Saturday, November 01, 2008

A follow-up of my last post regarding Barack Obama..

As a follow up to my last post I wish to share about the matter of racism in this country as well as a wider view of all that may be happening in this country. As I was looking into some information on the man Alan Keyes I came across some interesting things. The following is a quote regarding Alan Keyes and the Illinois Senate campaign in 2004 which is found on Wikipedia:
During the campaign, Keyes outlined an alternative to reparations for slavery. His specific suggestion was that, for a period of one or two generations, African-Americans who were descended from slaves would be exempt from the federal income tax (though not from the FICA tax that supports Social Security). Keyes said the experiment "would become a demonstration project for what I believe needs to be done for the whole country, which is to get rid of the income tax.
Then when you look into the term reparations for slavery we find this on Wikipedia:
Reparations for slavery is a proposal by some in the United States that some type of compensation should be provided to the descendants of enslaved people, in consideration of the labor provided for free over several centuries, which has been a powerful and influential factor in the development of the country.
Can we as Americans deny this fact of slavery which happened in our country? Is it not truth that these slaves worked very hard under difficult, harsh, and even brutal conditions and that, at least in part, because they did this this county grew to the place it is in today? I am not a black man nor am I aware of any slavery in my ancestry but the idea of reparations for the slavery of certain ancestries sounds fair to me if it is not taken to some perverted end of taking too much from those who have worked very hard and giving it to those who are not working when they can to earn a living well on their own if they could just get motivated. As far as details to how this "reparations" is fair that is another matter. Too many capable adults of all colors -including white people- are spoon fed by a foolish socialist government mentality which keep some unnecessarily dependent and unmotivated to do well for themselves. This country under it's conservative side offers the right USA views on how to encourage and motivate people to do what they really can and yet will have to give to those who are truly in need like the genuinely disabled, weak, or elderly of our land.

This brings me to the follow up of my last post regarding Barack Obama. It has been proven that this man Barack Obama is affiliated with some who wish to provoke and promote racism in another form all over again in this country of ours. For instance, his so-called pastor Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. -whom I see as none other than a minister of Satan and is no way is to be considered reverend- has been clearly doing this for some time. There is too much clear evidence that Barack Obama has racism motivating his plans for America. This is just another of the many dangers involved with permitting a racist and murderer of innocent offspring of the human race into the office of the highest Governing position of this country. Keep this man out of this high office as he is unfit for the position and will work to undermine any good morals left standing in the USA.

The following found in Lev. 26:14-17 is of the Old Covenant but I want to bring out a point from it:
‘But if you do not obey Me and do not carry out all these commandments, if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant, I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that will waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you will sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies will eat it up. ‘I will set My face against you so that you will be struck down before your enemies; and those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee when no one is pursuing you.
“Those who hate you will rule over you” is the key point I bring out here. If the people who call themselves God’s children do not hold fast to and stay sensitive to the true ways of God set forth in all of His Words as found in the New Covenant, and if the unbelievers –including those who have stolen the name of “Christian” in falsehood- continue to promote ungodly and wicked ways then I believe we need to be aware of God’s response of judgment.

I am looking at these words from Isaiah 3:4-5:
And I will make mere lads their princes, and capricious children will rule over them, and the people will be oppressed, each one by another, and each one by his neighbor; The youth will storm against the elder and the inferior against the honorable.
And I will leave the rest for John Calvin to bring insight to what may be happening in America now and in the near future…

And I will appoint children to be their princes. {1} That the vengeance of God may be more manifest, he now describes how sad and wretched will be the change, when competent and faithful rulers shall be taken from among them and God shall put cowardly and worthless persons in their room. By children are meant not only those who are so by age, but also by mind and conduct, such as delicate and effeminate persons, who are destitute of courage and cannot wield the sword entrusted to them. He does not here carry out the contrast, clause by clause; for he thought it enough to point out one way in which a commonwealth is speedily ruined; that is, when its rulers are weak and foolish men like children, who have no gravity or wisdom. But it must be laid down as a principle, that no man is qualified for governing a commonwealth unless he have been appointed to it by God, and be endued with uncommon excellence. Plato, too, understood this matter well: for though, being a heathen, he had no true knowledge of this kind, yet his quick sagacity enabled him to perceive that no man is fit and qualified for public government which has not been prepared for it by God in an extraordinary measure; for public government proceeds from God alone, and in like manner every part of it must be upheld by him. Besides, they whom the Lord does not govern have nothing left for them but to be children, or rather to be twice children, that is, destitute of all skill and of all wisdom.
Now the Lord executes this vengeance in two ways; because it frequently happens, that when we appear to have those who are grave and skillful in business, no sooner do they come to action than they stumble like blind men, and have no more wisdom than children; for the Lord deprives them of that remarkable ability which they had formerly received from him, and stuns them, as if he had struck them with a thunderbolt. But sometimes the Lord proceeds more gently, and gradually removes men of extraordinary ability, who were fit for ruling, and commits the reins of government to those who were unable to govern a family, or even a single child liken these things happen, it is very certain that destruction is not far off.
Besides, it deserves our notice, as I lately mentioned, that a well-regulated commonwealth is a singular gift of God, when the various orders of judges and senators, soldiers, captains, artificers, and teachers, aid each other by mutual intercourse, and join in promoting the general safety of the whole people. For when the Prophet threatens, and pronounces it to be a very severe punishment, that these things shall be taken away, he plainly shows that those eminent and uncommon gifts of God are necessary for the safety of nations. Accordingly, he here commends the office of magistrates, and captains, and soldiers, and likewise the office of teachers. This deserves our notice in opposition to fanatics, who endeavor to banish from the world the power of using the sword, together with all civil government and order. But the Prophet declares that these things are not taken away or removed unless when God is angry. It follows, therefore, that they who oppose, and, as far as lies in their power, set aside or destroy such benefits, are wicked men and enemies of the public safety.
He likewise commends instruction, without which a commonwealth cannot stand; for, as Solomon says,

