Opposition to Debt Forgiveness... from Christians??!

 

[Subtitle: Unclear on the Concept]

Jesus came into a world where the literal poor were literally oppressed, taken advantage of, pushed down, abused, held back. The poor, the sick, the imprisoned, the orphans, the women, the widows, the unclean, the "dirty sinners," the least of these. We know all these terms and recognize them (if we're biblically literate) because these concepts come up throughout all of Jesus' ministry and all of the Bible.

Jesus came into a world where the marginalized were largely kept marginalized. Once you were unclean and an outsider, it was unlikely you would ever be welcomed as NOT an unclean outsider.

Indeed, women, by the very nature of being women, were permanently on the Out, among the oppressed.

And if a man decided on a whim to divorce a woman, she had few options other than begging or perhaps returning home to her birth family (if they were alive and willing to take her in).

Jesus came into a world of oppression of the poor and marginalized. And of separation between the privileged and the poor. And Jesus came into a world where systems were designed that kept the poor on the outside and likely to remain poor. Even the temple of God was a place where the moneychangers took advantage of the poor.

And Jesus announced right at the start - almost as if it were part of a plan that simply extended the prophetic and Old Testament traditions and concerns...

I've come to preach Good News to the poor, the sick, the outsiders, the imprisoned (who, by the by, were often in prison because they were poor and couldn't pay their debts!).

He came to preach good news - what would literally be considered literal good news to the literally poor and marginalized. But was that Good News this...?

"One day, if you get saved and if God decided God even WANTS to save you - and God doesn't want to save most of you slugs! - then ONE day, by and by in the sky, you might get a piece of pie and lawdy lawdy, things will be good then. THEN. IF you're one of the lucky few who don't get tortured for an eternity."

Listen to that traditional conservative atonement "gospel." In what possible world does anyone think that might be taken as good news for people who were poor, marginalized, suffering and struggling today?

"Do you wanna bet on a lottery ticket that might (but most likely, won't) be paid out after you and your children have suffered a lifetime and then died horribly...?" That's NOT good news to the poor. Nope.

No, Jesus came to that real world context of the haves and the have nots, and Jesus sided with the Have Nots. He cast his lot among them. He welcomed them, specifically. He began forming a nurturing and welcoming community there. Then.

"Thy realm come, thy will be done ON EARTH, as it is in heaven."

I don't think Jesus had that much use for pie in the sky by and by. Not in the gospel that he taught in his own words.

And we must needs understand, this Good News to the poor was not Good News for all. For the rich who were interested in keeping their wealth and those unconcerned for the poor, this was not their Good News. Indeed, it was bad news.

"Jesus said to him, “There is still one thing lacking.
Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor,
and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”

That rich man walked away sad. Bad news.

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom:
She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned;
they did not help the poor and needy...

Therefore,
God said,
I removed them when I saw it."

Literal bad news for the folks in Sodom who were wealthy and unconcerned for the poor.

But for the wealthy willing to embrace and welcome and side with the poor, it was Good News, so it truly was good news for all... except those who rejected this Good News specifically, literally for the poor and marginalized. Consider wealthy Zaccheus who Jesus called down from his tree where he was separated from Jesus and his followers (the poor and marginalized)...

"So he [Zaccheus] hurried down and was happy to welcome him. All who saw it began to grumble and said, “He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner.”

Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord,
“Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor;
and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.”

Good News for the poor was Good News for Zaccheus, too. He got it. [And we shouldn't let this story pass without noticing that the poor were poor precisely, at least in part, because of the systems of oppression and defrauding that Zaccheus took part in, became wealthy through, and repented of. Welcoming the wealthy into Jesus Good News kingdom in such a way that affected change, that WAS literally good news for the poor and marginalized. Then. There. And it was also good news for the wealthy who recognized this system of oppression and repented.]

But for those who did not welcome, side with, share with, join with the poor and marginalized? They were called the goats and cast out from God and the saints.

