Rest in Glory, Desmond Tutu

 

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

"Because we are human beings who have been given, extraordinarily, by this God we worship the gift of freedom. And God has such a deep reverence for that gift, that God who— alone I usually say he has the perfect right to be a totalitarian, had much rather see us go freely to hell than compel us to go to heaven. God takes seriously the gift that God has given us. And we make choices. And the God, who in an omnipotent God, in many ways becomes impotent, because God has given us the gift to choose. And God hopes that there will be those who agitate against slavery, that we will have people who will fight against racism, injustice, oppression, wherever."

"Once a Zambian and a South African, it is said, were talking. The Zambian then boasted about their Minister of Naval Affairs. The South African asked, “But you have no navy, no access to the sea. How then can you have a Minister of Naval Affairs?” The Zambian retorted, “Well, in South Africa you have a Minister of Justice, don’t you?”"

"When will we learn that human beings are of infinite value because they have been created in the image of God, and that it is a blasphemy to treat them as if they were less than this and to do so ultimately recoils on those who do this? In dehumanizing others, they are themselves dehumanized. Perhaps oppression dehumanizes the oppressor as much as, if not more than, the oppressed. They need each other to become truly free, to become human. We can be human only in fellowship, in community, in koinonia, in peace.

Let us work to be peacemakers, those given a wonderful share in Our Lord’s ministry of reconciliation. If we want peace, so we have been told, let us work for justice. Let us beat our swords into ploughshares.

God calls us to be fellow workers with Him, so that we can extend His Kingdom of Shalom, of justice, of goodness, of compassion, of caring, of sharing, of laughter, joy and reconciliation, so that the kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdom of our God and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever. Amen."

"Just Us" or Justice?

 

Stan at the Birds of the Air blog put up a post today about his understanding of Justice. As is often the case, his argument raises so many questions that I'd love to see answered, and yet, he never answers questions. So, here are some of the questions/concerns I have about what he's written, for what they're worth.

Stan... "as is so much the case these days -- words are shifting -- "justice" is shifting. Part of that is displayed in that simple first definition above, where "fair and reasonable" becomes purely "What I consider fair and reasonable.""

It is not currently defined as "WHAT I consider fair and reasonable..." It has always been what the culture at large considers fair and reasonable. Nothing is shifting there.

Stan... "Instantly it becomes contrary and meaningless because too many of us would define "fair and reasonable" in a way that is neither."

Like, for instance, saying that a human who has committed 1000 typical "sins" (no murder, rape, arson, grand larceny, etc... more of the gossiping, slander, lying, etc sorts of sins) "deserves" to be punished for an eternity of torture/torment... that is most certainly not in any rational way far or reasonable... and yet it's what conservatives routinely teach. So, insofar as you're talking about traditional abuse of the word Justice by conservative Christians, yes, it does become meaningless.

Do you understand why?

At the same time, I suspect that what is Just is not that difficult for the vast majority of us. We recognize that for a ruler/nation to punish someone for a lifetime for relatively minor crimes would be a travesty of justice. We recognize murder, rape, arson, abuse of innocents, assault, etc... to be offenses against justice. It's generally and broadly speaking, just not that difficult for most rational adults.

Admittedly, when it comes down to specifics, it can be trickier... what IS a just punishment for murder? Capitol punishment? Life in prison? Possible parole for good behavior? What if the murder was a woman killing her abusive husband? Same punishment or do the circumstances make a difference?

The details can be tricky and disputable and, to be completely clear, there are NO perfect answers. We don't have a perfect court or word from God that spells out the specifics of all the potentialities of what to do when someone harms another. But, nonetheless, generally speaking, it's not that difficult.

Stan (referring to a death penalty for eating the fruit in the garden in the Creation story)... "God thought so. We wouldn't. "

Stan thinks God thought so. But that's Stan's opinion and it's not a given and not proven.

IF the story is a mythic telling of Creation as it appears to be at face value, then we aren't obligated to treat that "punishment" as a literal suggestion that God thinks eating fruit deserves a death penalty, which is irrational on the face of it. And unjust as the word is defined.

Stan... "God considered adultery worthy of death (Lev 20:10); we don't."

Just to be clear: YOU, Stan, don't consider adultery (or talking back to your parents) to be worthy of death, do you? No answer forthcoming, I'm sure.

Stan... "Perhaps you see, now, why simply "that which corresponds that what is right" is something of an unhelpful definition for "justice" when we are so deficient at knowing what is right."

Ah, and it comes down to this. YOU are suggesting that we are "so deficient at knowing what is right..." but you haven't proven this. It's an unsupported hunch on your part. God has not said this. Reason does not demand it. It's what you and your human tradition believes.

Do you recognize how this is correct?

Stan... "His infinite perfections, infinite greatness, and infinite worth are violated when we take it upon ourselves to circumvent Him."

Ah, but what of those who never once decide to "take it upon ourselves to circumvent God..."? The atheist and agnostic, for instance, who don't believe the evidence supports a God are specifically NOT ever, not even one time, trying to circumvent God. They just don't believe in God, so they would have no reason to choose to circumvent God.

If they do something wrong, it's never an intentional affront to God. At all. So, by that measure (the one you're suggesting there), atheists can do no wrong, it would seem. Does that make sense?

Also, what of all those who DO love God and disagree with conservatives about how best to follow God. We support the idea of aiding refugees and immigrants, of abolishing the death penalty, of supporting a woman's right to choose, of supporting women's rights in general, of supporting LGBTQ rights... ALL in an effort to honor God and follow God's ways. There is zero intention on our part to "circumvent God," even though conservatives disagree with us on these points. But we're not beholden to conservatives, are we? ...but to God, as best we understand God.

In that case, do you agree there is no intent to circumvent God... but instead, just the opposite?

Stan... "If we understand sin like it is described in Scripture -- a violation of God's glory, an assault on God's holiness, treason against the Most High -- then lots of things change. Death for sin becomes reasonable."

1. First of all, "scripture" LITERALLY never describes sin in those terms... not that I can think of. Those are human interpretations of Scripture, but literally NOT scripture. Just as a starting point, do you recognize that?

(Briefly, in the Bible, there are two terms translated "sin..." The most common one, I'm told, is one that speaks of missing the mark - imperfection. Attempting to hit the target but falling short. That makes sense. We all recognize how we humans do that. The second, less-common in the Bible word is the notion of intentionally transgressing a law, going beyond boundaries that were set... neither of those ideas are comparable to "cosmic treason" or "an assault on God's holiness." Those are Stan's - and others' - reading into the Bible something that is literally not there.)

2. Even so, death does not "become reasonable..." IF we are imperfect humans and we make mistakes and choose wrong and do something God doesn't want us to do... HOW does eternal punishment for being imperfect make rational, just sense?

It doesn't.

Stan... "Christians who believe that Christ redeemed us by His blood (Rom 3:25; Rom 5:9; Rev 1:5) are backwards, ignorant, and, basically, just as evil as this god they believe in. Or, as I started to explain, they believe in a different form of "what is right" and it is not consistent with Scripture, history, or Christian doctrine."

