Stand up for religious&nbsp;freedom

OT: I was thinking, we ought to arrange another TC meetup sometime, possibly w/ significant others and chilluns included this time.

Yeah, that would be good. Maybe in late June, as I’m swamped until then. Gabby might be able to make it this time.

We could have a barbecue, or something.

My current plan is to attend the DC rally.

Is there a problem with religious freedom?

Chris

There is a problem with governmental micromanagement of systems that deliberately ignores issues of conscience, so yes.

What’s new about that? I have been against Social Security for decades. No one cares about my conscience. I still get to pay the taxes.

Maybe in late June, as I’m swamped until then.

The weekend of June 16th is out for less than obvious reasons for me, but the other weekends that month may work out better for me.

We could have a barbecue, or something.

At public park or at someone’s residence? Admittedly, a DC or even Baltimore based trip from the core works out better for me, but anything else depends on my willingness to rent a car with my employer’s discount or somebody’s willingness to do a pick and drop-off at some suburban station or WMATA terminal.

Black_Rose

Why does anyone care about this? I am not so deluded the think that the average citizen has much influence in a bourgeois democracy.

Flippant: Religious freedom for Christians only, or does this include our Wiccan and yes, really crazy fundamentalist Islamic friends?

Insomuch as they don’t desire to dominate, maim or kill people of different beliefs, yes religious freedom for Wiccans and Islamists too. This the US of A after all.

Insomuch as they don’t desire to dominate, maim or kill people of different beliefs, yes religious freedom for Wiccans and Islamists too

So that would be a “no”. Conditional freedom isn’t free. The militant atheist can just as easily tell the Catholic church “Insomuch as you obey the law that requires you to provide abortions to your employees, then you can have religious freedom too”.

The problem here, as I have pointed out before, is not the religious part, but the freedom part. The Catholic church was more than willing to oppress the economic freedoms of everyone in the country so long as their own institutions were sheilded from the consequences. When the “church” stops using the power of government to enforce their kind of social justice on the rest of us, then we will have something to talk about. Otherwise, this is just the bed that they made for the rest of us that they are now complaining is lumpy.

Hermione

Leonidas and I will be in DC with the babies for a family event near the end of May, FWIW.

Really? Wow, it’d be cool to meet you.

“Insomuch as they don’t desire to dominate, maim or kill people of different beliefs, yes religious freedom for Wiccans and Islamists too.”

So that would be a no. Conditional freedom isn’t free.

No Professor, your argument doesn’t hold up. Freedom that respects others’ right to life and reasonable expectation of safety is not “conditional freedom.”

Your definition of freedom sounds more like anarchy, where people are only free if they are allowed to do whatever they want, including ignoring others’ right to live in peace. By that definition, those whose pursuit of happiness includes robbing and killing should be honored, too.

Is that your definition of freedom? That if there are limits or boundaries attached then it isn’t true freedom?

That is the point of the whole discussion.

1. Where are the boundaries to be drawn?

2. What are the immutable and transitory laws that establish them?

3. What is the role of the state in enforcing those boundaries?

These are the higher order issues that are really important and the larger mass of the body politic is incapable of participating in the discussion. Even the terms, “freedom” and “religion” need to be defined because we as a nation no longer have a common understanding of those terms. We need to start from scratch and build a governing majority based on clear and broad understanding of that discussion.

Or we could just start using the Constitution again. Either way works for me.

Every level of our government has established large numbers of laws that invade every aspect of our lives. Even our thoughts are no longer safe thanks to Hate crimes laws. We have had 30 years of our government telling us that killing babies is OK. Now, to the extent that it is a moral issue, it is such a positive moral good that everyone needs to chip in to pay for it. This is no different than my own moral objections to Idolatry, Covetousness and Theft that my government encourages with my money every day. So to the extent that the Catholic Church is just now getting miffed WRT the government forcing them to do things they don’t like, I say, “welcome to the club”, and “where were you when voting against Obama-Care would have mattered”, and finally, “what are you going to do about it now, Sunshine”?

You’re going to hold a march? BFD. How about you get down to business and use your pulpits to tell your congregations to vote against politicians who promise to steal from one group of Americans to give it to a different group? How about you organize your members to publicly rebuke all those Catholic lawmakers, by name, in the House and Senate who passed this into law in the first place and maybe get them to promise to repeal it, right-F’ing-now? How about telling your general membership that voting for politicians who support publicly funded abortion is not a morally neutral thing to do? How about kicking a few “publicly Catholic” lawmakers out of the club because their voting record is in opposition to the teachings of your church?

Too much to ask? Sure. Have your march. I’ve seen that before and I have never seen it amount to anything. But stop supporting candidates because of their voting record and that gets their attention.

But personally, I have no illusions that if the Catholic church gets their “conscience exemption” they will go right back to not giving a fig about everyone else’s consciences, not even the consciences of their parishioners who own small businesses and will still have to comply with this law.