where prophecy is not, the nation must be ruined. (#Pr 29:18).

At the same time, he commends the mechanical arts, agriculture, manual occupations of every description, architecture, and such like, which we cannot dispense with; for all artisans of every kind, who contribute what is useful to men, are the servants of God, and have the same end in view with those who were formerly mentioned, namely, the preservation of mankind
The same thing must be said about war; for, although lawful, war ought to be nothing else than an attempt to obtain peace; yet sometimes an engagement is unavoidable, that they who have the power of the sword may use it, and defend themselves and their followers by arms. War, therefore, is not in itself to be condemned; for it is the means of preserving the commonwealth. But neither must eloquence be despised; for it is often needed, both in public and in private life, that something may be clearly and fully explained and demonstrated to be true. This is also reckoned among the gifts and important blessings of God, when a state abounds in wise and eloquent men,
who can contend with the adversaries in the gate. (#Ps 127:5).

This passage may be thus summed up, "When God takes away those gifts, and alters the condition of a people, in whatever way this takes place, either by changing the form of government, or by taking away the rulers, the anger of God ought to be acknowledged;" for, as Hosea says,

He Taketh Away Kings In His Wrath, And Appointeth Them In His Indignation. (#Ho 13:11).

Let us not, therefore, ascribe these changes to chance or other causes.

25 Comments:

At 9:38 AM , Blogger James said...

Dennis, I think you stated quite well the case for looking honestly at our nation's difficult history around race and slavery, and for considering some way to address the legacy of that history today.

I was particularly pleased to read your discussion of this issue because of what you wrote after that.

I, personally, have never encountered someone who could acknowledge that history, and the need for justice, and yet still believe in anything like this: that there is clear evidence that Barack Obama has racism motivating his plans for America.

I've never detected any hint, myself, that Barack Obama is motivated by racism of any kind. All of his policies, and all of his words, seem to me to be even-handed and without prejudice. In my experience, in fact, those who have argued such a thing have turned out to be racists themselves, driven by a belief that blacks are inferior, or a fear that blacks are planning to seek justice for what has been done to them. Yet your own words seem to be powerful evidence that, whatever drives you to these beliefs, you are nothing like they are.

To hear someone who believes such a thing, and is still able to honestly acknowledge the history of race in this country and its impact today, gives me hope. Thank you.

 
At 9:02 PM , Blogger Dennis Elslager said...

James,
I want to thank you for sharing here and I want to respond to something you said:

"I've never detected any hint, myself, that Barack Obama is motivated by racism of any kind. All of his policies, and all of his words, seem to me to be even-handed and without prejudice."

I would like to believe that Barack Obama is innocent of my concerns of him but his actions speak loader than his many eloquent words that have mislead many. His affiliations and past record need to be considered as we look objectively at him.

1) In his stance on being willing to murder innocent babies in and out of the womb, he proclaims that these voiceless people are a punishment to their mothers.

2) Barack Obama wishes to make bigger government which will take from the liberties found in the original intent of America - "Of the people". President Reagan once said this, "As Government expands, liberty contracts".

3) Obama is also playing into the selfishness of those who want unbalanced and undeserved handouts at the expense of those who work very hard to earn what they make. In an America -as it was intended- these hard workers have the right to give and share their rewards as they are moved to do so without the government coming in and forcing them to give to programs that promote what they do not believe in. Big government has promoted programs that take these tax payers earnings to increase what they believe -according to God's Word- is evil. Planned Parenthood is one that has promoted the killing of thousands of would-be US citizens that will not have a vote for any President because they were not allowed to live here. Another big government expense is the NEA which uses it's guise as art to promote sick and godless ideas to America. Barack Obama has been and is affiliated with such organizations like Planned Parenthood and has spoken out strongly for them.