That IS what much of conservative evangelical history teaches, but it is ONLY what you all think Scripture teaches, it's not God's Word. It's your opinion of God's Word, which many of us think is wrong for precisely the reasons you cite here... You're relying upon your own interpretations which are, on the face of it, unjust and unholy and irrational... which is, itself, an indication that you've misunderstood and misinterpreted. Do you recognize that distinction?

Stan, seriously, there is just so much wrong, unbiblical, irrational and unjust in what you're saying here. It really would help your case if you could answer the huge questions about the huge holes in your argument.

And if you can't answer them (and you almost certainly can't), then maybe it would be time to humble yourself a bit and take a step back, take a breath, open your eyes and ears to a fresh word from God... a Word that isn't so crazily irrational and unjust and unholy.

Stan... "Thus, the penalty for failing to meet that all-encompassing glory must be equal to the size of the failure. That's what corresponds to what is right."

???

Says who? And to be clear, I'm NOT disagreeing with God. I'm saying DID GOD REALLY SAY THAT precisely because I know the Bible and God did NOT say that. Any of that.

The Bible teaches of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God.
The Bible teaches of a God that wants ALL to be saved.
The Bible teaches of a God who has a table open to all, who saves by Grace, not by irrational fury.
The Bible teaches of a God who is patient and forgiving, who knows us better than we know ourselves and who loves us, just the same. BECAUSE God knows us perfectly.

It's an unhealthy, irrational and unjust human understanding of the Bible. A perversion of both God's great and glorious grace and God's justice.

Think about it: We have flawed, imperfect humans who sometimes make deliberate wrong choices, but more often than not, we make mistakes... We THINK it's right to oppose gay marriage, for instance, or we THINK it's right to support immigrants... and it turns out we're mistaken. Our point was to honor God and do the right thing. We're more often that not, I suspect, making errors from a place of trying to do the right thing.

Consider: What if STAN and his human traditions were wrong all along in their opposition and oppression of gay people? They didn't even realize they WERE oppressing gay people and causing harm (we conservatives have been, after all, but I know I didn't realize it at the time and no doubt, you don't realize it now)... but what if they were wrong? What if you were wrong?

Do you think that you, a human created as an imperfect human "deserves" to be punished "equal to the size of God's glory..."? How is that rational? Moral? Just? Biblical?

MAYBE, if we were perfect gods and everything we did, we did knowingly to cause evil... MAYBE then that would make sense. But imperfect humans being imperfect "deserve" a punishment as big as an almighty God??

You paint a rather petty and mean-spirited picture of a god who is irrational and unjust, by biblical standards.

Do you understand why or do I need to explain it to you? (That's a serious question, not meant to be insulting.)

More questions to Stan that will go unanswered by him or by conservatives, in general. At least, that has been my experience. I hope one day to find the conservative willing to wade into this and actually answer questions directly and rationally. I'm confident they exist... I just can't prove it, yet.

You Can't Hear Answers if You Refuse to Listen

Stan, on his blog, lamented with Craig recently how "they..." those "others" who call themselves Christian but who refuse to agree with his wisdom and human traditions - how they never even try to give reasonable responses to explain why they disagree with Stan and his human traditions.

The post was "Who Says?" and was written in response to my regular question to him (and he may have been writing with other people in mind who disagree with him, but there were so many near-direct quotes from me that he was clearly referencing conversations we've had.

And when I say, conversations, I mean where I've written to him explaining an alternative view and which he rarely responds to and never directly responds to anymore. At best, we may occasionally see Stan say something like, "Dan tells me..." (and then proceeds to say something that I haven't said, because he has, again, failed to understand what I was actually saying... but that's another post).

With conservatives, I regularly push back when they say that we can "know" that this position or that position is the "right one" because The Bible. By which, they mean, that THEY READ the Bible and THEY INTERPRET the Bible to be saying something that agrees with their particular human traditions. When they say, "But we know that God opposes gay people getting married..." I will regularly ask, "Says who?" Because God has not said that. Ever. Literally.

Who says is a reasonable question to answer, but Stan and Craig, etc, really hate it. They often will try to mock it by comparing it to the "devil" saying, "Did God really say...?" to "Eve" in the Creation story. The difference that they never seem to get is we are not questioning God. We're questioning them.

Beyond that, a rational, powerful and secure God can handle us asking questions, one would assume if one doesn't have a rather boxed in and limited view of God.

In this post, Stan concludes with what he says is the difference between people like him and people like me, saying...

Which brings us down to the fundamental difference. It is not merely a different understanding of the nature of sin. It is a different source of truth. I am not following some "set of human traditions." My source is the words of Scripture. My authority is the Father in the Old Testament and the Son in the Gospels and the Holy Spirit as the One who inspired the Scriptures as a whole, since the Scriptures, as a whole, maintain this position. I don't begin with "consensus" or "everyone understands ..."

And here, I would respond with, Says who? He clearly is following a set of human traditions. His source are the words of Scripture as he and those who agree with him interpret them. And THAT is the actual difference between he and I. And just because he doesn't agree with my conclusions (any more than I do his) doesn't mean I don't also read Scripture (and use my reason, as he does) to make conclusions.

By way of example, he offers his human opinions and interpretations of Matthew 18 that includes the verses about "plucking out your eye if it offends you, cut off your hand if it offends you... it's better to enter heaven maimed than be cast into a fiery hell for ever..." Stan concludes we can KNOW that there is an eternal punishment for all sinners (except for the "saved") because Jesus said so. And he cites this passage.

In the comments, Craig lamented...

A while back I raised a question something like, "If our reward for doing good (ie minimizing our typical sins) is eternal, and that eternal reward is "fair", then why wouldn't eternal punishment be "fair" also?". I never really got much of an answer for that either.

And Stan responded...

It feels like I rarely get reasoned answers to questions like that. But maybe that's just me.

[chuckle, chuckle...] those guys sure think they have them liberals on the ropes... They can't even answer their questions.

Except, I do. I did. I have and I regularly do answer these sorts of questions.

Here is my response to Stan's Matthew 18 "Jesus said there was eternal fiery hell for sinners" idea. It was the third or so time I'd answered it just in this post.

+++++++++

Instead of complaining that you "rarely get reasoned answers" - why not share the answers you HAVE received and have a reasoned discussion about the matter?

ETERNAL FIRE: in the context of the Matthew 18 passage, we see Jesus using what appear to be several clearly hyperbolic phrases to make a point. I suspect that most Christians agree that Jesus wasn't literally calling for plucking out our eyes or cutting off our hands.

Agreed?

Likewise, even amongst traditional conservative Christians, there is a fair amount of doubt about whether or not passages like this are suggesting a literally fiery hell/punishment. So, even conservatives treat many of these verses in Matthew 18 figuratively.

Agreed?

Do you think "hell" is a literal eternal fire or do you think the "fire" part might be figurative?

In the case of literal bodily mutilation, I suspect that most of Christianity does not think this is a literal command. The point being, then, a hyperbolic reminder to watch out for the trapping and harmful nature of sin.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4569/did-jesus-teach-people-to-literally-pluck-their-eye-out-and-cut-their-hand-off

Agreed?