You’re preaching to the choir with me, Hale. I’m not big on marches and am not sure they can have the kind of effect in our increasingly oligarch-like government as they had in days gone by. I don’t march on abortion clinics or join in protests and whatnot. I vote my conscience and make choices in line with what I believe, and I pray. I do however, respect those whose passion compel them to be heard in a more public way.

I also agree with you in part about the Catholic Church’s willingness to get into bed with the government so long as they agreed with the stated goals. Protestants (of which I am one) engaged in a bit of this too with their enthusiasm for GWB’s faith based initiatives.

That said, I don’t know where all the boundaries should be, and I don’t pretend to know. Still, I think most every American, from the most intelligent to the most ignorant, would agree that respect of another human being’s right to life and freedom to believe whatever they want without interference is a basic boundary. Without that, this whole thing breaks down. Once you say that a religious extremist’s freedoms extend into my right to life, there is no more order.

After all, that was what my response to DA was focused on, his “flippant” reference to “really crazy fundamentalist Islamic friends.” I thought I was specific enough in my response not to warrant controversy. Apparently I was mistaken, LOL.

How ya doing, btw?

You’re going to hold a march? BFD. How about you get down to business and use your pulpits to tell your congregations to vote against politicians who promise to steal from one group of Americans to give it to a different group? How about you organize your members to publicly rebuke all those Catholic lawmakers, by name, in the House and Senate who passed this into law in the first place and maybe get them to promise to repeal it, right-F’ing-now? How about telling your general membership that voting for politicians who support publicly funded abortion is not a morally neutral thing to do? How about kicking a few “publicly Catholic” lawmakers out of the club because their voting record is in opposition to the teachings of your church?

I’m good with all that. But I’m not in authority – I am reduced to marching in protest. In some ways against the Government for its infringement, and against the Hierarchy for brokering it, but the Church is separate from both of those, so mostly I march for the Church. I do think publicly voicing where we stand is important. My faith shouldn’t be invisible, regardless of my political cynicism.

I am just fine. Thanks for asking. How is the family?

The issue of boundaries is especially important because the other guys have been moving the boundaries for about a century. The right to privacy has turned into a right for homosexual marriage and a right to enforce all that that means on the rest of society, regardless of other people’s objections. Free speech has become the freedom for the press to say whatever they like and for porn, but political speech is tightly regulated. Another person’s right to life has become an entangling obligation that enslaves us all to pay for it.

So the discussion of where and how to draw thos boundaries is very important. But no matter how generously you draw them today, the other side will want to move them again tomorrow. They will never be satisfied with half a loaf. They want it all. Then they want to to bake another loaf and they will want half of that too. And 51% of America is just fine with that. And since we have redefined our nation into a “democracy”, the mob gets what they want no matter where the boundaries are.

As for the church…. for every person who prayed to God to keep Obama out of office, there was another thanking God that he got elected. Christians don’t seem to mind Covetousness, Idolatry and theft, as long as it is for a good cause.

Our boundaries used ot be very clearly defined by our federal and state constitutions. but no longer.

/soapbox

for every person who prayed to God to keep Obama out of office, there was another thanking God that he got elected. Christians don’t seem to mind Covetousness, Idolatry and theft, as long as it is for a good cause.

You’ll get no argument from me. I don’t advocate for sitting home and praying as the solitary means of effecting change. I do think it’s important to understand that most of aren’t praying that any politician in particular is elected – I don’t imagine God cares much about our political idiosyncrasies. I pray that a Godly man will be elected, and that God will guide his thinking and actions, and that we not be handed over for sifting, though it does seem the sifting is upon us.

“As for the church…. for every person who prayed to God to keep Obama out of office, there was another thanking God that he got elected. Christians don’t seem to mind Covetousness, Idolatry and theft, as long as it is for a good cause.”

It reminds me of praying for a sports team to win (their division, playoff game/series).

There are better things to pray about.

I don’t imagine God cares much about our political idiosyncrasies.
But some people state that I cannot be a Marxist-Leninist.

van Rooinek

I don’t imagine God cares much about our political idiosyncrasies.

But some people state that I cannot be a Marxist-Leninist.

“Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism.” — Lenin

“While the Church sanctions the principle of voluntary communism for the few who have a vocation to the religious life, she condemns universal, compulsory, or legally enforced communism, inasmuch as she maintains the natural right of every individual to possess private property” — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04179a.htm

Y’all, I just got SCREAMED at by a bill collector – only, I’m not the person they’re after. They accused me of covering for that person though, so that was interesting. They are worked up – what an assignment to humiliation Let’s see – I can either starve or harass people for a living – do you think it’s like that in Greece? I always thought it was bs that people would be intimidated into paying other people’s bills, but I’m considering it as an act of charity. It’s $137, which apparently is worth several choice swear words and accusations of illicit occupation and deadbeatedness, and I have the money – can you imagine what they do to the actual person, and to people who owe real money? I do believe we’ve found our own Tower of London. Whatever you do, don’t owe.