"Depart from me, you evil doers!
For I was hungry and you didn't feed me!
I was sick and you didn't comfort me!
I was in prison and you didn't come visit me.
Depart from me to the pits of hell, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Bad news for those unconcerned for the poor and marginalized and unwilling to embrace or even recognize the Good News for the poor and marginalized.

Or recall how Jesus condemned those who would invite to dinner the rich or others who might later pay back the favor. Instead, he counseled,

“But when you give a banquet, invite
the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind”

And again, Jesus began his ministry with the declaration of bringing good news specifically to the poor and marginalized. He declared the day of God's good favor, which the Jewish people hearing would certainly recognize as a reference back to the Jubilee wealth redistribution laws that were part of what was required of a God-loving nation.

And if you're familiar with the Bible, you should know that I could go on and on with this consistent, Genesis to Revelation story of Good News for the poor and marginalized.

It really is there throughout the whole of the Bible, the Gospel of Enough, of Grace, of the Siding with the Poor.

How did Jesus tell John the Baptist that he could tell he was from God?

"Tell him how I preach the good news to the poor."

And good news for the poor IS being able to have enough to live and thrive and being welcomed, not excluded. Grace, grace, grace. Throughout the Bible and it regularly shows up as forgiveness of debt and the wealthy paying to the poor.

So, I hope conservatives - and especially conservative Christians - can understand how surprising their harsh rebukes of this Debt Forgiveness plan that Biden has promised.

Debt forgiveness is kind of our thing, if we're decent people and especially if we're followers of the One who came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized.

Happy Human Liberty & Independence Day

You want to be a decent human? You want to celebrate human rights and independence?

Then, so long as others are not causing harm to anyone...

1. Live and let live
1a. Don't tell others how to live
1b. Don't tell others what choices to make
1c. Don't tell others how they must act or be

Simple.

And, if you want to go above and beyond...

2. Live, and celebrate one another for our own delicious quirky selves.

Also, Frederick Douglass:

What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelly to which he is the constant victim.

To him, your celebration is a sham;
your boasted liberty, an unholy license;
your national greatness, swelling vanity;
your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless;
your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence;
your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery;
your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings,
with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him,
mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—
a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.

There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices,
more shocking and bloody,
than are the people of these United States, at this very hour...

Words to remember for all the historically oppressed.

Stay Away from Conspiracy Theorists

One thing that we all have to keep in mind is that today's conservatives are especially in need of being forced to support their claims precisely because so many conservatives have bought into so many conspiracy theories.

From the way out there types like Q-Anon and the Great Replacement Theory nuts to the more day-to-day insane theories like

* The gov't wants to take my guns away
* The election was stolen
* "Election fraud" in 2016 cost Trump the popular vote
* The gov't is being taken over by a cabal of Hollywood pedophile liberals
* Hillary Clinton and Democrats were running a child-peddling operation out of a pizza joint in DC
* The media is an enemy of the state
* Obama was not a US citizen
* "Climate change" is fake science
* "Covid" is fake science and Fauci et al are spreading lies
* The Clintons killed Epstein, Foster, Rich and others to silence them
* "The earth is only ~6,000 years old and any evidence to the contrary was placed there by Satan...?"
* The "homosexual agenda"

...and on and on and on it goes. One set of crazy stupidly false claims after another, promoted as if they are real or that they MIGHT be real.

Because of this endless cascade of "alternate facts" and stupidly false claims, we just have to start holding Trump-style/supporting "conservatives" to a strict, "Prove it with data" set of guidelines.

There simply is no corresponding set of "liberal conspiracy theories" that are as common and widespread and widely taken seriously. In fact, I did a search and just couldn't find anything serious. Sure, there are outliers like the liberals (and conservatives) who believe that 9/11 was staged, but those are not commonly accepted amongst rational people/liberals.

Don't want to be asked to support your claims? Don't lie down with pigs in their stupidly false claim pit.