Why then, when we see Jesus flip over to a mention of "eternal fire" as torture/punishment for at least some sin*, do we think it might be literal promise as opposed to hyperbolic emphasis, as is more rational and (at least some of us think) a natural, simple direct understanding of the text? Isn't a hyperbolic explanation of ALL of these examples the very clearest, simplest, most obvious interpretation?

Further, when Jesus used these seemingly clearly hyperbolic language, it is in the context of "one these little ones" this seems to many of us to be clearly connected with the on-going themes of justice for and siding the "least of these," the poor and marginalized to whom Jesus said he'd come to preach good news and release and Jubilee. This concern for the poor and marginalized to whom Jesus literally said he'd come to preach good news is in contrast with the Pharisees and rich and powerful whom Jesus regularly butted heads with. This passage clearly SEEMS IN KEEPING with this concern... it's yet another warning to powerful oppressors and those who cause harm to the poor and marginalized.

Is that not reasonable and biblical, even if you may not agree with it?

* In THAT clear context, Jesus gives this strong warning. This passage is literally not saying "Any sin will cause you to be thrown into hellfire forever, if you don't repent just right..."

Do you agree that it literally isn't a blanket warning for any and all sins to cause one to be "sent to" a "fiery hell" forever?

Now... EVEN IF you don't ultimately agree with my reasoning, how is that NOT a direct and clear reasoned response to the question of "eternal fire" as mentioned in Matthew 18? How is that not both reasoned and biblical?

++++++

Of course, Stan didn't answer, as he rarely does the actual questions I ask him. And so, I've posted it here, just to be clear that Stan et al ARE getting reasoned responses, in spite of their protests.

More on Grace and Justice

A follow up to my earlier post, “Neither Do I Condemn You...” and ongoing conversations about the various human theories about Atonement, as it relates to Christianity and salvation. Stan, at the Birds of the Air blog, recently posted about “The Awful Alternative...” where he talks about atonement theories.

On that blog post, Stan said that if we don't accept what Stan calls “traditional, biblical Christianity...” (and by which he means, if we don't accept the particular human traditions Stan believes in of understanding salvation in terms of either God paying a “ransom” for our “sins” or of Jesus “taking the punishment for our sins,” in place of us... ie, if we don't take the human traditions of evangelicals going back hundreds, maybe many hundreds of years), then there is no justice.

Here's what Stan said on his blog...

“First, clearly God is not "just and justifier" (Rom 3:26). The Ransom Theory and its sequels start with the premise that sin demands justice. Jesus did not satisfy that demand, so God is not just.”

The problems with this, as I pointed out to Stan are...

1. It still is a set of human traditions, no matter how many hundreds of years old it is and no matter how many humans agree with it.

2. It's a set of human traditions on a point that we can't prove objectively.

3. It presumes – in spite of any support for the presumption – that to not “atone” or make right with God in JUST the way that the humans who favor these human theories, then there God “is not just...”

The problem is: Says who? WHO SAYS that all sin – of whatever shape or size or impact, must be paid for by a human life? AND that the only “just” punishment is eternal torment with no hope for redemption or rehabilitation? It's a presumption that the claim is right, without a proof that the claim is correct.

4. The problem with this HUGE unproven presumption is that it contradicts the very notions of Justice that they say failing to heed their opinions will undermine. That is, choosing to punish someone for an eternity of torment for the typical sins of humanity... say, normal lies, minor thefts, greed, pride, etc – is disproportionate to the sin, and thus, a violation of justice.

Out of ALL these conservatives that I've talked with over the years – these who've visited my blog over the years, Stan, Neil, Glenn, Craig, Marshal... no doubt others I'm not thinking of right now... as well as those I've talked to in my real life and in places like FB – in ALL these conversations, no one has EVER dealt with this huge hole in their argument. The only path to “justice,” they argue, is to have an unjust and irrational and frankly, quite evil, punishment wildly disproportionate to the “crimes” committed.

Never an answer. Rarely even an attempt to answer it.

The closest that I've seen to an answer is them saying, “God's ways are not our ways...” But then, that begs the question of, “Well, what makes you think God's ways are YOUR ways? WHY is your human opinion about justice the “right” one to explain God's justice?"

So, there's all of that, waiting for some response. What Stan did respond to were a set of claims that I didn't make. For instance, Stan said in response to reasonable questions I raised...

The Jesus he follows condemns no one.

I never made this claim. It's not something I believe.

He points to my post on the “woman caught in adultery” as “evidence” that I've claimed Jesus condemns no one and no behavior. The problem is, that's not any claim I made in that post.

This is typical of the sort of responses I get from traditionalists of the conservative variety... straw-man attacks about things I haven't said versus dealing with the reasonable questions I did raise.

Stan did go on to allow that, “Well, Dan did say that Jesus condemned the Pharisees...” but then, that's not “no one,” is it? Further, in that post, I was speaking specifically about Jesus' harsh condemnations that are recorded in the gospels. In reality, Jesus only strongly rebukes the Pharisees and the rich oppressors in those texts. In pointing out that reality, I'm not saying that there are no other behaviors to condemn. At all. Of course, the poor man who rapes a woman or abuses a child should be condemned, as well. I'm just noting the reality that it didn't happen and get recorded in the gospels.

So, we see here another instance of a conservative reading words written in his own language and day and completely failing to understand the meaning. And I know the completely failed to understand my meaning because they were my words. I also asked Stan that, given his repeated inability to understand my words written to him today, why he has so much confidence in his understanding of ancient texts about an omniscient God's ideas?

No answer.

Stan continued by saying...

it must be clear that the God Dan follows and the Jesus Dan believes in is not the same as the mine. Why, then, would Dan be upset that I say that we are not in the same religion?

And later...

My God is defined as just (among other things) and yours is not.

My God is not “defined” as just? Says who? That's nothing I've said. I've always been abundantly clear that God is concerned about justice.

Stan continued...

Maybe it's me, following the longstanding, traditional, biblical version, or maybe it's him, with his what I would term "new and improved" version. But clearly we are not of the same faith if we do not have the same Father and the same Son to worship and obey.

Stan fails to see that it's a bit of presumption to say that because I disagree with his interpretations and traditions, that my views of God are not traditional or biblical. People have long viewed God in the ways I view God and we have often reached our opinions precisely because of the words of the Bible, not in opposition to them.

Stan's conclusion... “clearly we are not of the same faith and do not have the same Father...”

Because we disagree.

But imagine this: There's a family with a great pair of parents. Flawed, but still loving and concerned about justice especially for the poor and marginalized. One child in that family accurately says, “My parents were great. They loved us and taught us about justice and watching out for the poor and marginalized.”

The other child says, “My parents were horrible. They didn't act in a loving manner and were incredibly unjust!”

Does the second child NOT still belong to those parents and that family? Are they a different family because they one child disagrees?

Of course, this claim is not a rational or consistent one. Both children ARE part of the same family, in spite of disagreements or mistakes.

I totally get that we disagree significantly on many points. But the difference between modern (and not-so-modern) conservative evangelicals and more progressive folk is, we truly believe in Grace. That is, we don't insist that one must agree with us totally and completely – or even in part on some specific set of beliefs – in order to be a follower of God. Why? Because we don't believe that salvation or community depends upon perfect understanding of some vague and undefined set of “required” beliefs.