Isn’t that NUTS – our whole economy is built on interdependent exchange, but one side is to treat it as a character issue, to the other, it’s just business. Y’all!!!

But some people state that I cannot be a Marxist-Leninist.

Not if you care about God. He, on the other hand, always cares about you. It’s crazy like that.

I can either starve or harass people for a living

That’s capitalism for you.

As a traditional Catholic who supports “private property and the rule of law.” you forfeited your right to complain, unless you want to embrace liberation theology.

Family’s great, Professor. Husband’s still strong and handsome, kids still keeping me busy.

@SV:

I am not against making your voice heard, even in protest. It’s just not my thing. Like I said, I respect those who do that sort of thing.

I’m known to write emails to my representatives and make calls, mainly at the local level as that’s where I’m most likely to get a personal response and have actual action taken. I’ve largely given up on expecting anything other than infringement and tyranny from the federal government.

I am jaded and cynical, LOL.

The point of protesting — both in writing and in person — is to draw attention to your cause in order to influence the observing electorate. Influencing politicians only happens indirectly, when they see that you take the subject seriously enough that you’re willing to put your name and your face on record. That’s one of the reasons we changed our avatars, after all.

Do I think that this will change the world? No, of course not. The world is fallen and nothing will change that until the Second Coming. If it’s not this, it’ll be something else.

But I’m tired of feminists and fascists claiming to be representing me, just because I am a woman. I can speak perfectly well for myself — despite being a carrier of the disease of fertility, that they are all so anxious to cure.

On Friday, we’ll be harder to overhear. That is all. They are trying to shut up the Church, so the obvious response is to yell that much louder.

The point of protesting — both in writing and in person — is to draw attention to your cause in order to influence the observing electorate. Influencing politicians only happens indirectly, when they see that you take the subject seriously enough that you’re willing to put your name and your face on record. That’s one of the reasons we changed our avatars, after all.

You have little influence over the capitalist class in a bourgeois democracy, The only way, besides a revolution, to change policy is to disrupt the tranquil digestion of profits, but that’s harder in a globalized world. That’s what my venerable catechist, Stephen Gowans, taught us. (http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/the-anti-war-movement-in-the-context-of-illegitimate-but-largely-non-disruptive-wars/) Give in and be a defeatist: while your parish encourages political participation to protect religious freedom, be a contrarian and express political apathy.

But I’m tired of feminists and fascists claiming to be representing me, just because I am a woman.

Oh [Ed: redacted. Keep a civil tone.], doesn’t the Bible say that you should be submissive to men, at least men of superior virtuous character and moral legitimacy? Of course, that is Confucian moral prescription too,

On the other hand, “we” are not really burdened by the wars, either. “We” don’t fight them, or not many of us do. A small minority of volunteer professional soldiers and private sector mercenaries fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they fight in ways that minimize the number of their casualties. And because “we” don’t fight the wars, even though “we” oppose them and “we” don’t benefit from them, it doesn’t really matter whether “we” are opposed morally and intellectually. Foreign policy is shaped without reference to public opinion and in complete isolation from it, and therefore the moral and intellectual opposition of majorities counts for little. Foreign policy, it should be clear, doesn’t depend on public opinion as an input. That’s not to say it can’t be shaped by pressure from below, but the pressure that alters foreign policy doesn’t come in the form of ritualized, non-disruptive expressions of popular opposition: the orderly and nonviolent march; petitions and letter writing campaigns; letters sent to editors of newspapers, and so on. The fact that all of these things have been done and continue to be done without the slightest discernible effect is proof enough. No, foreign policy bends from pressure that disrupts the normal functioning of society and therefore threatens the interests of the dominant economic class; in other words, from activities that are “incompatible with the stability required by big business for the tranquil digestion of profits.” (25) And foreign policy becomes something other than an expression of the class interests of big business, that at best can be momentarily restrained only by enormous pressure from below, when the authority to make foreign policy is wrested from the control of big business’s representatives and reconstituted on the basis of a different class altogether.

But bringing about reforms within the system (that is actually bringing them about and not simply registering dissent), much less changing the system altogether, requires a willingness to accept all manner of risks, dangers and penalties: trouble with the police and security services and the potential of going to jail or being forced to live underground. While a small minority may be prepared to accept these risks as the price of pursuing their moral and intellectual ideals, most people are not made in the mold of Che Guevara. Mass movements for change that disrupt the tranquil digestion of profits arise when conditions become intolerable for the mass of people – so intolerable that the considerable costs of acting to change them are outweighed by the costs exacted by the conditions themselves. It is no surprise that the anti-Vietnam War movement in the United States was student-led. It was students who faced the unwelcome prospect of being sent to Southeast Asia to kill or be killed. It wasn’t until the war led to tax increases that opposition in the wider society was aroused. But as “soon as the risk of having to serve at the front was removed, agitation and concern over Vietnamese sufferings died down abruptly; a year or two more, and Vietnam was forgotten.”(26)In the end, it wasn’t the student movement that brought the war to a close; it was the resistance of the people for whom the conditions of the war and decades of colonial domination had proved intolerable: the Vietnamese.

doesn’t the Bible say that you should be submissive to men, at least men of superior virtuous character and moral legitimacy?