Never vote for anyone who takes any of these stupidly false and irrational conspiracy theories seriously. That is a line that should not be crossed.

"None but ourselves can free our minds." ~Bob Marley


https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-conspiracy-theories-2016-5

https://www.salon.com/2015/11/12/10_right_wing_conspiracy_theories_that_have_slowly_invaded_american_politics_partner/

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2010/patriot-paranoia-look-top-ten-conspiracy-theories

End Apartheid!

On most of the day's big issues, there isn't much of a contest between support for conservative opinions/policies and liberal opinions/policies.

The people of the US support keeping abortion as a legal option, 58 to 35%.

https://news.gallup.com/.../steady-americans-not-roe-wade...

The people of the US support policy changes to take action in response to the climate crises, some 60-80+%, depending on the policy in question.

https://news.gallup.com/.../climate-change-proposals...

Of course, on matters of liberty for our LGBTQ+ neighbors/friends/family, support for legal rights have grown to a significant majority with 70% supporting legal marriage rights (because, why wouldn't we? - and who are those 30%?... I know, we know).

https://www.bloomberg.com/.../pride-2022-71-of-americans...

And with 55% favoring decriminalizing drugs and ~70% supporting legalizing marijuana, the progressive position has popular support.

https://www.cato.org/.../poll-55-americans-favor...

Importantly, support for the progressive position is more solid with younger adults and voters which means support for the more conservative policies are literally dying off.

We have the support of solid majorities on most/all big issues. Change will have to come as long as we vote in ways that reflect the will of the majority. Which, sadly, is part of the problem, isn't it?

None of this is a comfort for women, LGBTQ folk, black people and others who feel their rights are under threat and attack and I'm so sorry. I will stand by you and follow your lead.

Pentecost and Pride

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.
Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and
filled the whole house where they were sitting.

They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire
that separated and came to rest on each of them.
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and
began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them...

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship,
to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Everyone was filled with awe at the many
wonders and signs performed by the apostles.

All the believers were together and
had everything in common.

They sold property and possessions
to give to anyone who had need.

Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts.

They broke bread in their homes and
ate together with glad and sincere hearts,
praising God and
enjoying the favor of all the people.

And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

"Thoughts and Prayers..."

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.

Philosophical Abortion Facts

 

Some facts about abortion. These are objective, rational, demonstrable facts, no partisanship and no need for disagreement. True fact! Check it out. (AND, if I have any of my facts wrong - especially on the legal side of things, feel free to correct me... with facts, not opinions.)

1. People who support keeping the medical procedure of abortion legal (henceforth called "Abortion supporters") do not hate babies or fetuses (at least in most cases).

 

2. Abortion supporters do not want to see fetuses "murdered." Nor do we support "murder."

 

3. People who would like to outlaw abortion (henceforth called "abortion opponents") don't want to kill moms and don't hate women (at least in most cases).

 

4. A human fetus IS a human fetus. 100%.  It's literally a human fetus.

 

5. Abortion supporters acknowledge that, of course, a human fetus is a human fetus.

...Ready?

The questions, then, are
5a. Is a human fetus deserving of human rights in every possible sense?
5b. Do we objectively, factually know?
5c. Does the law say?

5d. Does "God" (Allah? Buddha? The Bible? The Koran?) say?
5e. Does reason insist?

6. Humans have different rights depending on the stage of their life. True fact!

 

7. Human five year olds do NOT have a right to drive a car. Human 16 year olds (in most places?) DO have a right to drive a car.
 

8. A one year old does not have a "right" to take care of himself or live on his own. An 18 year old DOES have those rights.
 

9. So, does a fetus have full human rights legally speaking? Nope. Nor does a one year old, nor does a 13 year old. Different ages/stages, different rights. That is, by "Full human rights," I mean, does a fetus, one year old, six year old, 14 year old, etc have all the rights of an adult human? I'm pretty sure the legal answer to this is a clear No.