If Obama wins this election through buying the public vote I see this scripture reference relative to today:

"They have set up kings, but not by Me; They have appointed princes, but I did not know it. With their silver and gold they have made idols for themselves, That they might be cut off." Hos 8:4


This is only some of my legitimate concern. It is certainly my view -according to Holy Scripture- that if Obama becomes President of America then God has permitted an evil man in a high governing position not because it is His desire but so as to judge this nation for it's will to ignore a Holy God and choose evil. The consequences will come in time but those who do know our God will shine out of the darkness as we approach the time of Christ's return.

I know these are strong words but I can not deny that I believe them.

 
At 9:50 PM , Blogger James said...

his stance on being willing to murder innocent babies in and out of the womb

I can appreciate that you're pro-life, Dennis.

(At least I assume you are, as Obama is not willing to abort fetuses. He's simply not willing to allow the government to make that decision for other people. This is a distinction that matters to me, but I respect that it may not to you.)

However, you're responding specifically to my comment that I don't see how you can believe that Obama is racist. Are you saying that you believe he could be racist in part because he disagrees with you about abortion? If so, I don't see why I can't suspect people of being racist because they don't agree with me about abortion (or, if you prefer, capital punishment).

Barack Obama wishes to make bigger government

I'd be interested in knowing how you draw a principled distinction between Obama and McCain on this issue, since they differ on how much they wish to spend on government by only a few percentage points.

(As it happens, I believe liberty is more directly affected not by the size of the budget, but by direct restrictions on liberty, like decisions people make about their own bodies and their own children.)

But again, how does this suggest, in any way, that Obama might be racist?

Obama is also playing into the selfishness of those who want unbalanced and undeserved handouts at the expense of those who work very hard to earn what they make.

Yet McCain, too, wants to do this. He and Obama only differ by a few percentage points in this area.

Does this mean McCain, too, is racist?

without the government coming in and forcing them to give to programs that promote what they do not believe in

And yet we do this all this time. McCain supports scores of programs that send my taxpayer dollars to promote what I don't believe in, and consider to be evil according to the Word of God.

If you were objecting equally to Obama and McCain, I would deeply respect your objections to our current political consensus. But you're arguing that Obama, and not McCain, is racist.

"If Obama wins this election through buying the public vote ...."

I would remind you, respectfully, that we currently have a president who broadly supports your religious views in the White House.

He came to power through vastly outspending his rivals.

How, exactly, is Obama's superior fundraising any different?

"They have set up kings, but not by Me"

This is roughly how I feel about Bush, actually. Whatever the purity of his intentions, he has arrogated power to himself beyond that of any other president in our history. Barack Obama, on the other hand, promises to reverse these changes.

"if Obama becomes President of America then God has permitted an evil man in a high governing position ...."

Wow. Dennis, where did you make the leap from your political views to saying that Barack Obama is "evil"?

This stuns me, coming from someone who seems so thoughtful and articulate. And it's certainly not set up by anything you've said in this exchange so far (aside from your views about abortion, but the vast majority of Americans are more liberal on abortion than you are, so I assume it's not merely that).

"I know these are strong words but I can not deny that I believe them."

I'm impressed by your honesty, Dennis, and by the depth of your conviction.

As a committed Christian who finds your views deeply unchristian, I hope that I'm simply misunderstanding you, or that these views aren't truly reflective of the depth of your love and charity towards your fellow man.

I also hope that this is about more than your view that government ought to enforce our views on abortion on all its citizens, to which you keep returning. Or your impression that Obama somehow represents big government, which I can only assume is supposed to be in comparison to his opponent or to the current president.

 
At 11:21 PM , Blogger Dennis Elslager said...

James,
Thanks again for taking the time to consider and respond to what I posted here. I have to admit I didn't really expect such a response as I haven't posted on any of my blogs for quite some time now and I simply felt compelled to publicize some of my recent concerns about this election.

I realize my reply back to you was not altogether just a reply to you but a continuation of my thoughts on what is happening in the country today before the elections. I guess I was thinking that it was very clear to me and others that if a man calls someone their pastor for many years and expresses that someone is a very respected religious figure to them that this would be an affiliation and acceptance of what they so strongly preach about. Barack Obama is a member of the Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ as I understand it. Of course I am referring again to Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. who clearly expresses ideas that are very much of a racist point of view. Whether others will see it this way or not I can't help but be very concerned that Barack would associate with and approve of such religious leaders as Wright and Louis Farrakhan. Even though this association or approval may not be pronounce by Obama, I do have concerns similar to what can found in this article found on the Washington Post. It is by close association that I have my concerns about Barack having hidden racism which of course would have prevented him from getting where he is today if this was clear to more people. If many people knew where Hitler was really at in his motivations he would not have succeeded as he did and gross tragedy could have been prevented.

