No doubt, we've all seen some of the memes out there that follow (more and more) tragedies like mass shootings. The memes that say things like, "Keep your thoughts and prayers. Give me policy change and action."
And I've also seen push back at such ideas. As Craig did recently at his blog (the actual blog doesn't matter - it's the ideas expressed in his words that I've seen elsewhere). Craig said
"There are a couple of flaws here. First is the false conclusion that it's an either/or choice. The second would only apply to those who's belief system includes an all powerful, personal, God who can and does intervene. "
Craig continued to ask:
"If you believe in an all powerful, all knowing, deity, then why would anyone place their faith in politicians, the political process, and humans in general instead of God?"
Here is the answer (or at least one answer) to that question:
We believe in a God who is all knowing and all powerful and who does not daily actively intervene in policy matters of a nation state or in direct tragedies, like stopping an active shooter.
We believe in a God who wants us to act on behalf of the poor and marginalized and those who might be harmed.
We believe in a God who wants us to create policies that systematically deal with the common failings of humanity. In the Old Testament, we see a God:
* who advocated the nation of Israel to create policies to set aside portions of farm fields so that the starving could freely harvest it in an effort to deal with problems of hunger and poverty.
* who advocated Jubilee years as a matter of national policy where land that had accumulated in the hands of a few rich people would be redistributed back to the hands of the original families in an effort to deal with greed and the accumulation of power and wealth in a few hands.
* who advocated policies that made sure that women and children - who were not citizens with full rights - were not taken advantage of.
* who warned that nations who did not look out for the poor and marginalized or that actually oppressed the poor and marginalized would be judged harshly and have to account for that oppression or neglect.
and so on. We believe in a God who fully expects us to systematically do better as societies, and not only as individuals.
Why wouldn't we?
Craig also said/asked...
"...[some Christians who believe that] praying for God to intercede and work in a situation is the absolute highest and best they can offer. Even if someone doesn't agree, why would you mock millions of people who are genuinely concerned."
I note that, in the Bible, the Apostle James (and others) have done the same, mocking mere words of encouragement when they're not backed by actions.
"Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
If one of you says to him,
"Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,"
but does nothing about his physical needs,
what good is it?
In the same way, faith by itself,
if it is not accompanied by action,
is dead."
These words echo the even more dire teaching from Jesus in the parable of the sheep and the goats, where the "goats" who thought they were good followers of God and yet, had done nothing for "the least of these," were failing to walk in Jesus' way. Such inaction had dire consequences for these goats. No doubt, they prayed for the poor and marginalized, but they took no actions to actively help.
Why would James mock those who merely wished people well? Because such words without actions are meaningless and not merely less-than-helpful, but an active stabbing of the hearts of the oppressed. ADDING TO rather than alleviating suffering.
14 comments:
I find it rather duplicitous to assert a concern for the poor while suggesting anyone who is unable to offer anything more than prayers and concerns can be judged so harshly as you're suggesting here.
What makes you think that most who offer prayers and concerns do nothing more?
I didn't say it was the case that "most" who offer thoughts and prayers are doing nothing more. Some who say things about "thoughts and prayers" are doing things. Others aren't.
But more specifically, I'm not seeing the GOP offer any concrete solutions on the topic and mostly, I see them blocking efforts to implement policies.
What policies would you like to see put in place to deal with these violent tragedies beyond thoughts and prayers? What policies are the GOP advocating?
I know they've offered "solutions" that are after the fact/reactive... ie, trying to keep shooters out of schools/militarizing schools... but when they are, are the providing the financial support to schools to do so? Are they offering anything preventive instead of reactive?
Perhaps you missed the questions, Marshal.
What policies are the GOP advocating?
What policies would you like to see in place?
Other than reactionary/lock down the school type solutions, what preventative/proactive policies would you like to see implemented?
By definition, every policy proposal is "reactive" as they are each responses after the fact.
In the meantime, locking doors is preventative given how doing so prevents entry.