According to Encyclopia.com:

"Historically, under both English common law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person with full rights. Instead, legal rights have centered on the mother, with the fetus treated as a part of her. Nevertheless, U.S. law has in certain instances granted the fetus limited rights, particularly as medical science has made it increasingly possible to directly view, monitor, diagnose, and treat the fetus as a patient."

Again - the legal part of this is where I'm least clear. I am glad to be corrected.

10. Okay, but what about the basic "right to life..."? Even a one year old has that, right? But does a fetus? Does a fetus at 2 weeks old have that right? At 20 weeks old?

This is the big question. It all boils down to the answer to that question. And the answer:

11. We do not know. No one can objectively prove, one way of the other, in an authoritative, factual manner, "YES, the 2 week old fetus has an innate right to life." OR "No, the 2 week year old fetus does NOT have an innate right to life."

12. Now, legally, this may be dependent on where you live. Different states and different nations may establish laws one way or the other, but here's the thing:

The lawmakers in these various states can not prove it objectively, authoritatively one way or the other. This is a fundamentally unprovable opinion, one way or the other.

You see, it's a simple matter to objectively answer: Is this a human fetus or is it not? That is demonstrable and objectively provable. But, "Does a 2 week old fetus have an innate right to life? What about a 20 week old fetus?"... we just have no way of authoritatively, objectively answering that question. That's a fact.

Has the law ever authoritatively answered this question? I don't think so.
Has science ever proven an innate right to life beginning at conception? No. It hasn't. It factually hasn't.
Has GOD or Allah or any omnipotent, omniscient being EVER handed us an authoritative answer to this question?

No.

Indeed, biblically speaking, the rights of a fetus are more like property rights of the parent than human rights... In Exodus 21, it states that "if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death." Thereby, treating the two lives - the fetal life and the mother's life - differently.

And the passages that abortion opponents often cite are ones like this: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” which literally does not say authoritatively that the 2 week old (or 20 week old) fetus has a right to life. It's literally not there. People who READ INTO that passage that "right" are reading into the text something that is not there.

No. The Bible does not state anywhere that fetuses have an innate right to life. Just factually speaking. God has not told us this. I won't speak to what other sacred texts may or may not say, as I'm not familiar with them.

13. Here's the thing: EVEN IF you are part of a religious group that believes or even has a sacred text that says, "Thus sayeth the Holy Cow: The fetus of Two Weeks doth truly have an innate right to life..." that is not anything like objective proof. It is a religious belief of that particular group, but not a universal rule authoritatively proving the question. Christians would not accept it as a fact if that came from the Book of the Heavenly Cow because they do not ascribe to that sacred text. Other people are not obliged to agree with Christians on what they think God thinks on the question (and as a reminder: God has NOT said in the Bible that the fetus has an innate right to life. Just a fact.)

...and SO, given all these facts, I think it is helpful to remember that abortion supporters are not even necessarily "abortion supporters" (although many of us are fine with it as a medical treatment): Abortion supporters, by and large, are just recognizing that this question is not a proven or provable question, as to whether a fetus has a right to life and at what point that right kicks in... AND SINCE it's not proven or provable, we simply want this philosophical and medical matter to be left to the woman with the fetus. Not a Supreme Court. Not a Congress of predominantly men. And not even a Congress of predominantly women, if we had one.

The woman.

And NOT because we support "murder." Not because we hate fetuses or children. Those are all false claims. Stupidly false claims.

No. We simply respect the reality that since we can't prove this question one way or the other, the decision is best left to the mother.

If you want to argue against keeping abortion legal, please begin from the place of acknowledging these facts. Stop with the demonizations. Stop with the presumption that you have an authoritative answer or that you are speaking for God (or Allah or the Holy Cow).

Please.

It's just not something any of us have an objective answer for and no one is authoritatively, objectively speaking for God.

True fact.