Can I say that it is a fact that Barack Obama is a racist? Not exactly. But when one considers the more intimate company he keeps they might be very concerned. What do you think on this?

 
At 1:48 AM , Blogger Dennis Elslager said...

Just a note to follow my last reply here. As my wife has reminded me, Barack suddenly withdrew his membership of the Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ through what I would think is hypocrisy for PR. He did this after people started seeing what we are concerned about here. This in itself seems to solidify our concerns.

 
At 10:37 AM , Blogger James said...

Thanks again, Dennis, for such a thoughtful response.

In my denomination, we don't choose who we call our pastor. He's called by the congregation, but as individuals our only choice is to accept who is called. The views of my particular pastor are in no way an indication of my personal leanings.

If Wright exhibited grave moral failings, or if he were clearly outside of the acceptable range of church teachings, then of course that would be a different matter.

But Wright's views are not at all uncommon in American churches, particularly in majority-black churches. Obama may or may not like this, but it's a fact.

Most of Wright's preaching is, in fact, entirely innocuous. Even his controversial sermon (which Obama did not attend) was largely about how the United States is a country which constantly manages to improve itself and to seek justice. His rhetoric at a single moment in that sermon, in which he criticized one aspect of the U.S., was over the top but has been abused by being taken out of context.

I think many Americans are not familiar with the language of the oppressed, with the theology of liberation and the rhetorical style which has been crafted in communities which historically have faced appalling discrimination. This language can be uncomfortable, but it must be taken in context if the meaning of the words are to be understood.

You say that Wright expresses "racist" ideas. I'd be interested in knowing what he's said that you think is racist. He has certainly complained about this country's racist past, and insisted that we must continue to strive for equality and justice, but surely these ideas aren't racist?

I can respect your concern about who Obama chooses to associate with. But I think we need to be careful in drawing conclusions. For instance, Rev. Wright was a nationally respected preacher, and Obama did not choose him to be his pastor. Attending and being active in church does not constitute a particular endorsement of Wright's views.

Obama has no association with Louis Farrakhan that in any way suggests approval of the man or his views.

The article you link to, in fact, says that Obama has done nothing to endorse Farrakhan or to suggest that he holds views like his. What the article says is that Farrakhan was given an award by a magazine which, a quarter of a century earlier, was launched by the church which Obama later attended. This is hardly "close association" with Obama.

You say, "Can I say that it is a fact that Barack Obama is a racist? Not exactly."

In fact, you have no evidence whatsoever that Obama is a racist, do you?

As for your comment that your concerns only solidified because Obama withdrew his support from his church, you can't have it both ways.

Obama wasn't at the sermon in question, he didn't know about it, and yet you say he's tainted by association for continuing to attend a church where such views are aired. Yet he resigns from the church after he learns of the offensive comment, and you complain that this action further worries you.

Please forgive me, but I'm having trouble understanding these views as a reasonable response to the evidence. Does McCain withstand your scrutiny? He, personally, has said much more racist things than even these people whose views Obama has never endorsed. I can't help but wonder where your suspicions are coming from, because I just can't figure them out.

 
At 9:14 PM , Blogger jen said...

Does McCain withstand your scrutiny? He, personally, has said much more racist things than even these people whose views Obama has never endorsed.

Could you point me to some examples, because I've never read or heard anything like that anywhere.

 
At 10:07 PM , Blogger jen said...

I looked it up and found a few things from somewhat unreliable sources. I did find this youtube of an interview where Joe Biden said that McCain is not prejudiced. And apparently he's known him for some time.

I know that a lot of people said a lot of things during the time these men were campaigning -- and there are probably moments of regret on both sides. I didn't really feel that either man was capable of leading this country. I was certainly not pro-McCain, and if he ever has made bigoted comments, I would certainly be against that.

In my opinion, there was not a single candidate worthy of the office of president.

 
At 10:48 AM , Blogger James said...

Jen, I certainly wouldn't accuse Senator McCain of being a racist.

I do feel, as I said, that he has made statements which are more racist than those of figures like Rev. Wright. Please bear in mind that I've said I don't see what Rev. Wright has said that is racist, so that's my point of comparison: has McCain gone further than Wright?

For instance, McCain's fierce opposition to a holiday for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not exactly his finest moment.

McCain also has a history of using racial slurs in public, and is widely reported to tell racist jokes, with other racist language, with colleagues.

 
At 5:35 PM , Blogger jen said...

If it is true that McCain has done that, then I don't see a distinction between saying he has and calling him a racist. If it is from the heart that the mouth speaks, then the racist comments are coming from somewhere, are they not?

