your life unless you seek it out.
I preface by saying that I basically know nothing about Jenner and her history but apparently she’s been taking estrogen for nearly 30 years now and it’s only until very recently that she’s felt that society would accept her for who she is.
It’s also pretty simple to type into google “jenner dolezal different” to get some rather nuanced view on the issue.
So many Christians are scared of entertaining the idea that the Bible falls short of describing the true nature of God. To me it seems that if you believe in an infinite God, you would have to allow for the fact that His nature cannot be reduced to words in a book. It follows that the Bible in and of itself is insufficient and lacks a divine and eternal perspective. My faith is anchored on an eternally and infinitely loving God. The Bible is a mere glimpse of Him and His nature described through the fallible lens of man.
How do you square that with a common refrain I hear from Christians, “just read the Bible”? And this is ultimately why I have never become a Christian, that at the end of the day, as you said, you can’t discover God in the Bible, it simply requires a leap of faith.
“Just read the Bible” is lazy. I would never advise someone to do just that. Better advice would be, “Just talk to God.” If I want to know more about a person, I talk to the person if possible, I don’t just read a book about them. Christians are supposed to believe that God is alive and communicates with his people. So maybe that should be the first step. Then a person can go to the Bible to learn the history of the church and perhaps more can be revealed. I have no doubt that God communicates through the Bible, just as if I were to write a book, I would be communicating through that book, and you could learn a lot about me from that book, but you would learn so much more by talking to me. That would put the book in its proper context.
As you said, it simply requires a leap of faith, and that is exactly right. I know that is not a satisfying answer to a lot of people, but that’s where I am and that’s how God has revealed himself to me. Who am I to say he couldn’t reveal Himself to someone else in another form? Maybe that makes me a Universalist. I’ve got no problem with that.
Hell was what swayed me away from fundamentalism and the biblical treatment of slavery was what cemented that break.
Reading through the texts on it, it was not an employee/employer relationship. Slaves were property. Especially foreign slaves who were perpetual slaves (along with their children) for life.
And while Jewish males were to serve only six years, then be freed with compensation, the prophet Jeremiah makes a note that no one did this, and the Mosaic law leaves a pretty big loophole that would allow a slave owner to use a freed slave’s family against him to coerce him into lifetime servitude. Jewish female slaves were arguably slaves for life unless their owners became displeased with them.
And, you know, the whole “you can beat your slaves, but don’t kill them right away or knock out any teeth or eyes”.
Someone said “I can make the bible a more moral book by replacing all the rules on slavery with ‘Thou shalt not own people.'” And I had to agree.
I don’t think you can take the bible as the literal word of God. It may contain the word (or Word) of God, but if so, it bears some pretty heavy flaws from the human writers.
I could not agree more. I don’t think it diminishes God to say that it’s very likely that people might not have been perfect in translating his divine word.
In reality it certainly wasn’t an employee/employer relationship, but perhaps that is what God intended for it be, and we screwed it up. Maybe God said “Thou shall not own people” and whoever He said it to heard, “Thou shall treat the people you own fairly, unless they get out of line.”
Where the Bible contradicts itself (and you’re lying to yourself if you think it doesn’t), I think it’s best to err on the side of mercy. That seems to fit best with the character of God as we see it manifest in Jesus.
What would you say to someone who spent decades trying to “talk to god” in various ways but always felt the exact same as if they were talking to any inanimate or make-believe object?
Perhaps they are talking to a version of God based on the beliefs and assumptions of others and not on their own terms. Maybe God reveals himself to some in nature and in science. An atheist friend of mine tells me he finds more beauty and more to appreciate in the idea that the universe came together through random chance that by the providence of a deity. There’s something to that. If that thought gives my friend peace and freedom, then who am I to question it? Maybe that’s how God has chosen to reveal Himself to that person. Maybe I am wrong about what I believe. There’s just as much a chance that I am wrong as anyone else. The only thing I hold fast to is that God is merciful and will meet us where we are.
A few thoughts:
1. Dolezal lied about how she was born. Jenner has never done that as far as we know.
2. Dolezal lied about not trying to make herself something she’s not. Jenner hid that she felt like she was something she wasn’t. Completely different.
3. Lastly, as I discussed in the podcast, race is just something determined by facts, like your age. You are a certain age because you were born on a certain day in a certain month in a certain year. You are a certain race because you are born to certain parents who are certain races. The transgender argument is that the body made a mistake during development. It’s a tough argument to disprove since the body clearly makes mistakes during development.
Christian, respectively, I disagree with your assertions. Lying about your race and hiding your gender identity I would argue is semantics. And your third point; why isn’t gender determined by facts? Caitlyn Jenner has male genitalia and a Y chromosome. I would argue it is almost MORE certain that Caitlyn Jenner is a dude that Rachel Dolezal is white. After all we all originated from Africa anyhow.
Good answer.
I disagree on it being semantics. Dolezal said she was born African-American. Jenner admits to being born physically a man.