It doesn’t actually say that. At any rate, those men are the bishops. Who have called a protest. Which I will take part in. My husband supports me, as well, and my father is going to babysit so that I can attend. Anymore rhetorical questions from you?

Like you, I don’t need anyone to speak for me, since I am highly intelligent and can articulate my abstract and nuanced thoughts cogently.

I just thought I perceived some hypocrisy. Perhaps you believe that most women should be submissive to feminists and fascists, but you regard yourself as too intelligent for that. But I am a moral egalitarian, and that’s why I responded in that fashion.

As a traditional Catholic who supports “private property and the rule of law.” you forfeited your right to complain, unless you want to embrace liberation theology.

That level of cognitive dissonance makes my eyeballs ache.

Did you read the Gowans entry, Alte. Presumably, you are intelligent enough to understand it, and I ask why don’t you find what he says relevant to “standing up for religious freedom”.

BTW, the elites practices traditional values, even if they do not explicitly promote them; they can protect themselves from cultural degeneration with their financial resources, and have little material interest in using state force to instill them in society.

Which elites? Increasingly elites are middle aged men and women with no love interests or children. Hardly traditional.

They rarely get divorced.

It is pretty easy to not divorce if you are living as a celibate. The elite is subdividing, and it is not at all clear that the very tiny elite marrying and having 4-6 kids will overwhelm the army of psychological eunuchs that are increasingly prevalent.

David Collard

I think Professor Hale has a point. From my perspective as a Church-watcher and an America-watcher, it seems to me that the bishops have only now got their knickers in a twist because finally the government is stepping on their toes. The government is intervening in their tiny principalities, their schools and hospitals and social welfare bodies. It is a bit late now to be discovering that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”.

The Church in America has been smooching up to the culture, and becoming more and more the American Church, for decades. It is fine to stand on principle, but where were the bishops as the Democratic Party became the party of abortion? Where were they when annulments became “Catholic divorce” in America, in a way that has scandalised the entire Church? Where were they when the nuns went nuts and became goddess-worshippers?

It is a bit late now.

Those were other bishops. Just pointing out the obvious. The Catholic Church in America is becoming more orthodox as the next wave of clergy enters leadership. There’s also a divide within the Church, with the more liberal Catholics supporting the governmental takeover (some of them still!), and the more orthodox inclined to greater independence from the government. The new pope is also influencing the leadership to take harder stances on many things that they were lax on before, which is why there was a collective groan emitted on the left at his nomination.

Better late than never. It’s easy to say, shoulda/coulda/woulda from the sidelines, harder to see the error of your ways and change your tune. I was a feminist in my twenties, and I’ve come a long way, as well. It’s not an easy journey and it takes time to change your entire mentality to fit the reality in front of your face. The RCC in America has become painfully aware that we royally screwed up, and there’s not much we can do except try to turn things around at the political level and prevent outright civil war.

I’m commenting here now, which might interest you all: A defense of the double standard. I’ve embarrassed myself by droning on and on in the comment thread, of course.

Animal Planet? WTF? lololol

“I was a feminist in my twenties”

Could you define “feminist” for me? Would you consider me a “feminist” now?

Sis

I’m going to have to remember Animal Planet for our future date nights

Yes, BR, you’re definitely a feminist. Egalitarianism is a feminist concept, complementarianism is the traditional equivalent.

LOL. The Animal Planet reference is about the fact that, if you ask women what turns them on, or how often something turns them on, they seem very asexual. But whenever they do brain scans while exposing women to visual or audio stimulus, it becomes pretty obvious that women get turned on by all sorts of things without even being aware of it. Watching animals having sex, watching men having sex, seeing men behave in a dominant fashion (even if there is nothing sexual about it), watching men in physical combat (the old “let’s watch you and him fight”), being teased or “negged”, arguing passionately with a man, etc. It changes over the cycle, but it’s more flexible than previously assumed, based upon female self-reporting.

A lot of times women will also rationalize their arousal with words like “romantic”, “charming”, “admire”, “tyrant”, “jerk”, “scary” etc. so it’s very hard to tell what turns a woman on by simply asking her or listening to her speak. She probably doesn’t even know herself, if she isn’t (sorry to be gross) constantly checking her underwear. The Gamers know this, and they use it to their advantage. Almost any strong emotion will make a woman get wet, and apathy is the main sign of sexual disinterest in women. I’ve read theories that this has something to do with the sexual subordination of women — i.e. that it’s physically dangerous for them to not become aroused in situations outside of their control, so ease of arousal has been selected for.

Of course, if a woman is principled she can be turned on but still behave nobly, just as a man can behave nobly around a beautiful woman even he desires her. This is what the Gamers don’t believe and don’t understand. They think, “Oh, I can tell that she’s aroused, so she’ll be putty in my hands.” That isn’t always true. Some of us can control ourselves and leave them eating our dust, and they HATE that. It’s like they’ve found the key to open all locks and then they run into a lock that accepts the key, but doesn’t turn.