I think one of my issues with the situation regarding Jeremiah Wright is the hypocrisy in that one sermon that has been scrutinized.

At one point, he says this:
The government still thinks a woman has no rights over her own body, and between Uncle Clarence who sexually harassed Anita Hill, and a closeted Klan court, that is a throwback to the 19th century, handpicked by Daddy Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, between Clarence and that stacked court, they are about to undo Roe vs. Wade, just like they are about to un-do affirmative action...

Then later, he says this:
...No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people. God damn America, for treating our citizens as less than human...

Aren't babies in the womb the most innocent of all of our people? And the thing that makes little sense to me is that Planned Parenthood began largely as a way of decreasing the black segment of our population! Why should anyone stand behind something as sickening as that?

No truly thinking person would deny that our country has had a disgusting history of mistreating some segments of her citizens. But to hear some people talk, I am as guilty as the slave owners due to the colour of my skin. Perhaps someone in my past has owned slaves. I don't know because I haven't looked that deeply into my family tree. But I can assure you that had I lived in those times I would have been an abolitionist, just as I speak out today regarding an end to abortion.

 
At 5:50 PM , Blogger James said...

If it is true that McCain has done that, then I don't see a distinction between saying he has and calling him a racist.

Well, McCain has said those things. If you think that makes him a racist, that's your call. I don't know what's in his heart, and I'm not prepared to judge his character on the basis of those remarks. Just to judge those remarks.

To me, those are the sorts of things I've often heard from well-meaning people of his generation. He grew up in a very different environment than I did, and I'm not prepared to judge him a racist just because he makes remarks that would be racist if they came from someone of my background.

Aren't babies in the womb the most innocent of all of our people?

You're making a value judgment here that most Americans don't share. (As in, a large majority of Americans support abortion, at least under some circumstances, and say that a fetus isn't the moral equivalent of a human being.)

I'm not criticizing your judgment at all, or even suggesting that I disagree with it. But since most Americans don't seem to believe that an embryo or fetus is the moral equivalent of a human being, I'm not sure it's helpful to inject this into the discussion, or to try to use the history of one organization to suggest that an entire practice is morally wrong.

But to hear some people talk, I am as guilty as the slave owners due to the colour of my skin.

I would certainly hope there aren't many people who believe this.

But if you're white, you do benefit every day from being white.

This doesn't mean you should feel guilty, but it suggests to me that it's important to acknowledge this benefit and to think about whether you should do something about it.

Perhaps someone in my past has owned slaves. I don't know because I haven't looked that deeply into my family tree.

I appreciate your honesty in saying that you simply don't know.

Far more American families had slaves than most people realize. And all American families around during slavery benefited significantly from that institution. So more of us have derived benefits from slavery than a lot of people realize.

I can assure you that had I lived in those times I would have been an abolitionist

No, you can't assure me of that.

Almost everyone alive during slavery was not an abolitionist. In fact, upwards of 99% of Americans willingly participated in slavery or the slave trade, or a business directly connected to them, or accepted the substantial economic benefits they generated.

The odds that you or I would have been one of the very few exceptions are slim indeed.

 
At 6:27 PM , Blogger jen said...

But since most Americans don't seem to believe that an embryo or fetus is the moral equivalent of a human being, I'm not sure it's helpful to inject this into the discussion, or to try to use the history of one organization to suggest that an entire practice is morally wrong.

Opinions don't change truth. Truth is truth regardless of what the majority of people believe. As you stated, most people thought that slavery was not morally wrong and willingly participated in it. Were their opinions valid, or was it truth that slavery was indeed an abominable practice and needed to be abolished?

Far more American families had slaves than most people realize.

And it's my understanding that there were quite a number of black slave owners as well, for whatever that's worth.

No, you can't assure me of that.

With all due respect, James, you don't know my heart any more than you know McCain's. I grew up exposed to racism in the south and I have spoken up numerous times against it and in defense of my friends who were not white, or otherwise not 'like everyone else'. I have been known amongst friends and family as being one who stands up for the 'underdog', for whatever that's worth as well.

 
At 6:37 PM , Blogger James said...

Truth is truth regardless of what the majority of people believe.

I agree with you, Jen. I just don't think it helps to inject statements like, "Aren't babies in the womb the most innocent of all of our people?" into a conversation, if most people aren't going to be on board with it. We weren't talking about abortion; you seemed to be bringing that in as an example or way of arguing your point, which won't work if most people aren't with you on that.

That's all I meant.

it's my understanding that there were quite a number of black slave owners as well, for whatever that's worth.

There were a very, very small number of black American slave owners, yes.

With all due respect, James, you don't know my heart any more than you know McCain's.

