Saturday, November 29, 2008

Racism #2

In this second post I must again confess that I think most white Americans may never truly grasp the plight of African-Americans in our nation's history. The idea that men went to Africa and kidnapped black men and committed them into slavery is simply unfathomable to me. How that could possibly be legal in any nation that considers itself Christian has to be one of the greatest hypocrisies in all of the so-called Christian West.

Although the Bible has permitted certain kinds of slavery in order not to overthrow complex economic institutions, I believe the Bible provides the foundation for the justification of ridding the world of evil practices. So again, it amazes me that slavery could arise within a Christian community. With passages such as Ephesians 2 that describe Christ breaking down the barriers between Jews and Gentiles or Acts 17 "and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation...", it would require the Christian to act against the Word of God to defend such evil practices.

Although I am certain much more could be said against slavery from the Bible, I wanted to approach this with the stated perspective that I believe the Bible condemns such practices. With that as my starting point I would like to comment on the video.

The video shows a white man arguing against Affirmative Action. Now the video doesn't show the entire context of the "conversation". I am not certain why these things are considered "conversation" anyway. Bringing people before a national TV audience that looks for emotional heated fights for ratings is silliness. By the look of Chappelle in the video, this conversation was leading nowhere.

Now I must disagree with Chappelle. I am against Affirmative Action. Yet I say this knowing that I never experienced the evils of the South's Jim Crowe Laws. I have never been turned down for a job simply because of my skin color.

A few reasons against Affirmative Action. First, how are we going to rid this country of racism if we simply reverse it. Second, there are other groups who are now running circles around all of us, despite racist tendencies in all of us. Third, I think the Racism Industry is never going to end using tactics like this. Fourth, I think Affirmative Action could cause problems similar to Welfare. It takes away the incentive to work hard and become the best one may be.

Having stated just these few reasons against Affirmative Action, I have to say that the complaints of white people of reverse discrimination rings hollow. Now I don't live in the south, but it seems to be that racism still exists. For white people, especially in the South, to complain is like a bully who is now getting a taste of his own medicine. So I just don't buy the reverse discrimination is as bad as they complain.

Nevertheless, I wonder if Affirmative Action is the best solution. I see that the purpose of it was to give opportunity to the oppressed that would otherwise never happen. But was/is there really no other way? Have Black/African American communities reaped the benefits of this program? Perhaps it was a needed response in the beginning, a response that needs to be looked at again.

For example, the same people who are for Affirmative Action are against breaking up the Public School monopoly. Inner city public schools are nothing more than prisons. The inner city welfare culture has destroyed the black family. All of these programs have simply moved the black family from one plantation to another. I would argue this latter plantation may be worse than the former. At least in the former, there were black leaders that understood what freedom and liberty need, a solid family foundation and a Creator that defines morality. Is that the case today?

My opinion is that Conservatism has the answer. The promotion of personal liberty and responsibility and less government. Real opportunity as opposed government sponsored welfare produces the best that people have to offer. When men do not look to government as the solution but instead look to their God, family and community, I think we will see a real difference.

Now on the flip side, I am not thinking government has no role. Government should promote good citizenship among its citizens. When injustices occur, government ought to judge righteously. The purpose of government is to maintain justice (in the historic sense of the term).

However, America is a melting pot. People in time will come together. Policies that force multiculturalism and constantly divide us will not help but harm. I am afraid that Affirmative Action has now run its course. Whatever help it would have done should have happened by now. Now is a time for change. Now is a time for new policies that will really help the black family. School choice and vouchers is one example. Just as the white man's complaints sound hollow, so do the complaints the Left when it says "no" to school vouchers and freedom while decrying constant racism.

I know I have said a lot. Much of what I think is outside of the mainline experience. I have not experienced the Jim Crowe south as a black man. I have never been called a nigger in its meanest derogatory sense. However, as the video shows, racism doesn't seem to be ending. I doubt it ever will. There must be better policies than what is be offered now.

5 comments:

Nolan T said...

Some of the strongest points I've read here. Affirmative action is tricky.

Here's somethin' interesting:

"Although the Bible has permitted certain kinds of slavery in order not to overthrow complex economic institutions, I believe the Bible provides the foundation for the justification of ridding the world of evil practices. So again, it amazes me that slavery could arise within a Christian community. With passages such as Ephesians 2 that describe Christ breaking down the barriers between Jews and Gentiles or Acts 17 "and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation...", it would require the Christian to act against the Word of God to defend such evil practices.

Although I am certain much more could be said against slavery from the Bible, I wanted to approach this with the stated perspective that I believe the Bible condemns such practices. "

Obviously no one could see the Bible as permitting homosexuals. Obviously you get the intent right with "your" beliefs as to how to interpret it and ignore the parts of the Bible that make you feel a little ill, and everyone else is wrong.

Funny how that works.

Howard Fisher said...

Sorry Nolan. You have truly lost me here. Are you saying that slavery and homosexuality are both evils that God has tolerated? Therefore, although God had not judged certain nations that allowed slavery...yet, He never would. Therefore, we should tolerate slavery and permit it?

The Gospel originally came to pagans and idolaters and god-haters. It was the Gospel that brought the changes needed to rid the world of these evils (I know these evils are never gone in this age). The same applies to slavery and sexual immorality.

God Bless

Howard

Howard Fisher said...

I guess I should be a little clearer. When I said God had tolerated certain evils in the past, I am simply saying that there have been times when men were practicing evil and God did not judge them right away, but instead God was patient with them. Yes, that would include homosexuals.