And given how appropriate policies already in place are being ignored...whether out of laziness or honest human error matters not...the typical leftist demand "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!" is far more hollow and meaningless than any expression of "thoughts and prayers" ever will be.
My proposal is to do what we already know works and to actually implement effective policies enacted after past shootings.
For instance, a large number of mass shootings and other violence is coming from white supremacists. Why not tackle that known problem? What proposals are you willing to agree to to stop hate crime violence?
"From 2012 through 2021, nearly three in four murders classified as domestic terrorism were committed by right-wing extremists (most of whom were white nationalists). In 2020, 55% of perpetrators of hate crimes were white, 21% were Black, and 16% were of unknown racial background. Sixty-two percent of hate crimes were about race/ethnicity, nearly 25% were about sexual orientation/gender identity, and 13% were about religion."
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2021
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2022/05/17/preventing-racial-hate-crimes-means-tackling-white-supremacist-ideology/amp/
If you want to comment here, you will respectfully answer questions. Otherwise, you're just wasting time and energy.
Marshal...
"proposal is to do what we already know works and to actually implement effective policies enacted after past shootings."
Be specific. What policies?
A single monitored entrance.
At least one armed law enforcement officer on site at all times
Ending "gun free zone" policies
Allowing teachers and staff with concealed carry permits to be armed in schools
These are obvious but effective policies every school can employ immediately and are off the top of my head as I sit under an umbrella at the beach. More will follow later while you present no effective policy Dems have ever proposed.
Was that so hard?
re: Single monitored entrance.
Some version of that (maybe not to that degree) appears to be in place in 97% of schools. No problem there, except maybe in implementation.
Do you support additional funding to help pay for this type of policy?
re: one armed law enforcement officer
Who's going to pay? What about schools with large percentages of people of color who don't trust police officers or who may be more likely to be harmed by a police officer in school than to be helped?
Do you recognize that reality?
re: Ending gun free zones? So... what? Everyone in high schools that is older than 18 could potentially be armed? YOu think that will HELP? Do you have any data to support that?
But I'm fine with discussing all of those options.
Now, what about the reality of white supremacists and deadly violence? Any ideas about how to deal with that threat?
What about toxic masculinity and especially in the context of US gun culture... any proposals on how to deal with the racists and angry and violent young men to decrease the threat they pose in the real world?
On a similar theme, a large percentage of these mass shooters have had misogynistic tendencies? Do you support education and mental health policies to try to prevent them from growing up to be deadly killers?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/guys-guns-men-vast-majority-americas-gun-violence/story?id=79125485
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2019/06/domestic-violence-misogyny-incels-mass-shootings/
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/27/1101490738/uvalde-buffalo-mass-shooting-similarities
Your proposals may have some value in keeping the deadly threats from entering schools, but not with the root cause of violent young (and older) men. How do you propose dealing with the actual problems and being proactive?
While mass shootings and deadly violence are not solely limited to the US, we have a problem here that many other nations - especially wealthier nations - don't have. Why? Are you open to looking at causes and attempting to deal with the causes?
"Was that so hard?"
Cut the crap. I'm still waiting on evidence for ancient Israel's position on the unborn. Your rabbis aren't ancient and haven't cited anyone who is. I'm still waiting for you to pick a charge in the ICC complaint at my blog and rebut it. You haven't even read the thing.
In the meantime, I answer questions and even try to figure out how to answer your dumbass questions so common from you.
It'll be a while before I can study your links. I quick perusal finds to be typical leftist crap which has no chance of resolving anything, but I'll set it aside until I can get more deeply into them. I've no doubt it will be...as all your links prove to be...wasted time. Nonetheless...
"Some version of that (maybe not to that degree) appears to be in place in 97% of schools. No problem there, except maybe in implementation.
Do you support additional funding to help pay for this type of policy?"
You really believe funding is needed to bar entry to all but one door in a school? Really? New schools are often designed to funnel visitors through a single entrance and into administrative offices. I've been in schools with metal detectors. Since lefties tax the crap out of the general public for education, withhold future increases to teacher unions until changes can be made. More funding can be had by redirecting our tax dollars to abortion mills and use them to preserve the lives of children instead.