Makes their heads explode. Chastity protects the dignity of women.

I’ll be gone for a couple of days. Until then!

“Yes, BR, you’re definitely a feminist. Egalitarianism is a feminist concept, complementarianism is the traditional equivalent.”

That’s weird as I’ve never considered myself an advocate for gender equality; instead I am a moral/ontological and economic egalitarian.

M-Lism is NOT an egalitarian ideology, since it posits an ideologically orthodox and virtuous elite to operate the state and defend it from existential threats, even though it promotes economic egalitarianism.

I was going to take a walk and then return to see the responses.

Columnist

“M-Lism is NOT an egalitarian ideology, since it posits an ideologically orthodox and virtuous elite to operate the state and defend it from existential threats, even though it promotes economic egalitarianism.”

Very interesting. So “The Anointed” has some truth?

van Rooinek

M-Lism is NOT an egalitarian ideology, since it posits an ideologically orthodox and virtuous elite to operate the state and defend it from existential threats, even though it promotes economic egalitarianism.

Would it be utterly crass of me, to suggest that the only people who seriously endorse Marx and Lenin, are precisely those who imagine (rightly or wrongly) that they, themselves, will be part of that “virtuous elite” that controls everything?

Is there any reason to suspect that such an elite would remain virtuous very long? What is the check on their power under Marxism/Leninism, when they cease to be virtuous? Voting them out? The Second amendment? Going on strike? (Hey, it worked in Poland — the workers unionized AGAINST communism, it was that bad.).

“Would it be utterly crass of me, to suggest that the only people who seriously endorse Marx and Lenin, are precisely those who imagine (rightly or wrongly) that they, themselves, will be part of that “virtuous elite” that controls everything? ”

Most people imagine themselves are more virtuous than other people and it is not a trait unique to communists; it is one reason why there is such hostility in the United States against welfare mothers, pot-smoking slackers, hipsters, the unemployed, blacks, and Hispanic immigrants.

The only people who are not guilty of such a sin are moral nihilists and relativists (the latter are mostly cultural liberal and egalitarian). Left communists tend to be like that too.

David Collard

My wife has been pretty horny of late. I suspect this is hormonal, but also her reading spanking porn on the net and, I wonder, given Alte’s comment above, if watching a lot of that cop show The Shield hasn’t done it too. There is a lot of random sex and male violence in it. I dislike it (although the municipal politics is interesting) but my wife seems interested. People watch what they like, after all.

The Shield

There’s a blast from the past. It was pretty racy, if I recall – I lost interest after the Money Train thing. I am intrigued by Michael Chiklis – he doesn’t appeal to me in general, but I have to give him credit as an actor when you compare his Vic role with The Commish. All the guys on that show seem ageless – they pop up on all the subsequent violent FX soap operas in similar rolls, and never seem to be a day older.

David Collard

It is kind of fascinating, but I find it very lowering of the tone. There were all these street prostitutes, quite believable I suppose, and then there was this one actress whose patois was so thick and impressive that I thought, she sounds like the real thing. The girl just about needed subtitles, and I am used to watching American cop shows.

I do find the black female captain, and the improbably pretty female cops, hard to believe though.

van Rooinek

Most people imagine themselves are more virtuous than other people and it is not a trait unique to communists; it is one reason why there is such hostility in the United States against welfare mothers, pot-smoking slackers, hipsters, the unemployed, blacks, and Hispanic immigrants.

No, the reason why there is so much hostility to welfare mothers, pot-smoking slackers, hipsters, and lawless, community-destroying immigrants in United States is because of a widespread empirical observation that they are a DESTRUCTIVE force on society, that by their objectively wrong behavior, they unfairly impose LARGE costs — monetary and otherwise — on the rest of us.

In other words, the hostility is well-earned and well-deserved — even by Communist standards! Would Marx and Lenin honor a proletariat that failed to show up for work because it was stoned? When I visited the Soviet Union in 1979, there was artwork everywhere of noble, attractive workers reaping grain or hammering steel. They didn’t venerate stoner/slackers and there was NO welfare unless you were disabled.

As for blacks and Hispanics, they get tarred with this hostility ONLY to the extent that those groups produce a disproportionate share of the misbehaviors above. Change that, and so-called “racisssssm” will vanish.

Oh, and in 48 years I’ve never yet heard a conservative speak one ill word against the involuntarily unemployed.

The only people who are not guilty of such a sin are moral nihilists and relativists (the latter are mostly cultural liberal and egalitarian). Left communists tend to be like that too.

Of course. If you refuse to acknowledge good versus evil, then of course no person’s behavior is better than any other’s. That’s not a positive feature of their philosphy, it’s a bug. Or as CS Lewis put it, they have not risen above priggishness, they have sunk below it.