I can guarantee that I am wrong on some points. I don't know which ones, but I'm human and I will get things wrong. Likewise, I guarantee that all humans will get some things wrong. But we aren't saved by having perfect knowledge or perfect understanding, are we?

No Return

As most have probably heard, there is a conservative GOP Lieutenant Governor in North Carolina (Mark Robinson) who has gotten himself in some trouble for some of his antiquated and harmful views about our beloved LGBTQ fellow citizens, family, church family and friends. I don't want to repeat his harmful words, but suffice to say, they are bad. He has negative views about whole groups of people, most of whom he doesn't even know (of course) and has expressed those vulgar views and is standing by them and even doubling down on such comments, making them again in church.

In response, he has faced the consequences of his words, with people calling for him to resign (which he refuses). Instead, he goes on the attack saying that right-wing speech was being “demonized.”

He said recently, “I am tired of folks on the right being demonized for our speech,” he said, claiming that “folks on the left burn, beat, rob, loot — take over entire cities — and get a pass.”

Here's the thing: IF you are going to make vulgar, abhorrent comments - bad comments - then people will hold you accountable for your words. That isn't "demonizing" right wing free speech, it's calling clearly bad and harmful words "Bad."

We no longer allow vulgar comments about women, black folks and other minorities to be uttered publicly without repercussions. Some on the Right have to begin to recognize that you have free speech - the freedom to make vulgar, despicable language - but you will be held accountable for your vulgar words.

And holding people accountable is not an attack on the Right or on free speech. It's recognizing harmful, dangerous words for what they are.

Those on the Right (or otherwise) will just have to recognize that such speech IS vulgar and expect consequences. Get over it. You lost this "battle" and if you STILL think it's okay to make these sort of harmful comments, know that there will be consequences. Better yet, recognize the long history of abuse and harm done to our dear family and friends in the LGBTQ crowd, admit that this was wrong, and turn around and repent and get on the right side of history and decency.

And if you are a conservative who recognizes how harmful Robinson's words are, the question for you is: Will you now use this opportunity to speak up and denounce those on your side who are resorting to oppressive, vulgar language to attack fellow citizens, neighbors, friends and family?

"Communism!!" vs Communism

Stan, at the conservative Birds of the Air blog, recently posted about "Commune-ism."

In that post, he rightly notes that the early church lived in a communal manner, "sharing all things in common."

He rightly notes that the Merriam Webster definition of communism is, "a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed."

He also rightly notes that the communism of the early church was not Marxist Socialism. Of course.

And, in the final small paragraph, he rightly notes that the modern church does not look like the early church - at all - when it comes to the question of communal living.

Stan concludes with...

I would suggest that too many of us lack that "It's not about me" perspective. I would argue that we ought to be people changed from within, more concerned with the welfare of fellow believers than our own. If we are not, we have a problem, don't we?

Which is fine, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go very far, does it?

I asked Stan (in comments that won't be posted, per normal) why he didn't explore that more? Is he saying that HE, himself, is not interested in exploring it more because he doesn't have the selfless "it's not about me" perspective?

But still, I'm glad to see Stan admit that the early church literally DID embrace a communal life style (we might call it communitarianism, to help differentiate from Marxist Communism). I'm glad that he pointed out that the modern church, presumably himself included, do not even try to mimic the models left by Jesus and the early church.

But having done that, it would also be helpful if conservatives like Stan would help conservative conversations on this topic by pointing out, "So, we can SEE why communism of some sorts has an appeal to people taking Jesus and the early church and the Bible and following God seriously - it's quite biblical, at least in some form or the other..."

It would help if such people would help dispel this fear of "COMMUNISM!!" that is at the heart of so much conservatism today and help discussions about the difference between Authoritarianism and Tyranny versus Ideals of living Communally.

We can and should all be able to agree that tyranny is a bad thing, so when conservatives hear modern progressives talk about Communism, they can start with the assumption that we are not talking about tyranny. At all. Let that be a non-starter, for simple decency and honesty's sake.

And from there, they could continue to make the case why there certainly is something beautiful, holy, wonderful and biblical/Godly about the notion of living communally.

And from there, by all means, discussions about the historic difficulties of living communally (as well as the historic difficulties of living in isolation and as individuals and living capitalistically) and make the case that, in spite of the difficulties, maybe we should be following the example of Jesus and the early church more closely... trying to learn from mistakes of communities in the past and take it a step at a time, but at the same time, quit demonizing "communism" and using it as a scare word to inspire fear of their fellow citizens and in some cases, their fellow church members.

The scare words should be Tyranny and Authoritarianism (the latter of which, too often, pops up in conservative thinking), not Communism/Communitarianism, which has a wonderful, rational and biblical grounding. Maybe, when you conservatives see some crazy wild-eyed liberal 20-something in a Che tshirt talking loudly about communism, they could lead with the commendation that, "Yes, living communally, with a concern for the least of these and a desire to share things in common is a great ideal to be living for! How do we get there without the complications of any of the negative connotations of modern Marxism when it has devolved into deadly authoritarianism?"

Conversation is a great thing.

Neither Do I Condemn You. Period.

 
I'm borrowing from a post by Stan at Birds of the Air blog again, not to single him out or to talk about him. It's just that he so consistently represents so well the problems of the sort of conservative evangelicals worldview in which I was raised. In this case, he is talking about Jesus and the Woman Accused of Adultery (story found in John 8). In the story, a woman who was supposedly "caught in the act of adultery" is brought before Jesus by the Pharisees. It goes like this...

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus,

“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 

They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them,
“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

That is the story literally from the Bible (and with the vital note that the man - who presumably was ALSO "caught in the act of adultery" was not forcibly grabbed and detained by these religious zealots.)

What Stan did, when reading the story (and again, not singling Stan out... this kind of thinking is common in conservative circles when dealing with this story) was to paraphrase Jesus' words thusly...

And when they all slinked away, Jesus addressed the woman. "I'm not bringing judgment at this time," He told her, but that was not a dismissal of sin. "Go and sin no more."

My response to Stan (which he didn't post, but he DID refer to in his comments...)

No. You're flatly mistaken. What he literally said was...

Neither do I condemn you.

Period.

Jesus did not condemn her. Jesus said clearly and without without a caveat that he did not condemn her. Period. 

So many conservatives that I've talked with over the years deal with this text consistently in the same way: First of all, they point out that this passage (the first half of John 8) may not be part of the original text. Then secondly, they ALL proceed to read into the text to something that the text does not say.

In this text and context, with a bunch of powerful religious male oppressors literally using scripture to literally try to condemn and kill this woman who they viewed to be a sinner... in THIS context, Jesus had no condemnation for this oppressed woman.

This is in fitting with all of Jesus teachings where he took the side of the oppressed over and against the side of the oppressor.. Jesus said that he came to free the oppressed, the marginalized, the poor, the sick, the immigrants, women and other marginalized groups who the religious zealots of his day regularly found unclean and unworthy of God.

In Stan's one comment (so far) he explained his reasoning as to why he changed Jesus' words to literally the opposite of what Jesus actually said, saying that Jesus DOES stand in judgment of everyone, or will one day. Jesus MUST be this harsh judge against "sin," Stan says...