That’s the thing. physically, she was born a man. No one is arguing that. However, she identifies as a woman. She feels like her physical development as a man was a mistake, so she seeks to change that. Dolezal’s race can’t be a mistake because it’s not based on some kind of physical development any more than age is. It’s just a fact. You have white parents, you’re white. There’s no room for a mistake in there unless someone switched her with another baby.
I love Propaganda. I love his rap style and his spoken word poetry, very powerful. I discovered him for the first time a few years ago after a firestorm in the Christian blogosphere following his release of the his song Precious Puritans. It was critical of the racial blindness of pastors who quote puritans (some who supported skavery in America) without any second thought about it. It’s pretty good, check it out:
https://youtu.be/3nWQAOppTQE
One of my favorite Prop songs. I was haltingly familiar with him before hearing that interview. Now I listen to him regularly. Right now, my favorite is Bored of Education.
Perhaps reflecting on aspects of your experience that you know are real, that are supposedly grounded in God’s nature, such as: Love, Existence, Goodness, Mercy, Justice, Beauty, Truth. Reflect on these transcendental parts of life; what are they; how you have experienced each one of these; how have you expessed them. Reflect on your deep desires for them. What would it be like to experience more of them; could you ever experience enough of them? Even if you don’t feel like you are experiencing or talking to God, I could think of worst things to do with your time. What’s the worst that could happen, you become a better person?
Maybe atheists and agnostics have experience of God already, but have different categories, different terms, such as Patrick said. I would encourage anyone to embrace these experiences, internalize them, let them affect who you are and your actions. In my worldview, I would call this cooperating with God’s Grace. And this is how non-Christians might be saved, and brought into God’s family.
It doesn’t matter to me in the slightest what Bruce Jenner wants to do. I just don’t like it when people pile on praise when the man is clearly very sick or delusional. It would have been “heroic” for him to admit he had a problem and get help. I’m not referring to Bruce Jenner as “she” or “her” because It is delusional to do so. Think not?
1. Do feelings determine reality?
2. What do the words “male” and *female” mean?
3. If Dolezal had come out as being trans-racial would she have been considered a hero?
Love this! Very well articulated.
Sadly not a response that one would get from fundamentalist, evangelical, or even most mainstream christian sects.
Kenneth, what would you say to someone with androgen insensitivity syndrome? Let me set this up: a baby is born and the doctor looks in between the legs and announces ” it’s a girl!” As she grows up she enjoys playing with dolls and Barbie. As puberty hits, she begins to develop a womanly figure and to notice boys. Boys notice her too because she doesn’t seem to have the acne curse so many peers have. However, mom is getting concerned because she is turning 16 and hasn’t menstruated yet. She takes her to the doctor and they discover that she has no internal sex organs, and what may appear to be ovaries are in fact undecended testes. They also discover that her chromosomes are XY. Despite this, during fetal development the body rejected the androgen influence. Would you say “she” is delusional to go on living as a woman and has been delusional all her life to think that “she” was a woman?
I just don’t like it when people pile on praise when the man is clearly very sick or delusional.
You know, I wouldn’t cast stones about someone else being delusional if I were to believe that a cracker and a spot of wine magically become divine-human flesh and blood in my tummy every week. I’d be a bit more humble, is what I’m saying. 🙂
And, I’m not picking on you. I used to believe the Earth was 6,000 years old and T-Rexes were vegetarians until a man created out of mud ate a fruit that a talking snake convinced his rib-woman wife was kosher.
Finally… with today’s Supreme Court decision, our evil liberal cabal is one step closer now to our ultimate goal of imprisoning all of the conservative Christians in FEMA camps and gay marrying them to one another. MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
@fishercl64:disqus, there are conservatives on this page! Come on, man! Now they know!
Hell… I guess we’ll have to send the ones here off to the Obamacare Death Panels before they tell the others.
Good idea. I forgot we had those at our disposal for an dissenters.
“Some look at the Rainbow flag and only see “gay” and not diversity. Some
look at the Confederate flag and only see “hate” and not heritage. Some
look at the American flag and only see “tyranny” and not freedom. Guess
it depends on what side of the flag you’re on, your history, and what
you want to see.” ~ TSY
Here’s my helpful primer for Evangelical Christians on what happened today:
https://houseofthedread.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/a-helpful-primer-for-christians-regarding-scotus-decision-today/
Precisely right Patrick. Ricky, what exactly is the heritage of the confederate flag?
The Confederate Flag was a battle flag that had both Blacks and Whites fighting under it. It was beloved by the men who rallied under it in the storm of conflict in the protection of their families, homes, and country from what they felt was an illegal invasion of an army of northern aggression.These men lost their lives to preserve the principles of the Constitution as set forth by our founding fathers.
There is more that could be said; however it breaks down to cultural identification. For many it still stands a symbol to resist and break away from the whole, that if you choose to own and fly such, that you are a rebel. That you have meaning and your culture is not the same as others. To these individuals it represents resistance to tyrants. It represents self-determination. It represents a warrior’s spirit, and cultural pride.