Conservatives have totally spoken poorly of black men’s involuntary unemployment and denial of access to cushy union jobs that ethnic whites still enjoy access to (for the time being).

Reactionaries and conservatives just need to admit that some people in this country did and do get discriminated against even if they do everything right like stay out of trouble and marry young and finish high school and even college. Some darned honesty would be ever so refreshing. We already get to hear endlessly about how black people suck and are inferior/low IQ/etc, let’s hear about how Christians can stop using that as a justification for the unGodly partiality of racism.

van Rooinek

BTW, the elites practices traditional values, even if they do not explicitly promote them; they can protect themselves from cultural degeneration with their financial resources, and have little material interest in using state force to instill them in society.

BR is right about this.

Although I am not a “well connected” person, certainly not rich, and not in the entertainment industry, just by the luck of where I happened to be born and raised, I’ve had the privilege of meeting and socializing with actors, products, a rock star or two, etc — including some whose names you know, or who produce movies you’ve probably seen. (No, I won’t give any names, don’t ask.)

Anyway, growing up around these people, and still living among them, I’ve observed something: Whatever promiscuity, crazy alternative lifestyles, or weird value systems they portray in the movies they make, they DO NOT live like their movies — they do not practice the libertinism that they preach. Far, far from it. They mostly live in monogamous traditional families in a rather conventional (although up$cale) suburban environment. And yes, they’ll spend whatever it takes to create and maintain that way of life for themselves — but for some reason they don’t want to push that model as an ideal for society at large.

Simply put, the private world of the stars looks like the 1950s. You’d never know it from the movies they make or the songs they sing. Maybe if they were more exposed to the fallout of their value system, they’d make different movies and music.

van Rooinek

Conservatives have totally spoken poorly of black men’s involuntary unemployment

It’s generally perceived to be voluntary, that’s why.

and denial of access to cushy union jobs that ethnic whites still enjoy access to (for the time being).

News flash: the unions are Democrats. Still the party of racism, as they were in the begining.

Reactionaries and conservatives just need to admit that some people in this country did and do get discriminated against even if they do everything right

Nobody I know denies the discrimination of the past. However, it is obvious to any external observer, that as the racial barriers of society have largely collapsed or been pulled down, they have been more than replaced by SELF-sabotage. Pretending this isn’t so, is just not honest.

We already get to hear endlessly about how black people suck and are inferior/low IQ/etc, let’s hear about how Christians can stop using that as a justification for the unGodly partiality of racism.

I know of no Christians that use low IQ or anything else as an excuse for ungodly partiality or racism. But black self sabotage is undeniably widespread, and black Christians are some of the strongest voices against it.

I hope I can provide some insight here that is in no way intended to excuse lawless or immoral behaviors among black people. In fact, I am simply re-posting what I said a couple of months ago at Patriactionary:

Black women gained mightily as a result of the feminist movement, while black men who were already behind the eight ball, suffered. And it has caused a rift between black men and black women that is deep and lasting.

That’s not a “blame whitey” argument either. I hope you know me better than that by now. As a “double minority” black women, on the coattails of middle class white women got a leg up in education, business, and everything else. Affirmative action policies have benefited white women first, followed by black women more than anyone. The idea that liberalism has offered black men anything is a flawed perspective, to put it mildly.

I believe in personal responsibility and I think that black people are to be held accountable for what has happened in their own communities. But let’s be fair here. To pretend that the liberal feminist movement that is destroying white American families had no role in destroying the black American family is a faulty argument.

Also, factor in the way education is done in this country. It’s wholly biased against testosterone. I personally know white mothers who had to fight for their elementary aged sons to get more physical activity because the lack of it was harming their kids ability to succeed. They were dying sitting in desks all day.

And yes, I blame black parents for not advocating for their own children’s education, for not doing the work to make sure their boys get a decent education in an anti-male environment. We were present and accounted for every step of the way with our kids. The schools often hate to see me coming and I like it that way. They know I mean business. Between the misandry on the one hand and the piss poor families and parenting on the other, I guess the young black men who do manage to make something of themselves can’t help be considered an anomaly.

Now my husband came from nothing (from a material standpoint) and made good. Real good in fact. It can be done. Of course, he was raised in a home with both a mother and a father. Keep in mind that liberals instituted policies that made the already elevated black OOW birthrate even easier to maintain and escalate. Van is right about that. Democrats are the party of racism. Still, black men and women can choose to make better choices when it comes to the circumstances in which children are brought into the world, just like everyone else.

All that said, Lady is right that it is wrong to assume that black male unemployment in voluntary. It isn’t in a significant number of cases and as Christians we do need to be careful not to let our biases get in the way of seeing people as individuals. The large scale dysfunction in many black communities is due to the high levels of fatherlessness, not because black men don’t want to work.

Of course, as the generation of young men who have grown up in communities of lawlessness and fatherlessness come of age, the cycle continues and the results are even worse. I truly don’t know where we’d begin to get a handle on it.

@ Van:

Any idea why black male unemployment is automatically viewed as voluntary while other mens’ unemployment isn’t?