Don't be Deceived

 

My dear conservative, Republican friends... There is an effort out there by many in the GOP to sell a stupidly false claim, to try to instill fear of your neighbors.

Don't buy the lies. I know you. I know you believe in truth and decency. Stand up against it.

In Florida, the GOP governor (DeSantis) is selling some dangerous lies for unknown reasons, but I suspect because he knows demonizing "CRT" and other GOP flash-words gets some in the GOP riled up because they fear CRT, even though they don't understand it. Don't buy into the fear.

In the news:

"DeSantis has taken a lead role nationally in Republican efforts to aggressively push back against liberal cultural values and what he calls “woke indoctrination.”

A measure labeled “Individual Freedom,” also known as the "Stop WOKE Act," was passed during this year's legislative session and still waits for the governor's signature."

++++++

They are banning MATH books, they say, because these MATH books contain CRT, which they have banned in Florida schools. They are indoctrinating parents and children to fear CRT and demonize liberals while saying they value individual freedom and, they say, oppose being told what to think.

Think about that. They are saying...

"We don't want you to think about these CRT ideas, because we shouldn't be told what to think. We so believe in individual liberty and not being told what to think that we're going to ban these books in our schools or even a mythical mention of CRT..."

Don't you see? It's all a lie and there almost certainly are no mentions of CRT in a third grade math book (what does that even look like??). Let the fact that they won't even cite what it is they're protesting be a clue that they're lying to you to try to scare you into hating your neighbors while saying (falsely) that CRT wants us to hate our neighbors.

Another way of putting this from DeSantis and people like him is that they are not saying they value free speech and independent thinking. Just the opposite.

They don't value people being critical of the US in any way or acknowledging the very real evils of slavery and racism in our past. They don't want any mentions of that happening in schools and they will ban any books that have even a hint of concern about evils of racism in our very real history. They value their "free speech" and want to limit/ban/demonize/distort/bear false witness against anything they perceive to be hostile to their views. Their views and hell, their very way of life - they will tell you openly and loudly - are being opposed and destroyed and the way to battle this attack on their "way of life" is to ban and demonize any opposing, disagreeing views.

If they valued free speech, they would welcome - even if they disagreed with some conclusions of some people - a reasonable discussion about racism in our history. Or the oppression of LGBTQ people in our history. Or the denial of freedom of self determination to women in our history.

They are saying, We want to see OUR understanding of history only... any reports or interpretations about history that WE don't approve of need to be silenced and removed.

It's a scam. Don't buy into it.
 

++++++
Link to the story...

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/18/1093277449/florida-mathematics-textbooks

Hold Them All Accountable

 Just to make clear what should be obvious: if Hunter Biden broke any laws, he should be held accountable.  If he acted in a profiteering manner that isn't illegal, he should be held accountable  and maybe we should change laws so that any profiteering off the presidency is illegal.

It's that simple. Why won't modern conservatives behave in a likewise responsible manner?

"A top legal analyst at CNN said it is possible President Biden's son Hunter Biden could be indicted by the U.S. government following an investigation into his foreign business dealings. 

"This is a very real, very substantial investigation of potentially serious federal crimes," Elie Honig said Wednesday morning on the network. "We are seeing federal prosecutors in Delaware do exactly what you would expect to see federal prosecutors do in this situation." 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/media/600372-cnn-realistic-chance-hunter-biden-could-be-indicted%3famp

Trump and Russia/Ukraine

I wonder if there will come a point where the GOP will recognize the degree to which they helped lead to Putin's invasion of Ukraine with their support of Trump as an actual president? The Trump years and Putin should really help shine the light on how very important it is to have rational, responsible adults in charge and how very important it is to support factual reporting and oppose misinformation... how very important a free press that operates with journalistic integrity and how dangerous those who spread misinformation can be to a free world.