Racial meanings are only attached by those that wish to discredit others and are reinforced time and again by the same individuals that point to every instance of a symbol used as being racially divisive. It becomes a self serving point; call it racist, those that are racist will use it and it will be pointed at as racist. Cycle repeats.
Symbols such as flags get their “power” from the perception of the person observing it and what “side” they are on. If the misuse of a symbol trumps its original meaning, then the SWASTIKA, a symbol used by Hindus would forever be tarnished by the NAZIs. Yet the SWASTIKA adorns many temples in India and no one calls them NAZIs. Likewise, the Confederate Battle Flag is not a symbol of “white power”, or slavery, or hate. Unless that is what you want it to symbolize.
You are 100% correct, context certainly matters. Just as you point out, the nazis coopted the swastika (not quite sure why you felt it necessary to all cap both of those) and now in the west it has certain connotations that it doesn’t have in india. I’m not sure if you saw this bit from John Oliver’s show:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWNbekZVyKk
And what does the confederate battle flag (rather virginia battle flag) connote to the broader american culture? You’re 100% correct that it is up to the culture to decide what the “battle flag” symbolizes, and we have collectively decided that it’s a symbol of white power/slavery/hate.
But really, your first paragraph gives away the game. since this is the internet and we’re not going to change each other’s mind, I post these links in order to help others gain some background and not to continue this thread because we’re just going to upset each other at this point.
Most people would have shrugged their shoulders, but that’s nonsense. I feel like the community has a duty to be outraged and/or concerned with delusional behavior. You might think the eucharist is delusional, but there are many arguments that have persuaded many intelligent men that it is not. There is no rational justification for Transgender disorders and racially confused weirdos. They need help. Not a pat on the back.
That’s an incredibly difficult call because scientifically she has had a problem with her development. There is no such complication with Bruce or Dolezal
This is pretty silly christian. If racial identity is not up for interpretation then neither is gender. Sure, there are some bizaar instances of physical deformities where the body truly developed incorrectly, but that’s not what’s going on with bruce. He is a man. He feels like a woman. That’s not a scientific conundrum, it’s a mental disorder at best and delusional at worst
We need to start a movement for polygamists! Their love has been discriminated against for too long. Also, I think we need to help out people that fall in love with their own families.why can’t a mother and daughter get married? Or a brother and sister? So long as they promise to contracept or abort I don’t see the issue.
1. One love
2.love wins
3. It’s none of our business
4. It doesn’t affect us
5. There is no longer any reasonable precident in the courts to deny their marriage.
Where do we go from here?!?
With this logic we might need to ask ourselves which flag flew on the slave traders ships? Or what flag flew for 86 years in a country that condoned slavery?
To many in the South the war was not fought over slavery but over their right to succeed from a Union that was unfairly treating and taxing them. They thought they were fighting for many of the same reasons that their ancestors did in the Revolutionary War years earlier. I am not saying that I agree with them, after all it is their heritage, not mine.
The North likes to pretend that they didn’t have slaves, and the war was fought over slavery, even if it wasn’t part of the war until well after it began. This to me is similar logic to the Neocons thinking that we invaded Iraq
because they bombed the World Trade center with their weapons of mass
destruction.
But hey, the North won so they got to write the history. And as you mentioned, “we have collectively decided that it’s a symbol of white power/slavery/hate.”
I agree we can end this thread. I don’t want to change anyone’s mind; or make anyone upset. I certainly didn’t realize that “I had a game”, I just wanted to answer a question regarding the heritage behind the flag other than what the white supremacists or the echo chambers of main stream media want us all to believe.
Now I get to figure out how to plant a seed in my fundamentalist father and brother’s head that the rainbow flag isn’t going to turn them into homosexuals, and god forbid, it just might symbol of diversity and freedom for those whom they continue to oppress.
Polygamy and incest are lesser known forms of biblical marriage, but they are in there.
If you are looking for a serious answer, then consent would be key.
Many communities that practice polygamy are also more patriarchical and special care and attention would have to be paid to make sure that one family isn’t selling their twelve year old girl to the 50 year old head of another family. Or that young men aren’t being abused by their domineering fathers who are worried about competition for wives.
Not saying polygamy can’t work, just that law enforcement would have to be on higher alert for child brides and child abuse.
As for parent-child ‘relationships’, the short explanation is that there is the issue of authority and how that affects one’s ability to consent. Some psychologists would argue (and I agree) that it would be impossible for even an adult child to ever really ‘consent’ to sexual congress with a parent because of the complexity of the whole parent-child relationship. So I think there are enough questions to prohibit those types of relationships.
As for sibling relationships, I would also question the power dynamic involved, as well as genetic problems with potential offspring, and whether two young people could seriously consent to sterilization at such a young age as the only solution to the genetic offspring problem.
So polygamy – Yes, with caveats, and incest, no based on consent.
So the only sexual moral principal for progressives is consent. Let me guess, the only reason beastiality might be off the table is because of the power dynamic involved. Why am I not shocked, disgusted yes, but not shocked.