"re: one armed law enforcement officer
Who's going to pay? What about schools with large percentages of people of color who don't trust police officers or who may be more likely to be harmed by a police officer in school than to be helped?"
Same as above with the added benefit that some retired LEO's and military vets are willing to volunteer time for the purpose. But again, there are tons of leftist destinations for our tax dollars which are moronic and can easily be redirected for the purpose.
"re: one armed law enforcement officer
Who's going to pay? What about schools with large percentages of people of color who don't trust police officers or who may be more likely to be harmed by a police officer in school than to be helped?"
This is just stupid. The fact is only race-hustling lefties think people of color don't demand law enforcement funding and presence in their communities. They would damn sure want them protecting their kids. And most schools already have financing for at least one LEO on site at all times. But you don't recognize reality at all, preferring to parrot idiocy from race-hustlers.
"re: Ending gun free zones? So... what? Everyone in high schools that is older than 18 could potentially be armed? YOu think that will HELP? Do you have any data to support that?"
More stupidity! Do your kids know just how low your opinion of them was while they were teenagers? Given the vast majority of gun owners...including young owners...are law-abiding and never a threat, this abject idiotic Beto position is appalling and deceitful.
Once again you demonstrate what a liar you are as you again fail to truly engage in "good faith" discourse.
Marshal, you made a series of wholly unsupported claims and as I've made clear to you, from you, that is not acceptable. Part of the problem for modern conservatism is this unending assault on facts and people by making ridiculously unproven claims that are totally false. I try to give leeway when people off the very simple, "In my opinion..." or the even better, "I totally can not prove this, BUT, I think..." But you do none of that.
For instance, you offer - ENTIRELY with no support that one of the reasons for the increase in deadly violence is the influx of immigrants from the southern border. Never mind that his is a stupidly false and unsupported claim, coming from modern conservatives, it's just another racist dog whistle. "Be afraid of those brown people who speak Spanish! They're rapists and murderers," like your idiot pervert once said (not in those words).
No. No racist attacks. No racist dog whistles. And no stupidly false and unsupported claims.
Likewise, you dismiss the reality of toxic masculinity by denying it as part of an evil plan by "leftists." Unsupported, stupidly false claims will not stay here, Marshal.
Of course we have a problem with men with a toxic, harassing, abusive and deadly sense of masculinity. We always have in our nation (and probably the world), but certainly now. Pay attention.
The ridiculously and in a sexist little protest typical of toxic males, you blame men not raising children on feminists, and NOT the idiot dads who don't step up to the task or the abusive dads who had to be abandoned for safety's sake.
No, you won't attack immigrants, women, people of color or anyone else here with stupidly false and unsupported claims.
Don't bother trying again on this post. You've been warned in the past not to make unsupported claims.
If you wanted to begin by apologizing for making unsupported claims, that might be a start, but still, I really don't want to give you any more chances, not in this thread.
I said...
Who's going to pay? What about schools with large percentages of people of color who don't trust police officers or who may be more likely to be harmed by a police officer in school than to be helped?"
Marshal responded...
This is just stupid. The fact is only race-hustling lefties think people of color don't demand law enforcement funding and presence in their communities. They would damn sure want them protecting their kids.
This is an example of why this comment was deleted.
When talking about investments into schools to make them safe from the rare but serious mass shooting that has occurred too often, it is a simply fiscally reasonable question to ask who pays? Responding with "This is just stupid," is precisely the sort of idiotic grade school bullying that the modern "conservative" movement relies on way too often. It's a reasonable question.
You go on to play the race card and do so with no support. Many people want to know how will we pay for any changes. Schools to be sure want to know. Most schools are strapped for cash and any fiscal outlays have to be justified and a source for the money has to be identified. It's nothing but a reasonable question. Stop the grade school bullying attempts and answer with respect.
For instance, IF it's true that "most" schools have the financing for one LEO, show that data. Support the claim. It may be true, I don't know, but I sure am not going to accept a partisan and grade school disrepectful bully's word for it.