Yes, but there are millions of Americans with wonderful hearts, Jen. And there must have been in those days, too, and yet almost all of them participated in one way or another, and almost no one opposed slavery. Until the very end, there were far fewer abolitionists, for instance, than people in the south in recent decades who have spoken up against racism.

You're right, I can't tell you your heart, and I don't know that you aren't the very rare exception.

Can you really tell me that you are? That you're that exceptional?

 
At 6:42 PM , Blogger jen said...

That you're that exceptional?

Thank you very much for the giggle, James. No, I'm not exceptional, unless having a very big mouth backed by a strong belief regarding what's right and wrong makes me so. :)

 
At 6:50 PM , Blogger James said...

Ah. Apparently I'm quite exceptional, too, Jen.

Thanks for lightening the mood. :-)

 
At 6:55 PM , Blogger jen said...

As far as lightening the mood, I do hope that we are both involved in this conversation with the understanding that it's merely an exchange of ideas. I have no intentions of appearing militant in this exchange with you. :)

You said:
I agree with you, Jen. I just don't think it helps to inject statements like, "Aren't babies in the womb the most innocent of all of our people?" into a conversation, if most people aren't going to be on board with it. We weren't talking about abortion; you seemed to be bringing that in as an example or way of arguing your point, which won't work if most people aren't with you on that.

In reality, all these issues are interrelated, regardless of whether most people are 'on board with it' or not. Please look back over our conversation and notice that the issue of abortion entered via a discussion of Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermon. I merely made the connection that to protect the rights of black citizen's is no more important than to protect the right's of babies in the womb. I'm not going to let my beliefs and resulting conversations be ruled by what matters to most people that I talk to. What use would there be in having any convictions if I did that?

 
At 6:59 PM , Blogger jen said...

I do however feel militant when I see that I'm guilty of apostrophe abuse...

My apologies. :)

 
At 7:41 PM , Blogger James said...

I have no intentions of appearing militant in this exchange with you.

That's certainly my intention, too. I never know how it comes across, though. :-)

I merely made the connection that to protect the rights of black citizen's is no more important than to protect the right's of babies in the womb.

I understand that this statement seems true to you, Jen.

But if most people don't agree with it--and would even be gravely offended by the comparison--then I think it's important to ask whether this approach to the issue is constructive.

Certainly most people, if they wouldn't agree with that statement, wouldn't agree with you that these issues are interrelated. So while it may be true, if you turn out to be right, your argument won't help in convincing most people, either.

What use would there be in having any convictions if I did that?

Well ... I happen to think that you can be true to your convictions, and even share those convictions with the world, without letting every conversation turn to those beliefs. If that happens, then isn't everyone else losing the benefit of your perspective? Which is, after all, influenced by your beliefs, which makes it particularly important?

 
At 7:51 PM , Blogger jen said...

I honestly can't understand where the grave offense occurs. What I am saying is that we need to be protecting all of our citizens -- that's how I find it to be interrelated.

Slavery has been abolished, and there is affirmative action in place to the degree that certain white people are now unable to get jobs they are qualified for.

But babies are still dying. More and more every day.

If abolitionists had not spoken up for black people, where would we all be with that today? If people don't speak up for the innocent unborn, what kind of society are we that kills off its weakest citizens?

...without letting every conversation turn to those beliefs.

I'm not sure what you mean there. This is but one conversation in the context of my life.

Also, could you restate your last two sentences? I'm afraid that I don't understand them.

 
At 8:11 PM , Blogger James said...

The grave offense occurs when you compare the rights of black citizens to what most Americans don't consider to be a human life at all.

Now, you may not care that most of your fellow citizens are offended. That's fine. I'm just saying the argument won't be very effective, and it doesn't follow naturally, but only if the listener believes the things that you do.

You're saying that we need to be protecting everyone that you consider to be a citizen. For those who don't consider an embryo or a fetus to be a citizen--and I assume you use that term metaphorically, as no one thinks that an embryo or a fetus is actually a citizen of the U.S., even if it should be considered a human being--this argument will have no weight.

If abolitionists had not spoken up for black people, where would we all be with that today?

Actually, that's not really how slavery ended. Which is only relevant because it might suggest where the battle over abortion is headed ....

If people don't speak up for the innocent unborn, what kind of society are we that kills off its weakest citizens?

I don't argue that those who believe the unborn are human beings, entitled to equal rights, should speak up for them.

"What kind of society are we?" is a different issue. That depends entirely on when you think human life (meaning the point at which a human being is entitled to life) begins.

I'm not sure what you mean there. This is but one conversation in the context of my life.

Yes. My point is that you took an apparently unrelated conversation, and brought abortion into it. And did so in a way that would have no meaning for those who didn't already agree with you. And you did so in a way that, as far as I can tell, minimized the importance of civil rights for millions of Americans in order to raise the issue of the importance in your eyes of the unborn.