News flash: the unions are Democrats. Still the party of racism, as they were in the begining.

FWIW, a lot of those local unions in construction and other trades tend to be run by Italians and Irish* and other white prole ethnics that don’t really have much of a positive view of blacks, and this sub-culture of men tends to be composed of the so-called Regan Democrats who for all intents and purposes become Republicans at this point.

*Well, here in New York. Your observations may be different in the Pays du Sud.

Yeah, Democrat and Republican don’t mean ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’.

Also, discrimination remains current. It’s not ‘in the past’. It is political (not speaking the right code words) and racial and gendered. There is still what one might term ‘classic’ sexism and racism, it has simply been joined by newer variations due to the shifts in the spoils system. But the biggest and best spoils are hardly going to transsexual poly-wiccan Honduran lesbians. Or ‘NAMs’, for that matter.

Svar

@ Van

Stupid Party, Evil Party, what’s the difference? The Stupid Party is the party of “Honest” Abe and of Ulysses S. Grant and General Sherman the Butcher. Several of those close to Lincoln had some unusually close relationship with Engel and Marx. Four of his generals were from the failed 48 revolution. Interesting, hmmmm? On the otherhand, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were close correspondents with Pope Pius IX. Also interesting, hmm?

The Evil Party, before it was coopted by that Stalin-lover FDR and later on by all sorts of unsavory characters in the 60′s was the party of the average man. The Republican Party is and was the party of Vulture Capitalists(Pat B. phrase). Both parties were racist, have you read any of the stuff that “Honest” Abe wrote about blacks?

That being said, I don’t care about either party. I used to be a Republican but Chronicles changed that. The only time I would have voted Republican(if I could at the time) would have been during the couple of times Pat Buchanan ran.

Chris

Alte said waaay back. doesn’t the Bible say that you should be submissive to men, at least men of superior virtuous character and moral legitimacy?

It doesn’t actually say that. At any rate, those men are the bishops. Who have called a protest. Which I will take part in. My husband supports me, as well, and my father is going to babysit so that I can attend. Anymore rhetorical questions from you?

Um, not the way that you think.

It comes down to I Cor 12. Yes, the head covering chapter. Now the idea of covering (or long hair, which acts as a covering) is that it is a symbol that the woman involved is under authority.

At this point most feminists go “EEEEW” and get their hair shorn. (Which can be cute when young: Sinead O’Conner @ 20, but does not remain so: Sinead O’Connor @ 50).

But they miss the context. Husbands are accountable for their wives, elders for their flock, and Christ is accountable for all. (I changed the words, if you want to invert it wives submit to husbands, men to elders, all to Christ).

Now, it does not say you submit to all men. It says (if you are a woman) you choose to submit to one man: the one you married.

On protest: not my thing, but Alte has discussed this with her husband and family, organised care properly (she is a responsible and well bought up young woman), so go for it.

PS. Having to use wordpress to comment.

van Rooinek

@ Van:
Any idea why black male unemployment is automatically viewed as voluntary while other mens’ unemployment isn’t?

Well… back when the economy was booming, ANYBODY’s long term unemployment, unless they were obviously disabled, was suspected of being voluntary. I myself once had to take a long time off work due to a painful (but not visible) injury, and people made grousing noises about how I was supposedly sponging off my folks, not working like a man should.

My Mom knew I wasn’t faking when she found empty bottles of pain pills in the trash, because I’m a lifelong pharmacophobe and I really have to be desperate to take drugs. And people from my own profession knew I wasn’t faking. But a lot of other people accused me, behind my back, of being a slacker. Of course this gossip got back to me.

Truth be told, I used my cane a lot longer than I needed to, because when I was around town during the day (eg, supermarket, post office), being an adult male not at work during prime work hours, I needed something to say, in effect, “Hey, I’m not a slacker, something happened to me”, to a hostle and skeptical world.

I also have a white female acquaintance who got an on the job injury, far more severe than mine (she had to use serious narcotics). She spent a couple of years fighting for her disability benefits because the system is so loaded down with fakers that almost zero disability claims are actually believed up front, unless you’re paralyzed or have something cut off. Finally she got a scan that proved spinal damage, and got her compensation.

Finally… based on my own experiences downtown at school, during the 1980s cocaine wars. I can remember seeing pickup corners full of Mexican men, waiting for work. Never saw a black guy hustling for jobs that way. Unlike probably 99% of the white students at my university, I actually talked to the locals for reasons other than buying drugs from them. I heard their stories, and sometimes helped them in small ways when I could. And yeah, I gave away money and even helped one kid find a job (which he promptly lost by hitting his boss…)

I recall one case of a black guy who was homeless, with his white European wife (whom he met in the Army and brought back), and their little baby. I’d been giving them cash off and on (yes, I know, i was young and naive), and one day the guy hit me up for cash because his “check was late”. “WHAT CHECK?” quoth I; the fear in his eyes told me he knew he’d really blown it. Turns out they were on welfare all this time, and he was talking to me like he was starving. I made some remark about getting a job, which he didn’t like very much. Then I pointed out the Mexicans at their pickup corners and how they always seem to find work, and he got really mad at me: “That’s slavery!” But his wife was smiling from ear to ear as I said all this.