"or else, we have a problem..."

Ah. Very insightful (if accidentally) of Stan. This is precisely what the pharisees of Jesus' day had to say, too. This is precisely part of the reason why they felt they had to kill Jesus. They DID have a problem.

The theology of the Pharisees (and way too often, too many modern conservative evangelicals - and even some who aren't conservative or evangelical), requires a harsh, deadly, condemn all sin to the utmost kind of god. Without that killer god on in their pocket, they lose their power to control women, foreigners, the poor and marginalized.

And part of their problem in this story was their willingness to condemn this sinner who Jesus literally did not condemn. But, they would have insisted (the Pharisees and too many modern evangelicals), all sin requires condemnation.

Jesus literally and specifically disagreed.

Stan further tries to explain why he negates the words of Jesus...

"Indeed, to suggest that Jesus didn't care about sin is to require that Jesus didn't care about justice and, in fact, denies His deity"

This is, of course, ridiculous and unbiblical and anti-christian.  That is, literally contrary to the words of Jesus.

Jesus told this woman literally that he did not condemn her and that was precisely an act of Justice against the ongoing oppression of the religious pharisees. As a matter of Justice, Jesus stood against the religious pharisees and their oppression. Because of Jesus standing against their oppression as a matter of Justice, the pharisees went against any sense of Justice and eventually plotted and killed Jesus.

Which side do you want to be on, Stan? Jesus? Or the pharisees?

It's interesting and sad that Stan's community of evangelicals view condemnation to be an essential attribute of God. Jesus and The Bible and the Gospels teach us that God is a God of love and grace and Justice, especially for the historically oppressed and especially and specifically against the religious zealots who would use The Bible and God against the oppressed.

Just as a point of clarity, to note the reality that this text has Jesus saying literally "Neither do I condemn you," is not the same as saying that Jesus doesn't care about sin. Indeed, the reason for the stand he took here against the Pharisees was because of the sin of the Pharisees, using/misusing the Scriptures and "god" as their tool for control. Jesus WAS concerned about sin... the sin and oppression and exclusionary practices/policies of the Pharisees.

And noting that reality does NOT require that we think Jesus didn't care about justice - again, just the opposite - and that reality in no way denies Jesus' deity. That's just an empty claim built on poor reasoning.

"Or else, we have a problem."

Indeed.

"Soft Totalitarianism"

I've heard mention a few times lately (especially from conservatives) of a term - “Soft Totalitarianism.” I did a little research and came to see that this is a term that seems to have been promoted by white conservative evangelicals who feel threatened by the changing demographics of the US. It appears to have been spoken of especially by Rod Dreher, and expanded upon by Jonah Goldberg, Tim Challies, Gregory Glazov, among others.

None of these white conservative men are historians or scholars on actual totalitarianism.

Dreher (who has a bachelors degree in journalism) “has written extensively about what he calls the "Benedict Option", the idea that Christians who want to preserve their faith should segregate themselves to some degree from "post-Obergefell” [the Supreme Court case that legalized folks, you know, getting married and shit - Dan] society, which he sees as drifting ever further away from traditional Christian values (particularly those regarding sex, marriage, and gender).” [wikipedia]

He's also written about what HE (and not any serious historians or scholars) thinks about what HE (and not any serious historians or scholars that I can find) calls “soft totalitarianism.” The idea being, as one might expect, that mean liberals are "forcing" by "soft totalitarianism" people to accept ideas they don't like.

Here's Dreher...

Soft totalitarianism, by contrast, depends on people being afraid of losing comfort, status, and at worst, employment, to force conformity. Nevertheless, because so few people today will be willing to suffer for the truth, it will achieve by softer means what the earlier version achieved through harsh means.

Finally, the softness of soft totalitarianism is also a reference to the fact that we are building a total control society for the sake of compassion, in order to create a “safe space” for favored minorities.

https://cbmw.org/2021/06/08/an-interview-with-rod-dreher-on-soft-totalitarianism/

And just as a reminder, here's the definition of actual totalitarianism...

Totalitarianism is
a form of government
that prohibits opposing political parties and ideologies,
while controlling all aspects of the public and private lives of the people.
Under a totalitarian regime, all citizens are subject to the absolute authority of the state.

Or...

Totalitarianism is generally identified by
dictatorial centralized rule
dedicated to controlling all public and private aspects of individual life,
to the benefit of the state,
through coercion,
intimidation, and
repression.
Totalitarian states are typically ruled by autocrats or dictators who
demand unquestioned loyalty and
control public opinion through propaganda distributed via government-controlled media.

https://www.thoughtco.com/totalitarianism-definition-and-examples-5083506

So, in short, "soft totalitarianism" is NOTHING LIKE actual totalitarianism.

The ideas that Dreher points to and objects to are the ideas of applying peer pressure for the sake of not oppressing people. But applying peer pressure is NOT totalitarianism.

If a company truly believes in accepting LGBTQ folks, for instance, and requires their employees to address people by their preferred pronouns (the horror!), the employee who wants to be a rude jackass is free to leave the company if they don't want to be a decent human being at literally no cost to themselves. (Let's face it: a woman asking you to refer to them as She or anyone requesting you refer to them as THEM is just about the lowest bar one could possibly put in place for not being a total douche). There is no government involvement, no torture, no dictators, no controlling of every aspect of one's life, no illegal coercion, no oppression, no jail... just an expectation to be a decent human being and, if one doesn't want to comply, then they can be fired.

That is not any kind of totalitarianism. It's peer pressure, naught else.

The same for boycotts or just dirty looks and losing friends for being a jerk. It's not oppression to say, "I can't be your friend if you're going to be a jerk to people doing nothing but living their life..."

It's just not.

So, here again, we have the whole "War on Christmas/Christians" emotional response from the religious right to people just asking them to be decent human being, or at least, not be a jerk. There is no war on Christmas or Christianity. People are free to find rude behavior to be rude and unwanted. Peer pressure is precisely the sort of change agent we want to see in a free and non-violent world. It's a respectful of human rights and peaceful way to try to effect positive change and fight actual oppression.

I have two questions about this that I'd love to hear conservatives give a thoughtful response to...

Prior to 1960, white conservative Christianity had a profound control of the dominant culture. If you were LGBTQ prior to 1960, you HAD to keep it in the closet for your own safety.

If it were found out or one was even suspected of it, they could be literally arrested, beaten, kicked out of their family, shunned by their faith community, gossiped about and demonized across the city and suspected of being a threat to children and people everywhere. You could be (and people were) chemically castrated!. This extreme pressure (which included peer pressure, but went way beyond it because you could be arrested and the threats of violence were never-ending and IF a person were arrested for beating/killing a gay person, there was a good chance the charges would be dismissed as justifiable!) was largely because of conservative religious teachings and beliefs.

First of all, I'd like to know if conservative Christians today can acknowledge that reality?

Secondly, I'd like to know if they can call out this extreme peer pressure AND government oppression as the great evil it was and admit it was much closer to actual totalitarianism than anything they are seeing today?

After all, you can be publicly Christian or even conservative Christian and you won't lose your job for that. You certainly won't go to jail for it. It's only if you act like a jerk and refuse to treat others with some basic decency (and again, at literally NO COST to them) that you'd be at risk of losing your job.