Who are you to say that there isn’t enough consent?!? Are you also going to start monitoring Japanese and muslim marriages? If the person is of consenting age they are good to go unless proven otherwise. When marriage was about an institution it made sense to deny these people. With current precident you don’t have a leg to stand on. Come one come all.
No, the legal reason beastiality is off the table is because an animal cannot legally consent.
As for progressive morals, my own sexual morality would be:
1. Thou shalt not treat someone like an object to be used.
2. Make sure consent is explicit, enthusiastic, and not under duress.
3. There should be mutual love and respect.
4. Sexual congress should seek to make a relationship more intimate rather than simply to gratify oneself.
If the person is of consenting age they are good to go unless proven otherwise.
I AM THE LAW! (/Stallone impression)
Consent under duress or impairment is not consent. If someone as a child has been groomed to be a ‘partner’ for their parent, I would argue that this is consent under duress.
If the person is of consenting age they are good to go unless proven otherwise.
Not true. If a woman is of age, but impaired, she is not ‘good to go’. She cannot give consent.
Depending upon your state, if a woman with the mental capacity of a child consents to sexual congress, it is still illegal because she cannot give consent.
Generally speaking, if one signs a contract while obviously drunk, impaired, or not in their right mind, there is legal recourse to have the contract nullified.
Are you also going to start monitoring Japanese and muslim marriages?
If they involve child brides, then yes, the law should intervene.
When marriage was about an institution it made sense to deny these people. With current precident you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Nonsense, it just requires a more complex look at the moral, ethical, and legal issues than “Well, the bible tells us so…”
Yes but who are you to assume that a son who wants to marry his father is not enthusiastically consenting? Or that there is not mutual respect? How can you make the call and say that incestuous relationships are only self gratifying? I could just as easily accuse ANY couple of failing one of these.
SCOTUS has set the precident that consent is all that is required. The government doesn’t get to do a psch test on every couple to really really make sure everything will be OK.
It’s really just discrimination at this point.
Bollucks. One of the purposes of the law is to protect people. I’ve already cited examples above where the law says consent is simply not enough, the person must be in their right mind and free from duress in order to give consent.
Sure, if someone claims they were drunk they can nullify a contract. However, that doesn’t mean you can look at an entire group of people and say “I judge that you can not possibly be sincere”. So judgmental. People always hate what they fear. (Sounding familiar yet?)
Of course you can. We look entirely at people under the age of 18 and say, “Nope. Don’t care how you feel, you cannot marry, sign a contract, or fuck someone over the age of 18.”
We have laws to protect people. There is a power dynamic and psychological relationship between parents and children that makes consent impossible. This natural bond/relationship/dynamic is not present between two consenting adult strangers of any gender.
But by all means keep arguing the point that gay partners who want to marry are the same as incestuous parents. That’s sure to win hearts and minds.
You may not have exactly the same sexual morals as a progressive, but lets take a look at your list.
0. Do no harm.
How do you define harm? Because I can think of several main stream sexual fetishes that could be construed as “harm”. Some have been made into a movie that came out recently (50 shades). Are you against those forms? Or is it really about consenting that makes something harm or not.
2. Make sure consent is explicit, enthusiastic, and not under duress.
Below you seem to expand on duress, and turn it into whether or not to trust that consent is real.
3. There should be mutual love and respect.
Lol, “love”?! Does this mean that you rule out typical teenager sex, sex on a first date, prostitution, and porn? I doubt it. If not, what a completely insincere inclusion.
4. Sexual congress should seek to make a relationship more intimate rather than simply to gratify oneself.
Obviously that’s true, but outside of committed relationship open to life how is it anything but gratification? You (maybe not you personally, but progressives in general) have completely lost a major aspect of the purpose of sex. Sex is nothing but gratification for the progressive.
Nonsense, it just requires a more complex look at the moral, ethical, and legal issues than “Well, the bible tells us so…”
I see nothing more complex out of the progressive side on the moral issues involved in sex and marriage than consent.
I think culture has gotten to a point where it is nearly impossible for young unmarried person to properly consent to sex. They are under constant pressure from the culture to have sex, and I think it should be considered duress.
There is a power dynamic and psychological relationship between parents and children that makes consent impossible. This natural bond/relationship/dynamic is not present between two consenting adult strangers of any gender.
“Natural”?! You are going to rely on what is “natural” to make an argument. Give me a break. That ship has sailed. Within progressivism, there are no principled reason to block someone from engaging in any sexual desire with anyone or thing, no matter how disordered, as long as their is consent.
Yes, there is, and I’ve cited some examples where consent is not enough. Your slippery slope argument is invalid.
Or are you seriously going to argue that only vaginal sex between fertile married partners during a period where the female can get pregnant is natural and therefore should be the only legal sexual acts the State allows?
0. Adultery. Misleading your partner. Haranguing them into acts or an act they don’t really want. Etc.
2. Consent simply cannot be given under duress. I cannot hold a gun to a woman’s head and ask if she consents to sexual congress. Nor can I psychologically manipulate a partner or use my position of authority to pressure them into sex.