Also, could you restate your last two sentences? I'm afraid that I don't understand them.

By those two sentences, I meant that if you use this conversational device, you will lose your audience. If a listener doesn't happen to share your strong views about when human life begins, then logically, what you said in that conversation has no meaning.

In that case, you lose the chance to influence the listener about your point of view on the subject at hand (in that case, race). Which is a shame. And since you're strongly influenced by such beliefs as the one about abortion, I suspect having those beliefs, even if you don't explicitly discuss them, can help give you a useful perspective on other issues. (In fact, you agree with me, don't you, since even if you hadn't raised the issue of abortion, you believed the comparison told you something important about that issue.)

 
At 8:43 PM , Blogger jen said...

The grave offense occurs when you compare the rights of black citizens to what most Americans don't consider to be a human life at all.

As I said, popular opinion doesn't sway me. When God says it's a life, I choose to believe Him.

Also, why does this always come down to blacks? Aren't other segments of our society facing prejudices? Hispanics, Asians, and even my own sex, etc?

Now, you may not care that most of your fellow citizens are offended. That's fine.

I'm not sure where that came from. It certainly isn't true. As I said, this is but one conversation in the context of my life. It's not like I go spouting off on abortion (or any other subject) to everyone I meet. :)

I'm just saying the argument won't be very effective, and it doesn't follow naturally, but only if the listener believes the things that you do.

If the listener believed the things that I do, why would there be any argument in the first place?

Actually, that's not really how slavery ended. Which is only relevant because it might suggest where the battle over abortion is headed ....

I'm assuming that you are referring to the Civil War. I certainly pray that it would never come to that.

Yes. My point is that you took an apparently unrelated conversation, and brought abortion into it.

Once again, the conversation was regarding statements made by Jeremiah Wright. I pulled out two things that he said in the sermon in question -- one regarding the removal of a woman's right to choose and the other regarding how America was guilty of taking innocent lives of black citizens. I simply stated that I see hypocrisy in those two statements.

And did so in a way that would have no meaning for those who didn't already agree with you.

Again, if everyone agreed with me, what would be the point of this conversation?

And you did so in a way that, as far as I can tell, minimized the importance of civil rights for millions of Americans in order to raise the issue of the importance in your eyes of the unborn.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but in no way do I minimize civil rights issues. I simply feel that both are incredibly important. But many want to minimize the abortion issue and elevate the civil rights issue. Is that stance any better?

 
At 9:17 PM , Blogger jen said...

I'm really curious as to your thoughts on something I said earlier.

You stated that 99% of people were participating in slavery. I then logically conclude that 1% were against it. (I'd love to know where you get these figures, because I'm trying to imagine a civil war between the 99% and the 1%.)

The percentage gap is much closer between people who do not believe that abortion is wrong and those who do. It's certainly not 99% for abortion.

Back in the days of slavery, should the 1% of people who were against it have approached it as you suggest, careful not to offend the majority who felt it was not morally wrong?

Did the fact that the majority believed slavery was not a moral injustice make them right? Or were they blinded by something else? Greed perhaps? Self-interest?

I propose that it's a similar situation with the abortion issue. I believe that it follows that the majority can be wrong about an issue, and whether people are offended or not, the lives of the unborn are not something to be silent about any more than slavery was.

Both are extremely important issues. We can minimize neither.

 
At 10:02 AM , Blogger James said...

As I said, popular opinion doesn't sway me. When God says it's a life, I choose to believe Him.

Oh, I agree with you on that. I'm just saying that you should understand why this causes grave offense to most people, who don't share that belief.

I'm fine with causing grave offense. But it won't score you any points on the subject of race to introduce abortion in a way that offends people, that's all.

why does this always come down to blacks? Aren't other segments of our society facing prejudices?

Yes, that's certainly true. I'm not sure what you think always comes down to blacks, though, or why this is an objection to talking about what to do about one particular historical legacy.

I simply stated that I see hypocrisy in those two statements.

That's a fair comparison. It's just going to work only for a minority of Americans.

For the rest, they're simply not going to see any hypocrisy. And in fact, there is none.

It's not hypocritical to defend the rights of people, and not to defend the rights of those who aren't people. You believe abortion is aborting people, but Wright and most Americans do not.

Therefore it's not hypocrisy; they just don't share the same faith-based assumptions as you.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but in no way do I minimize civil rights issues. I simply feel that both are incredibly important.

I know you feel that way. Again, though, for people who don't see the second issue as about civil rights at all, it's offensive. You're comparing what, to them, are the rights of people and something of much lesser importance. That's all.

But many want to minimize the abortion issue and elevate the civil rights issue. Is that stance any better?