A few days later, I ran into her later on the street, when he wasn’t around. I offered to pay plane fare for her and her baby to go home to Austria. She declined. She was committed to him. But she was REALLY glad that I told him off about getting a job, after I heard about the welfare checks.

van Rooinek

Svar:
@ Van
Stupid Party, Evil Party, what’s the difference?

I’ll take stupid any day, rather than evil.

One must always choose between the lesser of two weevils.

Okay Van, I will concede that there is a certain sense of entitlement present in many black Americans. The idea of standing on a corner waiting for work is “beneath them.” I have a brother who has done just that, however. This lack of hustle is far from universal. But yeah, it’s a real thing and no doubt it accounts for a portion of black male unemployment, maybe even up to half.

A good many have also gotten used to being provided for by women; their mothers even as grown men, or their significant others. And old habits die hard. But there are significant numbers of these men who sincerely want gainful employment and keep hitting brick walls.

The idea that certain work is less than honorable or worth one’s time isn’t an idea unique to black people, however. I know this for a fact as well.

The idea of standing on a corner waiting for work is “beneath them.”

Admittedly, there are times where I wonder if it’s a weird black issue in terms of how black people seem themselves, or if it’s merely just the effect of being native to the country for so long or some other weird demographic effect. For some there really is this weird effect in which either they must have a kick-ass job in a corporate office in a suit, otherwise, they don’t want any job at all because they feel that they’re better than that*, while for others, it’s questionable work habits that prevent them from keeping a job and the perpetual poor employment record ends up chasing away other employers, while also leading to a nasty taste in employers who become reluctant to employ other black males. And for some, there really is some resistance to “assimilating” and working because it’s selling out to the white man. Even in the worst extreme cases, there’s no incentive to work because child support ends up clawing nearly most of one’s wages.

A good many have also gotten used to being provided for by women; their mothers even as grown men, or their significant others.

Admittedly, if you’re an unemployable male or you have low income with no real talents, abilities, or ability to go to college, then there isn’t much choice than to live off a woman or hopefully have enough game to get a female to support them. As much as I jokingly say that I’ll be homeless by I’m 40, it’s quite possible that could actually happen to me because of my unemployability and pickiness.

*One could argue that in certain cases, it just reminds one of the fact that you’re black and in an inferior social class to white people.

van Rooinek

The idea that certain work is less than honorable or worth one’s time isn’t an idea unique to black people, however. I know this for a fact as well.

Yes, I’ve seen that in certain breeds of whites as well. Repulsive. Methinks they’d wise up in a hurry if they end up poor somehow.

But I did know one exception, a screenwriter who couldn’t sell any scripts, yet thought that selling his auxiliary skills (eg, typing, wordprocessing, document editing), was beneath him. He lived off his mom, and died young.

van Rooinek

BTW, Elspeth, as a teenager I did manual labor in the hot California sun. My supervisor told my Dad that I had “outworked the Mexicans”. In senior year college, I used to clean the apartment for my 3 roommates — toilets, sinks, floors, kitchen, carpets, etc — because they were too lazy (or, in one case, too entitled) to do it — and they were willing to pay me. He he.

I also did significant manual labor in my 30s despite having a PhD in chemistry by then; budget cuts shut down R&D and several scientists got laid off, but I looked young and strong enough to handle 55 gallon drums (which can weigh upwards of 400 lb depending on what’s in them). So they transferred me to production. At my next company, I had to run my own industrial batch testing, which involved horsing around 200 lb ceramic mixing chambers. Good workout, there.

So when I slam others for not taking dirty jobs, it’s not from a position of privilege. I’ve done the dirty stuff myself.

Here are some photos from the nationwide rallies today: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150625551712582.393810.34701792581&type=3

And here’s one from DC: http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/IMAG0389.jpg I’m somewhere over in the back by the guys holding up the big banner. Probably more photos out tomorrow in the news.

It was really amazing. I was totally stoked by the energy there.

Black_Rose

I guess I could never be a conservative Van, since I can never be judgmental towards anyone who lacks political power such as Hispanics, blacks, the unemployed, and I tend to show the economically disenfranchised mercy, It has nothing to do with my autism, although many autistic people are libertarian, but it is attributable to my sympathy.,

Moreover, I don’t even see how such judgmental attitudes are even productivity or personally beneficial. The leftists that I venerate, Henry Liu and Stephen Gowans, abstain from judging the economically disenfranchised, and that is a major reason why I deem them (and their ideology) as morally superior and virtuous.

Alte, I would say that you are wasting your time.

Also, what’s a “feminist”? Why am I considered a “feminist” despite never explicitly advocating gender equality? Does being a lefty anti-capitalist make one a “feminist”?