I go back and forth trying to decide if Trump was simply a complete idiot with a single skill of conning people into supporting him but who otherwise had almost no idea of how to act like a rational adult leader... is he that? Or is he more of a sociopathic lover of chaos who does have a good idea of what he's doing with his attacks on experts, minorities, the free press and basic decency and just doesn't care. I lean towards the simpleton who's in over his head but who does have a certain genius at being a con man to get people to support him, even though he has no idea of what to do with leadership once he gets it.

From NPR...

Then-President Donald Trump was withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for Ukraine's defense as he was asking its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to investigate Trump's potential 2020 rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden.

That 2019 call got Trump impeached. But the Senate acquitted him, and he dismissed the controversy as a politically motivated hit job — and his base went along.

Now, with Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine and Zelenskyy being hailed around the world as a hero for his resolve, that call is put into a very different light.

"There's just a lot of evidence that Trump was wrong on this issue [Ukraine] and that in many ways, we undermined the NATO alliance and we undermined Zelenskyy's position in the eyes of Russia and Putin," said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist and former senior adviser on Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/08/1085023029/russias-invasion-puts-a-new-light-on-trumps-ukraine-pressure-campaign

From the Economist (March 5th)...

IF VLADIMIR PUTIN’S invasion of Ukraine rests on a grand delusion, it is one he might have learned watching Fox News and other outlets of the American right. Ever since Donald Trump rose to the top of the Republican primaries in 2016, conservative talking-heads have praised the Russian leader’s vigour and acuity and denigrated his Ukrainian, European and NATO adversaries as corrupt, weak and gutless. As recently as last week, Tucker Carlson, America’s most popular cable host, suggested that, if forced to choose between Russia and Ukraine, he would pick Russia. Only a warmongering liberal obsessive would fuss over Mr Putin’s prosecution of the faraway conflict, he added: “Is he making fentanyl? Is he trying to snuff out Christianity? Does he eat dogs?”

The subsequent reality of Ukraine’s bombed towns, dead children and heroic resistance has not entirely pierced this delusion. Fox is still airing pro-Putin commentary. Mr Trump still praises the Russian leader. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on February 26th, he condemned the war but snuck in that Mr Putin was “smart” and “playing [Joe] Biden like a drum”. Even so, the war has caused the most dramatic rethink among Republicans since Mr Trump took over their party.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/03/05/the-end-of-the-putin-delusion

White Privilege, Explained and Quantified

As it happens, I have been in the hospital most of the week and away from my computer.  Nothing major -  gallstones and minor surgery.

But that means I don't have all the ability to post that I normally do. Nonetheless, on the topic of the easily established reality of white privilege, here's what some people have said...

You can only see part of this, but it's very helpful...

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-white-privilege-definition-examples-statistics.html

White privilege quantified...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157125/

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/02/white-privilege-quantified/386102/

On everyday undeniable examples...

"1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

2.If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

3.I can be pretty sure that my neighbours in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

5.I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

6. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilisation,” I am shown that people of my colour made it what it is.

7. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race."

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/a32752175/white-privilege-everyday-examples/

more...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953614003359

https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/white-privilege

UPDATE:

More specifics, more quantified data about white privilege. This one has many specific, quantifiable instances and support for them.

"If education is the key to success, then there is no debate that whites have the advantage in America. In 2012, the U. S. Department of Education reported that about 33 percent of all white students attend a low-poverty school, while only 6 percent attend high-poverty schools. In comparison, only 10 percent of black students attend a low-poverty school, while more than 40 percent of black students attend high-poverty schools.

This means that black students are more than six times more likely than white students to attend a high-poverty school, while white students are more than three times more likely than black students to attend a low-poverty school..."