You also push back at the "one door policy" question as to who will pay for it, saying that most schools already have that. But let's assume it's true (I know that many do): If that's the case, then something's not working, right? I'm fine with improving existing solutions, but action needs to be taken.
And what of the racist Buffalo shooter who killed people in the store? How to address that? One entrance to the store? But he was outside the store?
And why aren't you dealing with the racism angle on this problem. The FBI and other law enforcement experts identify white supremacists as THE major threat for this kind of violence.
Can you condemn the racist Replacement Theory that in part prompted that attack?
I'll tell you what? You CAN comment on this thread one more time IF you can make clear that the racist Replacement Theory being advocated dangerously by many right wing darlings is wrong, seriously, deadly wrong.
Six out of ten pervert/Trump supporters agree with the core tenet of RT. WILL YOU CONDEMN this threat to our nation and to people of color?
https://thehill.com/news/state-watch/3499877-6-in-10-trump-voters-agree-with-core-tenet-of-great-replacement-theory-survey/
Unless I forget (and that's always a chance... my memory is pretty poor and getting worse), I don't want you to comment on any thread on my blog 'til you either condemn RT and those Trumpians who support it/promote it or say that you agree with that racist nonsense.
If it's the latter, God have mercy on your sick, sick soul.
I think this is where I'm going to land: IF it's the case that you can't fully rebuke the Replacement Theory as the dangerous and racist nonsense that it is and if you can't fully rebuke those in conservative-land who have glommed on to this conspiracy theory nuttiness, then that shows a deeply deserving problem in your person that you'd buy into that threat to freedom and human rights. Therefore, any comments you make (again, allowing that I remember to do this) will be responded to with something akin to:
Marshal commented. Marshal is a far right extremist who believes in the racist "replacement theory" conspiracy theory. That theory is a deeply disturbing threat to freedom and human rights. And unfortunately, it has wide spread support amongst the "MAGA" followers out there. Terribly sad and incredibly dangerous.
You can read more about it here:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-is-great-replacement-theory-and-how-does-it-fuel-racist-violence
If anyone encounters an individual who buys into this dangerous racist theory, please try to educate them (it will probably be fruitless, but maybe they just don't know). You can share that link to PBS or find plentiful responses to it. Be wary of engaging with such people.
Here's hoping you have enough sense and common decency to clearly condemn it without any caveats.
Marshal commented without being clear, but it sounds like he does affirm the racist "replacement theory" conspiracy theory. That theory is a deeply disturbing threat to freedom and human rights. And unfortunately, it has wide spread support amongst the "MAGA" followers out there. Terribly sad and incredibly dangerous.
You can read more about it at the link above.
Marshal opted not to answer any questions, only ask questions. For instance...
"Do you or do you not agree with your own party and your own partisan hacks that we will soon be a minority white nation?"
That has nothing to do with the Democrat party. Demographic experts tell us that we won't long be a white majority nation, just as a point of fact.
Do you recognize that this is what experts are saying?
Does it scare you to be a white man in the minority?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/
Is it the case that you want the white majority to remain a white majority? If so, why?
Marshal...
"Are you now going to pretend that you haven't proclaimed people like myself will soon be dying out and more like you will remain?"
It is a reality that your angry old religious white conservative group is in descent and I, for one, won't miss what's become of modern conservatism. We'll be a better, healthier, more just and moral nation with fewer MAGA types, seems to me. I do miss the old conservatives who at least brought something to the table - the George Wills who bring a push for fiscal conservatism and reason.
Marshal...
"How are you going to weasel out of this one, Sparky?"
I have no idea what you think the reality of a pending minority white nation or that some of us are glad that the minority white conservatives will not have the power they used to enjoy back in the bad old days of overt racism, homophobia and sexism. There still is no plot to "force" us to change our demography and those who raise concerns about white Eurocentric types losing power and push conspiracy theories about it are engaged in racist fearmongering.
Post a Comment