They don't want to minimize the abortion issue. They just don't see it the way that you do.

You stated that 99% of people were participating in slavery. I then logically conclude that 1% were against it. (I'd love to know where you get these figures, because I'm trying to imagine a civil war between the 99% and the 1%.)

First, to be clear, I said that during slavery, more than 99% "willingly participated in slavery or the slave trade, or a business directly connected to them, or accepted the substantial economic benefits they generated."

We know from historical records how many benefited from slavery in these ways, and we also know that very, very few people refused to participate in this system, or spoke out against it.

Your difficulty in imagining the Civil War under these conditions is probably the result of thinking of the Civil War as a fight between those who wanted to end slavery, and those who wanted to keep it.

In fact, while the south was nervous it would lose slavery, the north was fighting to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. This only became a war end well into the war, and was a secondary issue.

To help illustrate this, slavery hadn't even completely ended in the north when the Civil War broke out. The north was hardly a hotbed of abolitionist sentiment.

The percentage gap is much closer between people who do not believe that abortion is wrong and those who do. It's certainly not 99% for abortion.

That's right, it's currently much closer.

Back in the days of slavery, should the 1% of people who were against it have approached it as you suggest, careful not to offend the majority who felt it was not morally wrong?

I'm not saying that you should do that.

I think you should use a combination of fiery rhetoric and cool, subtle techniques, in whatever mixture will be most effective in trying to sway the majority of Americans.

However, whenever you argue from the assumption that your position is correct, most people won't buy into your conclusions. In this case, your conclusions about Wright. That's all. If you're fine with that in a particular situation, that's great.

 
At 10:00 PM , Blogger jen said...

I'm just saying that you should understand why this causes grave offense to most people, who don't share that belief.

I guess this is where part of my confusion lies. I thought I was having a conversation with you, not 'most people'. If anything I've said has gravely offended you, I do apologize. Causing offense is not my purpose, but I can't be silent about things I know to be true if the subject comes up. This doesn't mean that I railroad over people with my opinions, but I do try to speak the truth in love, as the Bible commands. I do notice that you said that you agree with me that what God says is true? Does this mean that you also believe that life begins at conception?

But it won't score you any points on the subject of race to introduce abortion in a way that offends people, that's all.

Actually, I'm not looking to score any points on anything. I thought we were just having an exchange of ideas. I'm not a political or social activist or anything like that.

I'm not sure what you think always comes down to blacks, though, or why this is an objection to talking about what to do about one particular historical legacy.

I don't recall saying that I had an objection to talking about that particular historical legacy, but I don't think it's the only thing that matters in the great scheme of things. Slavery did end long ago, and it seems to me that the black community has made great advancements in recent times. It's not that no attention should be given the the grave injustice done, but there are other things happening now. Unfortunately, I have run across a number of black people with a chip on their shoulder who are all too willing to call people racist who are not. And I have also seen comments made saying that now that Obama is President-Elect, it's time for the blacks to rule for 200 years. I have to wonder, is that really constructive?

I got this from the website of Trinity United Church of Christ (Jeremiah Wright's church):

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

They speak of segregation as a bad thing, but the language used here seems to indicate it. They are 'a congregation which is Unashamedly Black'? Also, what would happen if a church with predominantly white people had a statement like this on their website saying that 'We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community'? I would be horrified by that, and would find that to be a racist church, and would never attend there. Why doesn't it work the other way?

I understand that there has been a long history of slavery, segregation, lynching, racial slurs, etc. And I am sure that there is much about it that I don't understand. But I am not guilty of those things. I've never ruled over anyone. But am I supposed to be ashamed of being white and support 'black power'?

I'm not sure that angry sermons and black liberation theology is what Martin Luther King had in mind.

I believe that in regard to racism, there is healing in Christ. The God that I serve doesn't look at the colour of a person's skin -- He looks at the heart. And He calls all of us who claim to be His to do the same.

-----------------

Thank you for your comments about the history of the Civil War. I would like to study that more in depth. I know bits and pieces, but there's certainly more to learn.

However, whenever you argue from the assumption that your position is correct, most people won't buy into your conclusions.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that if I argue from the standpoint that I am correct that life begins at the point of conception, most people won't buy into my conclusions. I really don't see any other way to discuss something. Doesn't everyone speak from the perspective that their beliefs are right? Meaning, I am perfectly willing to listen to you educate me on the Civil War, because I freely admit that I am rather ignorant on the subject. But if I know that I am right about abortion, what other position could I take than that of knowing I am right? I don't beat people over the head with it, but to speak as though I am unsure of my position so as not to offend someone would be inherently dishonest. I am not one of those people who feel that truth is subjective.

 
At 4:49 AM , Blogger jen said...

James, I thought you might like to read this post. I found it to be a rather interesting perspective.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home