It would be easier to take conservatives seriously about their concern about so-called "soft totalitarianism" today IF they could recognize that much worse was done by conservatives prior to, really, the 1970s.

And one final thought: I'm thinking that this idea of "soft totalitarianism" is something that is spreading in conservative echo chambers across the nation. Conservatives truly think they are being oppressed or at risk of being oppressed and it's in part because of non-historians, non-scholars like Dreher loosely passing on ridiculous ideas like this "soft totalitarianism."

The problem with this is that conservatives seem to be moving further and further, faster and faster into the hands and ideas being passed on by people who aren't experts in the fields they're talking about and who are using inflammatory language that only serves to spread the irrational fears that conservatives appear to be prone to. We have to find some way to move away from this conspiracy-leaning mindset embraced by way too many.

And no, conservatives, that doesn't mean we're going to put you in jail for being irrationally fearful. But we WILL ask you to not spread dangerous false claims. Be better than that. Be a conservative who breaks free of that fear.

Or at the very least, don't be a jerk.

More Miserable

“If the soul is left in darkness, sins will be committed.
The guilty one is
not he who commits the sin,
but the one who causes the darkness."

Victor Hugo, from Les Miserables

Say it again.

The guilty one is
the one who causes the darkness.

Quote of the Week...

My favorite quote of this week is one I can't find but went something like this... It was a question asked of folks in wheelchairs about what they wish other people knew. One response...

"I would like for people to stop saying I'm 'confined to a wheelchair.'

My wheelchair is NOT a prison I'm confined in. My wheelchair is my LIBERTY. In my wheelchair, I can get out in the world and be free."

Word.

Learn about CRT Through What is Actually Being Said...

So much disinformation is being spread gleefully, wantonly by people who are hating the idea of Critical Race Theory (CRT) being discussed or taught. In article after article from right wing sources, I see people gossiping and slandering CRT as being Marxist, Anti-American and a whole slew of attack words - the same words that were being used by white people against Martin Luther King, Jr 60 years ago.

In article after article, I see these white people/white conservatives criticizing it, dismissing it, even trying to outlaw it! ...and the one common denominator I'm seeing is that they usually aren't citing the actual theory. They just use attack words like "Marxist" in their efforts to Cancel Culture CRT. Ironically. When they do cite the actual words used by CRT promoters, it's always out of context. But generally speaking, they just don't even cite the actual theory.

This is, of course, stupidly wrong and part of the problem that remains from modern Trump conservatism. 

[And I have to tell you that I am loathe to keep citing this miscreant, but he pretty perfectly sums up what has become of conservatism. Truth and facts don't matter. Attacks are good, repeated attacks are better... you repeat the attacks and the lies and name-calling enough times and some people will start believing the disinformation. At least, the useful idiots will. (Trump has gone on record as saying this deviant "positive thinking" strategy is part of what he embraces.) Just to be clear, Trump is not the cause of this cancer on modern conservatism - conservatives have brought it on themselves. But he is the epitome and poster boy for what has become of modern conservatism. /end rant.]

So, in an effort to battle this cancer on good, rational adult thinking, here is what CRT thinkers are actually saying. If you want to disagree with what they're saying, do it based on facts, not gossip and grade school attacks. Not the style of attacks and demonizations that white supremacists used against King and the Civil Rights movement.

++++++++

Principles of the CRT Practice

While recognizing the evolving and malleable nature of CRT, scholar Khiara Bridges outlines a few key tenets of CRT, including:

• Recognition that race is not biologically real but is socially constructed and socially significant. It recognizes that science (as demonstrated in the Human Genome Project) refutes the idea of biological racial differences. According to scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, race is the product of social thought and is not connected to biological reality.
• Acknowledgement that racism is a normal feature of society and is embedded within systems and institutions, like the legal system, that replicate racial inequality. This dismisses the idea that racist incidents are aberrations but instead are manifestations of structural and systemic racism.
• Rejection of popular understandings about racism, such as arguments that confine racism to a few “bad apples.” CRT recognizes that racism is codified in law, embedded in structures, and woven into public policy. CRT rejects claims of meritocracy or “colorblindness.” CRT recognizes that it is the systemic nature of racism that bears primary responsibility for reproducing racial inequality.
• Recognition of the relevance of people’s everyday lives to scholarship. This includes embracing the lived experiences of people of color, including those preserved through storytelling, and rejecting deficit-informed research that excludes the epistemologies of people of color.

CRT does not define racism in the traditional manner as solely the consequence of discrete irrational bad acts perpetrated by individuals but is usually the unintended (but often foreseeable) consequence of choices. It exposes the ways that racism is often cloaked in terminology regarding “mainstream,” “normal,” or “traditional” values or “neutral” policies, principles, or practices. And, as scholar Tara Yosso asserts, CRT can be an approach used to theorize, examine, and challenge the ways which race and racism implicitly and explicitly impact social structures, practices, and discourses. CRT observes that scholarship that ignores race is not demonstrating “neutrality” but adherence to the existing racial hierarchy...

Foundational questions that underlie CRT and the law include: How does the law construct race?; How has the law protected racism and upheld racial hierarchies?; How does the law reproduce racial inequality?; and How can the law be used to dismantle race, racism, and racial inequality?

...Like any other approach, CRT can be misunderstood and misapplied. It has been distorted and attacked. And it continues to change and evolve. The hope in CRT is in its recognition that the same policies, structures, and scholarship that can function to disenfranchise and oppress so many also holds the potential to emancipate and empower many. It provides a lens through which the civil rights lawyer can imagine a more just nation.

From the ABA...

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/

+++++

"Critical race theory is a practice.
It's an approach to grappling with a history of White supremacy that
rejects the belief that what's in the past is in the past, and that
the laws and systems that grow from that past are detached from it,"

said Kimberlé Crenshaw, a founding critical race theorist and a law professor who teaches at UCLA and Columbia University...

Crenshaw notes that merely acknowledging the nation's history of racism has long been vilified as unpatriotic and anti-American.

"It bears acknowledging that we've been here before: For his non-violent agitation for civil rights, MLK was targeted by the FBI as the most dangerous man in America," she said.

"The civil rights and Black freedom movements were targeted, surveilled and disrupted by the FBI. Black Lives Matter has been framed by some in law enforcement as a terrorist organization. So racial justice work ... has always had an uneasy relationship with the federal government."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/01/us/critical-race-theory-explainer-trnd/index.html

+++++

If people want to talk about CRT, I'm fine with talking about it. But we should begin with discussions based on what the advocates of it are actually saying. If you're only citing sources that white supremacists would applaud, you're not doing your part as a responsible moral adult.

Strike a blow to tyranny. Let us reason like adults.

On This Indepedence Day...

As we move into this Fourth of July weekend, let's remember and be grateful for those who fought so hard to secure and protect our liberties...

The Protesters.

The agitators, the rabble rousers, those who cared enough to fight for justice and lay their lives on the line for the liberty of all of us.

Thanks to the Boston Tea Party vandals who took a chance and even destroyed property in the fight for liberty.

Thanks to the Abolitionists who broke laws to save lives.