"It is a little-known fact that the average black person pays more for almost every item he or she purchases. While there is no discount Groupon that comes whit white skin, there might as well be. A John Hopkins study showed that supermarkets were less prevalent in poor black neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods with the same average income, leading to increased food costs. News organization ProPublica recently found that car-insurance companies charge people who live in black neighborhoods higher rates than people in predominantly white areas with the same risk."

https://www.theroot.com/yes-you-can-measure-white-privilege-1794303451

Slavery and the US Church

I've been hearing some of our conservative friends painting the white church as "the primary driver to eliminate slavery..." as if the white church were the hero in that history. This, from one who can't/won't acknowledge that slavery is always a great evil or that white men in power who, by policy and social dominance, were engaged in a great evil in their institutionalization of the racism and slavery of the day, or that the white church was not involved in a great evil in their either passive or active support for slavery and the racism that produced it.

"The primary driver to eliminate slavery."

That's quite a claim. I wonder if he could support such a charge?

Of course, I acknowledge (as Frederick Douglass noted in my last post) that there were SOME in the white church who followed the lead of black leadership to come out (sooner or later, in different cases) as not only opposed to the racism and slavery of the day, but to actively fight against it. The Quakers, as a group, were an early group who decided as a group to take an active stand against slavery. And there were others, later on and to varying degrees. (Ironically and as an aside, there would be many Christians who don't consider the Quakers to be Christians - and, of course, there are some Quakers today who'd say the same thing, I think.)

I'm not saying that some Christian churches were not involved in the fight for human rights in regards to racism and slavery.

But, we'd have to turn an extremely blind eye to actual history to refuse to acknowledge the awful efforts made by white churches in our history to defend slavery and racism as "god's will" and/or to defend slavery by remaining quiet in the face of a great evil. This post is just to point to some of the historical record regarding white church history and racism/slavery.

In the 1820s, former slave owner (and Kentuckian) James Birney became increasingly disturbed by slavery and became an abolitionist. In the 1840s, he wrote a pamphlet in England talking about slavery in the US and dealt a great deal with the degree of support for slavery and violent opposition to abolitionism within American churches. Some of his article (which, in some places, is quoting the actual religious slavery-defenders)...


THE extent to which most of the Churches in America are involved in the guilt of supporting the slave system is known to but few in this country.^* So far from being even suspected by the great mass of the religious community here, it would not be believed but on the most indisputable evidence. Evidence of this character it is proposed now to present—applying to the Methodist Episcopal, the Baptist, the Presbyterian, and the Protestant Episcopal Churches. It is done with a single view to make the British Christian public acquainted with the real state of the case—in order that it may in the most intelligent and effective manner exert the influence it possesses with the American churches to persuade them to purify themselves from a sin that has greatly debased them, and that threatens in the end wholly to destroy them...

In the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian and Episcopal churches, the colored people, during service, sit in a particular part of the house, now generally known as the negro pew. They are not permitted to sit in any other, nor to hire or purchase pews as other people, nor would they be permitted to sit, even if invited, in the pews of white persons. This applies to all colored persons...

"As a man, a Christian, and a citizen, we believe that slavery is right; that the condition of the slave-holding States, is the best existing organization of civil society."

"He [Amos Dresser] should have been hung up as high as Haman, to rot upon the gibbet, until the wind whistled through his bones. The cry of the whole South should be death, INSTANT DEATH, to the abolitionist, wherever he is caught..."

"That slavery through the South and West is not felt as an evil, moral or political, but it is recognised in reference to the actual, and not to any Utopian condition of our slaves, as a blessing both to master and slave..."

A public meeting was appointed to be held a few days afterward, to complete, in the same spirit in which they were commenced, preparations for excluding Anti-Slavery publications from circulation, and for ferreting out persons uspected of favoring the doctrines of the abolitionists, that hey might be subjected to Lynch law. At this assembly the Charleston Courier informs us;

  "The Clergy of all denominations attended in a body, lending their sanction to the proceedings, and adding by their presence to the impressive character of the scene."

http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/christn/chesjgbat.html

I may post more of this later. But clearly, F Douglass and this Birney abolitionist recognized the prevalence and deadly vehemence of support for slavery and opposition to abolitionists. I suspect that this was the (vast) majority position in churches in the US but I'll continue to look into it.