3. If two teens are at a place where they can fulfill the ethics I’ve laid out, then more power to them. Most won’t be in that place. I cannot see sex on a first date fulfilling any of the ethics I’ve laid out. Prostitution is simply about gratification and objectification. Pornography has consent, but no relationship.
So ‘it depends’, yes, yes, and yes. Though there is a difference between what is ethical and what should be illegal.
4. Because I do not see ‘open to life’ to be necessary for ethical sexual congress and you have not convinced me that it is. My wife and I were married and doing the things married people do for five years on contraception. And we did so because we loved one another. The sexual act that created our children was no different than it was for those five years.
The slippery slope argument is completely valid, because I saw no principled reasons to stop sliding down the slope. Your listed principles all boiled down to consent and subjective opinions about the validity of consent in some circumstances.
Kenneth, once you admit that the body does develop incorrectly sometimes, you admit there’s a difference between race and gender.
I’ve never understood the slippery slope argument. It seems like fear mongering to me. Society makes rules all the time based on what it deems appropriate. You can drink at 21, but not 20. We can legalize Marijuana without legalizing cocaine. Etc. Gay people can get married, related people cannot. Why? Because that’s what society deems appropriate and inappropriate. Thankfully, we live in a republic and not a theocracy. We wouldn’t want to end up like those Muslim countries!
Oh, okay, so if someone with a gun to their head gives consent, then that’s okay with you?
Or we should hold someone who isn’t in a right state of mind to any agreements or contracts they sign?
Or women who are drugged or incredibly drunk can give consent?
Or we should take the word of the habitually abused spouse who refuses to give consent to press charges against their abuser?
No. We, as a society, recognize that consent is not possible in these situations and we have adjusted the law accordingly. Your argument that ‘anything goes’ is invalid. We will still have laws to protect people, sometimes from themselves.
My wife and I were married and doing the things married people do for five years on contraception. And we did so because we loved one another.
No, you were not doing the things married people do, you were doing the things fornicators do while trying to avoid having children.
The sexual act that created our children was no different than it was for those five years.
Except that you were both open to life and fully gave of yourselves lovingly to each other not holding anything back.
We had laws for all sorts of things in this area that have been piled back one after the other for decades, I see no reason for them to stop now.
Wow.
Okay, so God supposedly gave us sex, but it’s only true and good and pure for a few days out of a given month only during a woman’s fertility years and anything outside of that is just like fornication.
Again, wow.
You don’t have to be explicitly trying for a child every time you have sex. Having sex without contraception when you think your wife isn’t fertile is different than the use of contraception (and abortion if that fails). Natural family planning is like inviting someone to your wedding knowing that they will probably not come but wouldn’t be upset if they did come vs. sending them a letter telling them why you do not want them at the wedding.
So I guess you will be surprised when people start pushing for polygamy and polyandry? What is your principled grounds for stopping that, they are consenting adults after all?
Sorry, I meant that the slippery slope argument in this case is valid. And that is because there are no principled grounds to appeal to stop the slide down the slope. For example once the sexual revolution severed life from sex, and sex from marriage, marriage fundamentally changed and most of the rules associated with it became arbitrary. If a married couple can have sex for pleasure without children, an unmarried couple can too. If an unmarried heterosexual couple can have sex for just pleasure, well homosexuals do that too. If marriage is just about romantic feelings, there is no reason to stop homosexuals from marrying. If you can end marriage by an unilateral act of one person without fault, what does the commit of marriage even mean. If marriage is just what people do when they have strong romantic feelings for a time, why can’t groups >2 get married. And so it goes.
There are simply no principled grounds for boundaries on sex and marriage in current culture. The only thing that I see is consent, and I’m not sure how that will really stop any further “advancement” in this general area. And trust me, sex positive progressives agree with me, only they look forward to the advancement. It is going to be an interesting slide down the slope.
Christian, sorry I think I misunderstood your comment. You don’t think the slippery slope argument is a problem, because if we go down the slope it is because we chose to go down it? Well not everyone standing at the top of the slope would have chosen to make the first step if they saw what followed. Reversing course can be difficult.
We should just get rid of marriage completely, because as soon as you have marriage, you have to start deciding who can marry. 😉
Maybe you’re right, I’m not sure what marriage really means to our current culture anyway, maybe it should just go away as a civil institution. Any meaning it might have had is just a hold over of nostalgia from previous generations. I didn’t have too much trouble with the latest supreme court decision, because under our current culture’s working definition of marriage (which it has had for a while) any boundary limiting gay marriage was just arbitrary. The marriage debate was lost decades ago with the full on embrace of contraception by society at large, it has just taken a generation or so for the laws to catch up and the witness of an earlier generation to die.
Already discussed polygamy way back in the thread.
Bottom line: it would be fine if all parties are of age and are not being coerced, but we would need vigilance to ensure patriarchical religious communities were not engaging in the practice of child brides, selling women, or abusing children of any stripe.