Thanks to our Suffragists who reminded us that we don't have freedom until ALL of us have a voice.

Thanks to the Civil Rights heroes, who struggled so hard for so long to finally make sure that everyone could vote and to fight for justice in so many ways against such vicious opposition.

Thanks to the Stonewall rioters and those who've fought so hard for the rights of historically oppressed people.

Thanks to those who've marched to protest unjust wars that cause such rampant death and destruction around the world.

Thanks to those who've struggled to protect our shared planet, our air, our water, our flora and fauna.

Thanks to those who crawled up steps and agitated for the rights of those with disabilities.

Thanks to BLM and others who continue the fight for the rights of all and to stand against the very real problem of systemic racism.

Thanks to the teachers, the historians, the organizers, the planners, those who learn about and lead us in Non-Violent Civil Disobedience, the allies, the leaders, the followers, the letter writers, the ones who work to improve policies.

Thanks to the creative types and the wonks. The poets, the artists, the singers, the writers, the policy writers, the program writers... We needed you to remind us that we SHALL overcome someday.

Thanks to those who show up.

Thanks to the weirdos and the cranks, the outsiders and those just fighting to get by.

Thanks to Jesus, who led one of the first acts of Civil Disobedience, when he destroyed property and chased the oppressive money changers out of the temple.

Thanks to all who've fought for justice and liberty in one way or another over the millennia. Thanks for making the US, and the world, a better place.

My Self

 My Self
does not end
at my skin
I take in
the World all around
and I
am taken in

And when
a wall is built
my friend
a barrier to block
and cage
I'll tear down
that wall
in righteous rage
I'll shout
I'll fight
I will delight
in tearing out
that page

from that accursed accounting book
that inventory of ruined slaves

for I am free
oh, yes, you see
I will never be contained

For
My Self
does not end
at my skin
I take in
the World all around
and I
am taken in.

Great Day of Jubilee

Sometimes I'm all alone but Jubilee
Sometimes I'm all alone but Jubilee
Sometimes I'm all alone, my heart done turned to stone
But a great great day of Jubilee

There's a great great Day of Jubilee
A great great Day of Jubilee
A great great Day hard times they can not stay
A great great Day of Jubilee

The time is nigh at hand for Jubilee
The time is nigh at hand for Jubilee
The time is nigh at hand, Good News across the land
A great great Day of Jubilee

Live With It

 If I were an oak leaf
which, once, sat atop a tower unbending
and I found myself resting
on a soft bed of moss
in a darkening forest... 

I could live with that

In Praise of Honest and Decent Conservatives

Even though I disagree with Liz Cheney on most policy opinions, she is right on here. Speak that Truth to Power, Representative Cheney!

"Today we face a threat America has never seen before. A former president, who provoked a violent attack on this capital in an effort to steal the election, has resumed his aggressive effort to convince Americans that the election was stolen from him.

He risks inciting further violence.
Millions of Americans have been misled by the former president, they have heard only his words, but not the truth. As he continues to undermine our democratic process, sowing seeds of doubt about whether democracy really works at all...

"I am a conservative Republican, and the most conservative of conservative principles is reverence for the rule of law.

"The Electoral College has voted.
More than 60 state and federal courts,
including multiple judges the former president appointed,
have rejected his claims.

The Trump Department of Justice investigated
the former president's claims of widespread fraud and
found no evidence to support them.

The election is over.

That is the rule of law. That is our constitutional process.
Those who refuse to accept the rulings of our courts are at war with the Constitution.
Our duty is clear. Every one of us who has sworn the oath must act to prevent the unraveling of our democracy.

"This is not about policy. This is not about partisanship. This is about our duty as Americans.
Remaining silent and ignoring the lie emboldens the liar.
I will not participate in that. I will not sit back and watch in silence, while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins the former president's crusade to undermine our democracy."

~Liz Cheney, in a speech on May 11 that helps mark the downfall of the modern GOP and much of modern conservatism and modern white conservative evangelicalism.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/11/liz-cheney-house-floor-slams-trump-calls-him-threat-america/5047782001/

I'm glad that Cheney, W Bush, Romney and other responsible and decent conservatives have been speaking out or have started speaking out. I would hope that they could also recognize the part that they played in leading the US to this crisis time where a pervert conman could overtake the GOP that they helped shape... and maybe they do. But stepping up to clearly denounce a great existential threat to a free Republic is a starting point.

Oh, what has become of modern conservatism... Where facts, truth, decency, honesty, integrity used to matter? I truly believe that to be true, because I was raised amongst conservatives who held to those ideals.

And while I recognize that there are sort of three camps of conservatives -
those who've sold their souls to Trump-style corruption and dishonesty,
those who recognize Trump as a deviant but remain silent to appease their fellow conservatives and
those few who have publicly spoken up to denounce this for the deviant and dangerous corruption it is -
the latter seem to be a pretty small group and the Silent group is enabling the Deviant groups to maintain power.

Maybe, when people like Cheney and George W Bush speak out, the silent ones will find their spines and sense of decency and join those who are breaking away from the deviants. Time will tell and history will judge.

Solutions to Problems that Don't Exist...

The experts are agreed: There is no data that shows we have a widespread voter fraud problem in our nation. That is, there is no evidence that bad actors are cheating the system in one way or another to change election outcomes via election fraud.

Conservative experts agree (here, from the Hoover Institute)...

https://www.hoover.org/research/no-evidence-voter-fraud-guide-statistical-claims-about-2020-election

The ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation notes... "The Heritage Foundation’s database includes 1,296 “proven instances of voter fraud” out of the hundreds of millions of votes cast going back to 1992. Of those cases identified, 1,120 resulted in criminal convictions."

[In fact, 1200 cases of fraud out of hundreds of millions of votes is an INFINITESIMAL amount of voter fraud. And, to be clear, HF described this, rather breathlessly as "Database SWELLS to 1,285 cases of Voter Fraud!!!" (emphases mine)... as if ~1300 cases out of millions is evidence of a problem, instead of evidence of NO significant problem. ~DT]

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

GOP voting experts agreed that there was no significant voter fraud happening leading up to the 2020 election...

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/republican-experts-are-in-agreement-the-2020-election-is-not-rigged-212332034.html

Experts agree...

"Despite this dramatic increase in mail voting over time, fraud rates remain infinitesimally small."

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/false-narrative-vote-mail-fraud

US Election officials agree...

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54926084

Over and over and over again, from GOP to Democrat, from election watchers to election experts... the people who know and who are responsible for free elections all agree that we have NO SIGNIFICANT ELECTION FRAUD happening in this nation.

Experts agree!

"That shouldn’t be a surprise. One exhaustive study of 12 years of elections in five states found only 500 cases of alleged voter fraud.

In 2016, North Carolina’s Board of Elections found that 4,769,640 votes were cast in November and that one would probably have been avoided with a voter ID law."

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article247291039.html

Trump's OWN LAWYERS didn't try to make that case in this last election, because they knew it was a stupidly false claim to make and they can get in trouble for that sort of foolishness.