The Roman Empire is the kingdom and context that the Gospel came into. It penetrated a world full of evil. But the Gospel's first mission was not to create a more moral society. It did not come to rid the world of slavery or racism or make marriages better or make men financially wiser. It was to save sinners from their sin. This in turn lays the foundation for a just society. It in turn has moral by-products. Men, whose hearts have been regenerated with the desire to follow Christ and keep His law, including Leviticus, are then able to call into question the validity of societal evils such as racism and abortion [murder] and sexual immorality and ect.

Nevertheless, one does not need to be a Christians to recognize the law of God and His created order. The point of contact between us is the image of God within us. That is why you are able to reason and use logic and argue for morality in the first place.

You argue against using the bible as God's special revelation, at least using it in any meaningful sense. Yet you offer no basis of morality. How one rejects the Trinitarian God, who is our Creator, and then proceeds to argue from outer space for his own personal morality while condemning Christians for abiding by what God has spoken objectively is ironic indeed. And doing all of this in the most condescending fashion. Why should I believe in your personal morality?

To put it another way, you are upset that I would interpret the bible in a straightforward contextual manner. That I would believe we can know what God says because God has spoken. That seems just too arrogant for you. Yet you presume to judge me with a system you can't even begin to justify. You borrow from the presupposition that God exists and morality exists and then condemn me for doing the same.

I guess you are just too smart for the rest of us to have to bother with justifying your beliefs.

God Bless

Nolan T said...

I condemn your condemnation.

Fairly simple.

Arguments for and against the existence of God can continue ad nauseum-- I assume a God based off of reason, just as an athiest assumes a lack thereof. Both can give valid arguments that hold weight.

But you're worried about that atheist, as if they're going to hurt you or your family somehow. I just don't find that to be the case. The suppression of ideas and information doesn't lead to a freedom of choice.

The Bible puts forth rules for slavery. Like you, I cannot see this fitting into any paradigm containing a loving Creator. This, along with many other things, shows the Bible to be a tainted revelation. That doesn't mean it is without merit. But there are times you will have to part with the document due to the biases of those writers despite inspiration (if you believe the writers to have had free will).

In this, I find Catholicism to steer the closet towards a correct moral outlook in terms of organized religion-- although there is plenty to step away from there as well.

God exists. Morality exists. But what does judgement accomplish? All you will do by judging others constantly as this blog does is die and find out the scales are not what you thought they were. We'll both end up wrong on issues. The test is to pass yourself and help others to feel they've done the same. Running around telling the world they are flunking doesn't help anyone pass, Mr. Phelps.

Howard Fisher said...

Howdy again Nolan,

"I condemn your condemnation."

I am glad you do so. :-)

Rom 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

"Arguments for and against the existence of God can continue ad nauseum-- I assume a God based off of reason, just as an athiest assumes a lack thereof. Both can give valid arguments that hold weight."

I thought this was interesting. At the end you judge the atheist by saying,

"God exists. Morality exists. But what does judgement accomplish?"

Are you telling the atheist he is wrong? IS there a way of knowing? If you claim yes, then are you not being judgmental? If I say yes, then I am being judgmental?

So instead you make everything equal, no one can know anything for certain at all. It is true that atheists can make philosophically water tight systems that crush Christianity, if we grant them the presuppositions which borrow from Christianity or the image of God within them.

What I am basically saying in my defense of Christianity is that without the Trinity and Jesus Christ's resurrection, his revelation to us, there is no justification for morality, reason laws of logic and ect.. If one denies the Trinity and the Bible, then the basis for knowledge is purely subjective. You can't be right because there is no right to be right about. There are no ideas because there are no ideas, we only think so. And my writing this to convey that there is no idea or right is futile.

"But you're worried about that atheist, as if they're going to hurt you or your family somehow."

Believe me when I tell you I do not lose sleep over pretty much anything. The heretic Fred Phelps might though. :-)

Simply because I oppose atheism and do so on the basis of the words of Jesus Christ hardly makes me "judgmental".

Think of it this way. Would I be judgmental if knowing that you were about to drink poison I warned you? Would I be judgmental if I tried to stop you from drinking that poison in ways that may make you uncomfortable?

Here is a true story. There is a volunteer fireman that lives north of me near hwy 70. Interstate 70 is a divided highway. While driving home at 1 in the morning he saw a tractor trailer overturned in the other lane. So he pulls off of his lane and crosses the median and goes to the side with the truck. Seeing that it was dark and cars were coming (speed limit 70 miles per hour), he decides to point his car towards the oncoming traffic and flashes his lights trying to stop the oncoming traffic.

The car that was coming ignored his flashing lights and never slowed down in the least bit. Apparently he was too judgmental.

Three women died that night while ignoring the warnings of that fireman.

Or to use an analogy, in the past Kings would make proclamations and then send ambassadors throughout the kingdom repeating his proclamation. Christians are ambassadors. They are to only give the proclamation the King, Jesus Christ, tells us to proclaim. It is not merely a debate. The Kingdom of Christ is going to come in full force one day. Men who possess the alien and foreign righteousness that is Jesus' righteousness given to them externally and not standing in their own self-righteousness will endure that great day of judgment.

Warning men of the final day of judgment that Jesus speaks of many times is not being mean. Can it be so? Of course. Can Christians be judgmental and self-righteous? of course they can. We call them fundamentalists. For they make up rules and regulations that God never does women wearing dresses, alcohol and prohibition ect.

If I appear judgmental, then perhaps I do not communicate well. Perhaps it is your experience with Conservatives. I do not know. Perhaps keyboards make us seem meaner than we really are. :-)

God Bless