Besides, as I joked earlier, polygamy is just as much biblical marriage as monogamy.
I have zero problems with polygamy.
Of course you don’t see a problem with polygamy, at least you are being consistent.
Besides, as I joked earlier, polygamy is just as much biblical marriage as monogamy.
Don’t confuse me with an evangelical. =)
Having sex without contraception when you think your wife isn’t fertile is different than the use of contraception (and abortion if that fails).
Bull. You think God was born yesterday? In both cases you’re trying not to have a child and have marital relations, one method is just more effective at it than the other.
And what about when there is zero possibility of conception? Should we stop all marital relations as soon as the wife hits menopause because now we’d only be doing it because we enjoy it?
I know we’ve already gone over this before, but the whole stance relies so much on parsing that it very much reminds me of this: ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.
“Oh, well, you can try not to have kids, but only if you don’t use contraception, but it’s still okay to have sex as a married couple after menopause because something something natural law something…”
Of course not. If you have any problem with polygamy it is that they bothered to get married at all. =)
The sexual act is unchanged for a couple following menopause. The sexual act is the same having sex at a different part of the month. The sexual act IS changed using contraception – one of the parties is purposely holding back from their partner, not fully giving of oneself to them.
The body develops incorrectly in regards to skin color too. I have had professors with splotchy patches of white all over their bodies. Are they now “half white”? No! That’s silly.
The conversation about bodily retardation is just a strawman. It’s like when abortion conversations get on the topic of “is it really a baby the precise moment the sperm touches the egg”. The idea is to point to a tricky case and then appeal to “see no one really knows for sure”. The fact is that people most people aren’t having abortions within 24 hours of implantation so it’s a mute point. Same with Mr. Jenner. Sure, you can point to tricky cases where the lines become unclear, but those cases don’t really speak to the vast majority of Transgender who have no such complication. Does that make sense?
You’re making my point for me, Kenneth. If the body develops your skin color incorrectly, that doesn’t affect your race. It just affects if your body matches your race. An albino born to a black family is still of the black race even though his body messed up. We know what the race is though because of the parents and the ancestry. With a transgender, the body does not match the gender, and we cannot determine the gender via the parents.
Thanks.
When you say “the body does not match the gender” you are just begging the question. Based off what evidence? The “feelings” of the individual? If someone is convinced they are a reincarnation of their cat “sammy” are we to give them the same benefit of a doubt? Feelings and mental states do not determine reality.
Based upon the possibility that your comment provided above, that the body can develop incorrectly.
Perfect. So can you name one other condition where the body develops incorrectly, but there is absolutely no evidence of this what-so-ever other than the person’s personal feelings?
Can you name one other god who created heavens and earth in another universe? Is that how this game works?
Whaa?! This convo has nothing to do with God. Let’s just say there is no God, fine. Your claim is that people can have bodily retardation without any evidence what-so-ever besides the individuals feelings. (For example, Mr. Jenner claiming he has a female soul) Is this a common thing? Do invisible symptoms crop up in other areas too? Or is this just special for transgenders? I don’t have enough faith to buy what your selling.
Oh, I thought the principle you were employing of something only being able to be true if I could name something else just like it was a known principle in determining what is true and that maybe we could apply it to god. I guess what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Kenneth, these aren’t people who just decided on a whim that it would be fun to be the opposite gender. This is a lengthy and difficult process fraught with ridicule and difficulties. These are people (and there are many) who identify as a different gender and most of them have done so for their entire lives, and can point to a multitude of examples in their life. It’s not just one person “feeling” this way. It’s many. You have admitted that the body develops incorrectly. I can’t say for sure that transgenderism is real, but you can’t say for sure that it’s false. I mean, you can try, but it’s a really tough case to make, especially with having admitted that the physical development of a human messes up sometimes and if you believe that hermaphrodites are a real thing. (Actually, it doesn’t matter what you believe, it’s a medical fact.)
As for why transgenderism may be a thing and “transracialism” is not, it’s because, as I’ve stated ad nauseum, race is simply determined by your parents. Your skin color or any physical mis-developments do not affect your race, only whether or not you resemble your race. You can identify with any race you’d like, and many, many people do identify with other race cultures, it still doesn’t change your race, any more than feeling younger than your age makes you’re actually younger.
Oh, I thought the principle you were employing of something only being able to be true if I could name something else just like it was a known principle in determining what is true and that maybe we could apply it to god. I guess what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Oh, I see what you’re saying now. That example fails because God is defined as a “maximally great being” whose existence is “necessary in every possible world”. There can not be more than one. However, I think you are right that it’s possible for something to be uniquely true of one illness and none of the others known to man.
Yes but couldnt that also just serve as evidence of a mental disorder?
The slippery slope argument is valid when our court systems operate on precident. The dissenting opinion by justice Roberts warned that there is no longer any obstical for polygamist marriages
Sure, but if a 26 year old man wants to marry his father YOU don’t get to be the one that says “sorry, that different than the love I know, so it’s not allowed”. Or “sorry, but I just don’t believe you really and truly consent, even though you’re a grown man”.