"Trump Cries Voter Fraud. In Court, His Lawyers Don’t."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cries-election-fraud-in-court-his-lawyers-dont-11605271267

The facts are not in debate by rational people who know what they're speaking about. We don't have election fraud problems of any significance in our nation. It happens, the experts are not saying that it doesn't happen. We know it happens because pretty regularly, Republicans get caught doing it.

"North Carolina Republican operative charged in election fraud scheme"

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-north-carolina/north-carolina-republican-operative-charged-in-election-fraud-scheme-idUSKCN1QG2FS

The experts are just noting that it's not a significant problem at all and doesn't impact elections.

Over and over again, I can cite the experts from across the political spectrum saying that there is no problem. Handfuls of voter fraud in hundreds of thousands of votes. Or 500 cases of voter fraud in millions of votes across many years.

Those are the facts, Trump and his useful idiots be damned.

So, after this last election, instead of agreeing with reality, some large number of GOP voters (70%!!) are denying reality and GOP politicians - many of them - are creating laws to restrict voting. IN SPITE of the reality that we have no serious election fraud problems. When they do this immediately following a loss due to high minority and young folk turn-out, people take note. We can SEE it's not because we have an election security problem. We can SEE that they're clearly doing this to try to maintain power in a nation where they are a decided minority and their candidates just can't win if they have a large population of brown/black/gay/young citizens to convince.

But what about the case for increasing election security, even though there is no significant election fraud?

First off, we have to admit that we're trying to find a solution for a problem that practically doesn't exist. But what IF we could more effectively prevent those handful of Republicans from cheating, by using Voter ID laws, for instance?

The problem in implementing "solutions" for non-existent problems is the consequences. If I were more naive, I might call them unintended consequences, but when the experts note that the restrictions put in place will tend (possibly) to damper more Democrat voters rather than Republican voters... at a time when the GOP voting base is dwindling... well, I'm not naive.

We could, for instance, be even more secure in our election process by demanding that each voter have an ID - better yet, three IDs! - and bring their parents along to confirm they are who they are? AND their pastor or rabbi or imam!? After all, having a photo ID AND parental confirmation AND religious leader confirmation would certainly dry up almost ALL cases of voter fraud of that sort.

But - and there's the vital part - it would certainly decrease the voter turnout and just wouldn't be necessary, given that this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist!

That is, creating rules and restrictions that serve to decrease voter turn-out (especially of one party's voters... especially making it more difficult for the poor and marginalized) when there's not a problem that needs to be fixed, it's just wrong. It's creating more problems than the one they are trying to fix.

If the GOP wants to increase their chances of winning elections, let them do it by renouncing racist, misogynist, anti-LGBTQ, anti-environmental policies and win over their citizens by creating policies that more people will support... Or making a better case (if they can) for the policies they do support. In other words, let them do it by being candidates that appeal to more people.

But you don't do it by "fixing" problems that don't exist and especially not by lying and saying that there IS a significant voter fraud problem to (try to) scare people into supporting these unnecessary policies.

Morality and Harm

Stan (at his "Winging It" blog), recently took it upon himself to speak for me, telling me what I believe and identifying some area of agreement between us. The conservatives that I've interacted have historically proven incredibly inept at stating MY positions. Stan did better than many have done, but still missed the important distinctions of what I believe.

Stan said, among other things...

There is something that he and I agree on. Seriously. Dan argues that morality is based on harm. Without quite agreeing with that, I believe that harm is a principle that is involved with morality. Unfortunately, at that single point of agreement ... we diverge. Dan believes, next, that we can reliably figure out what "harm" is so we can reliably determine what should or should not be moral. I don't...

Dan and I both believe that morality and harm are interlinked.

The difference is that Dan is absolutely certain that he has the ability and wisdom and far-reaching understanding to determine what constitutes harm, and I'm just not that good. So I tend to rely on the Manufacturer, the Maker of humans. If He says, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? ..." (1 Cor 6:9-10) (for instance), I'm not going to castigate Him for saying so. I'm going to warn those I love. "Watch out! This will hurt you!"

His post is called "The Harm Principle," if anyone wants to read it in full.

Some clarifications/corrections...

1. Dan doesn't argue that morality is "based on harm."

2. Dan argues that IF we're causing harm to an innocent person, then we're almost certainly wrong to do so. That is, it's morally bad to harm another baselessly. It's wrong to kill someone. It's wrong to abuse, rape, burn to death, torture, blow up, steal from, assault another human being. That may be similar to "morality is based on harm," but I just wanted to clarify because it's not the same, to me.

The way I would put it might be something more like...

Morality can probably be best understood as supporting that which strengthens, encourages and helps, and immorality can probably be best understood as that which causes harm, oppression, a devaluation of human rights.

3. Where Stan suggests that I'm doing something amazing ("Dan believes we can reliably figure out what harm is...") I disagree. Where Stan says he's not reliably able to figure out what harm is ("I don't..." and "I'm just not that good..."), he is of course, mistaken. OF COURSE he can recognize that killing his neighbor is wrong. That abusing his child is wrong. That catching a person's house on fire is wrong.

That is, generally speaking, we all universally understand the reasonable and moral nature of Do No Harm to Others and the corresponding, Be Helpful, Be Kind, Be a Good Neighbor. In broad strokes, we tend to understand that, regardless of culture, religion, beliefs or politics.

4. Stan's "solution," on the other hand, "Use the Owners Manual," has its own set of problems.

4a. Not everyone agrees that the Bible is the owners manual, or even a good source for morality.

4b. Even amongst those who value the Bible's moral teachings, there is not universal agreement on what is and isn't moral.

4c. Referring to the "owners manual," then, to understand what is and isn't moral STILL involves our human reasoning and our human reasoning is imperfect.

Thus, the advantages of using Harm as a gauge of morality is that it's practical, it's understandable, it's understandable pretty universally, it's not dependent upon belief in a certain segment of sects within a given religion and its sacred text. It's a more universal way of understanding right and wrong.

And if, as Stan seems to acknowledge, that God wants the good for us and doesn't want bad, then we could also reason that IF we find a moral ruling that causes harm ("Polluting is okay, as long as it's only in rural water streams where not as many people live," for instance), then we can be pretty sure that it's violating "the owners manual..."

Put yet another way: IF an inability to understand morality 100% perfectly is a problem with using Harm as a guide, it's every bit as true that understanding morality based upon reading the Bible will also not result in 100% understanding.

Stan would not take the time to correct or address his misrepresentations and lack of understanding of my views on his blog, but I would ask him, Where am I mistaken?

Reading the Bible will not result in 100% perfect understanding of morality. Correct?

Using harm as a guide will not result in 100% perfect understanding of morality. Correct?

There is no data to suggest that using the Bible as a guide is ANY more effective at understanding morality than using harm as a guide. Indeed, given that some significant portion of the world does not take the Bible as a moral guide AND that even with those who do value the Bible, there is disagreement on moral questions, then one could argue that it's a less effective way to understand morality. 

Is that not reasonable? Practical?

We Shall Overcome... Someday?

From Dr King...


"You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?"

You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed,
this is the very purpose of direct action.

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension."

I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.

Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation
so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.

I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue...

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation.

For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied...”

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal.

By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation.

A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama [Georgia, Dan] which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama [Georgia, Dan] all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?"

Read King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail...

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html