You are just hating what you don’t understand. Total bigotry. It’s hateful, really. If a man wants to marry his son and his sister at the same time and everyone consents who does it affect? Not you. Just mind your own business and let love win. One love!!!!
Yes, yes, nevermind anything I’ve written. It’s the end of the world. Dogs and cats living together. Total pandemonium!
Go have a drink or three and come back when you’re less upset that canonical law doesn’t get to be secular law.
That’s gonna be a long drink! I’ll pray for you. I hope that God takes the hatred out of your heart. I hope that one day love will truly win… until then….
Why can’t society simply decide that marriage can only be between 2 unrelated people? Why can’t society decide that marriage can only be between TWO people? Why can’t society decide that marriage can only be between people 18 and over? Society decides stuff all the time and makes laws about it. This whole slippery slope thing is a straw man.
Why can’t we just as easily say that as soon as the state recognizes marriage as an institution at all, we’ve then created a slippery slope where anyone, any age, any relation, and any number of people can get married? That’s silly. The state (government) decides what is allowed in marriage just like it decides all kinds of things based on various factors.
What the church should really do is stop trying to define marriage for people outside of its gates. Why does the church care what the state says about marriage? The church can keep its sacrament of marriage as being between one man and one woman. No one is saying that it can’t.
Isn’t the church against divorce? Why isn’t the church fighting to make divorce illegal?
I noticed this is being ignored. Weren’t most of the “men of god” in the old testament polygamists? Didn’t the line of Jesus have it’s share of polygamists in it even?
Why can’t society decide that its only between one man and one woman, over a certain age, not directly related to one another? Oh right, it is discrimination and bigotry. Which can be used as reason against any boundary placed. If those boundaries aren’t based on any principals, then they are arbitrary and thus are unnecessary discrimination.
Well in this case society and the states didn’t get to decide. A court imposed it. Who cares how individual states voted or were going to vote in the future.
“No one is saying they can’t”, until they do say that. It all hangs on how the courts decide religious freedom works. There are plenty of people who like strip away at religious freedom until it has no meaningful content. I guess we will just watch and see what happens.
Right. This is one of the reason I’m not too concerned about same sex marriage in the first place. The definition of marriage in our current culture doesn’t line up with sacramental marriage even before this decision. The battle over the definition of marriage was lost decades ago.
“Oh right, it is discrimination and bigotry.”
I think this is kind of the crux of the argument. If you believe that people are born gay, then telling them they can’t get married is discriminatory and bigoted. If you don’t believe that, then telling people who “decide” to be gay that they can get married is a “slippery slope.”
“until they do say that.”
Religion is pretty well protected in this country.
I don’t think people who have same sex attraction are lying. I do believe one makes a choice to identify as gay and to act on those desires. And a person who has same sex attraction was never blocked from getting married, they were just blocked from marrying someone of the same sex (and block from marrying an underage person, and block from marrying more than one person, and blocked from marrying a close relative…).
They are, but there are already starting to be calls for those protections to be rolled back here is an example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-should-amend-the-abused-religious-freedom-restoration-act/2015/06/25/ee6aaa46-19d8-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html
Your example is an example where the religious liberty that was being protested was a Muslim religious liberty of someone attempting to fight in the U.S. Army and it turned out to be upheld anyway? Surely you can do better than that. 😉
Not to mention those sweet sweet tax exemptions. I’m happy to allow Churches to practice whatever they want and to exclude whomever they want. Equally they should no longer benefit from not having to pay taxes.
No my example was that the ACLU wanting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to go away, a law they originally supported.
Society _did_ decide that that was the only acceptable form of marriage for a few hundred years and now society has decided that that is no longer enough. I don’t understand the problem here. If and when society deems it appropriate for a man to marry a dog, it will be a decision that society at large has accepted.
Besides religion, what gives you or any of us the right to say what they feel is wrong and that they should feel the way we feel?
Since I’m not religious, the moral aspect of this whole thread of discussion seems just farcical to but since I am a tax paying citizen, the definition of marriage — and the economic benefits that comes with that are of vital importance to me. I am curious, what if we divorced marriage and partnership in the eyes of the law. Meaning, churches can have all the marriages or none of the marriages it wants but it would have no tax or other benefits. In order to qualify for any of that, like filing taxes jointly, social security survivor benefits, etc, couples (be they gay, straight, or from Pluto) would also (or instead) fill out their partnership form.
I understand that that is already what we basically do now but why not formalize it?
Religion and Natural Law is my basis for saying ANYTHING is right and wrong. What is your basis for feeling that I am wrong? What do you use to determine right and wrong, and why should I care about your reasoning?
I guess the real question: does society have a reason for supporting and encouraging marriage in the first place? And why? If society gains no benefit from it, then it shouldn’t provide any support for it (tax or otherwise).
Personally, I think families are important to society, as well as responsible reproduction, of course. We don’t want to become Idiocracy!
Then you and Jason need to get back in the saddle and have some more kids. =)
This is a path of discussion that I am also somewhat interested in, the cynic in me would say that it is in the government’s interest to promote marriage & families because it tends to inoculate the citizenry into compliance (the whole I’m willing to tolerate less risk because I’ve got mouths to feed idea).
So from a stability perspective, I am onboard with marriage/partnership. But that doesn’t mean that two homosexuals in a partnership is more or less desirable than a heterosexual one.
Religion is just another way of saying natural law.
As a matter of fact, I’m not saying you’re wrong, I am wondering what gives any of us the right to project our values & beliefs onto others when their actions and behaviors have no impact on us.
The fact that morals are objective (not subjective like preference for flavors of ice cream) is why we can legitimately hold others morally accountable for their actions. We do this instinctively.
“…when their actions and behaviors have no impact on us.”
I’m not willing to concede this point. No man is an island. We live in a connected society, and everyone’s behaviors and actions affect everyone else in some way. You personal choices affect who you are as a person, which in turn affect your interaction with others. What sort of family we are encouraging affect how the next generation of society are raised and so forth.
@christiankingery:disqus this seems right up your alley. Although reading it made me sad.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/30/polyamory-is-next-and-im-one-reason-why/
Yeah, on the surface, I’m a fan of the idea of polyamorous relationships. It’s an interesting topic anyway. I’m not sure how practical they are. The idea is great, that you don’t need to find “everything” in one person and you remove the pressure from your partner as well, that they don’t need to be everything to you. I read a book called “Opening Up” that discussed it a lot, and then of course “Sex at Dawn.” I’ve read testimonials of kids that were raised in polyamorous households and loved it. What they seem to be describing in the article sounds more like an “open” relationship than a polyamorous one though.
Shh… we don’t mention the inconvenient parts of the bible that contradict the other parts or disagree with the world view we’ve constructed.
Didn’t the line of Jesus have it’s share of polygamists in it even?
And adulterous people, and murderers, and prostitutes, and a woman who had children with her father-in-law, and so forth… Not sure what your point is.
As for people having multiple wives, many people in the OT have quite fallen lives besides also being polygamists. Also, I’m not sure of any story where having more than one wife lead to anything but trouble – which I’m sure you can relate with. 🙂
Yes, but polygamy is the only one approved of by God as a reward, speaking through Nathan the prophet to David, He says: “I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more”
Hardly approval for polygamy, but condemnation at David’s actions for stealing another’s wife and having him killed in battle. There is also this:
“Do not multiply wives or your heart will be led astray!””(Deut17:17)
Yes, it is part of condemnation for adultery and murder, but God says “I gave you your master’s wives…”
So? The Bible speaks of the Lord’s sovereignty all the time, even over calamity. “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.” – Isaiah 45:7 (BTW, this is a Calvinist’s favorite…)
The point being communicated in 2 Sam 12 is that David had abundance, especially in the woman department, but that wasn’t enough for him. “Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight?…” (2 Sam 12:9)
That doesn’t mean that we read approval into this passage, it’s purpose is to highlight how completely culpable David is for this particular crime.
Yes, but in that context, it’s also relational. God is the one who gave David the throne. God gave him wealth. God gave him his wives, and David has betrayed God, his position, and his wives.
His wives were one of the signs of God’s blessing upon his life.
I don’t see it as approval for polygamy as a principal. I see it as an emphasis of the unreasonableness of David’s sin; he had no reason to steal another’s wife. Besides, I think Saul only had one wife anyway (1 Sam 14:50). If anything it seems to suggest Saul’s wife (and harem) was part of the inheritance handed over to David (probably an adopted eastern custom).
I guess we disagree about how to interpret this passage, and what principals can be drawn from it. We should bring our disagreement to the Church. 😉
Sure. Meet me at the local Mormon house of worship. I’m sure they’ll have some thoughts about how the US redefined traditional biblical marriage in the 19th century.
Ha! Have fun.
I listened to #49 while out on a long run yesterday and had a thought relative to your discussion of what folks should do when they’re stopped by police, with a focus on what people of color should do. How about all of us —regardless of our heritage, race or life situation —- simply push ‘record’ on our smartphone if and when we are stopped for anything. Laws in most places allow taping as long as one person is aware of said taping, and I bet the existence of video proof of any interactions would make law enforcement personnel think twice before they behave inappropriately. If we inform the officer as part of the conversation —- without malice or glee —- of said taping, they could, of course, harm you or try to confiscate the instrument, but if one’s settings are to the cloud, that clip could be gone before confiscation. Is there some danger? Sure. But there’s danger intrinsic to the situation, and this approach at least gives hope and might even start to level the playing field. Video of abuse gets exposed and those law enforcement personnel perpetrating it sometimes have to pay for their bad behavior. Couldn’t hurt…… and it would, over time, with widespread adoption, build a database that could help us understand the extent of the practice in various jurisdictions (as in ‘how many cops are bad?’).