There's Always Another Election Just Around The Corner

One of the reasons for the problem I referred to in my post yesterday is that the media, talk radio, and other sources keep treating political issues (and some cultural ones) with such disproportionate urgency. Last year, I wrote some posts about how people don't have enough urgency in religious contexts (here and here). But there's so much more urgency in other contexts, like politics. And the nature of life and our political system is such that there's always going to be another election, another legislative controversy, another court decision just around the corner. We should have urgency about those matters up to a point. But that urgency needs to be less than the urgency we have for religious issues.

One of the questions Evangelicals (and everybody) should ask themselves is how much the work they're concerned about is already being done. How we ought to proportion our work to the work of others is one of the factors we should take into account, yet it's often neglected. People keep giving disproportionately more attention to political and cultural issues that are already getting far more attention than religious issues that are more important. They'd rather be the fifty-millionth person to comment on an issue in presidential politics than be the fifty-thousandth person to comment on a religious issue that's more in need of attention. They'd rather be the thirty-eight-millionth person to comment on the latest racial controversy the media (including the conservative media) are telling them to be so concerned about than be the thirty-eight-thousandth person to comment on a religious issue that's been far more neglected.

It makes sense to discuss more popular and less neglected issues to some extent. Sometimes we can't avoid it even if we wanted to, for example. But we need to be careful about it. Part of being careful about it is to take these proportioning issues into account. And we should recognize how misleading the culture's urgency about politics and other matters can be and often is.

The metaphysics of race

I haven't had the time to read Reformed philosopher Jeremy Pierce's ongoing series on the metaphysics of race (yet). It looks quite interesting. Here's the first post:

"Metaphysics of Race: Introduction"

Protest and anarchy in black and blue

"Protest and Anarchy in Black and Blue" (Carl F. Ellis, Jr.)

Race first

My friend, Dr. James Lindsay, wrote this on his Facebook earlier today. He is referring to @D_B_Harrison and @VirgilWlkrOMAHA and their presentation at G3. James is an atheist. Please consider why James understands this and the Gospel Coalition does not. pic.twitter.com/O0TU8wyz5F

— Michael O'Fallon (@SovMichael) June 5, 2020

Double standard?

It's a joke. It's all a joke. https://t.co/X31QhbkquH

— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) June 5, 2020

Kneel

There are more Americans willing to kneel before Americans commanding them to kneel than I realized

— Rebeccah Heinrichs (@RLHeinrichs) June 5, 2020

The true American way when it comes to kneeling:

Social justice matters more than social distance

"Suddenly, Public Health Officials Say Social Justice Matters More Than Social Distance"

Doublethink

From George Orwell's 1984:

The Ministry of Truth—Minitrue, in Newspeak—was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

The fragility of black existence

“Everything is gone.” Philadelphia’s 52nd Street corridor, mostly made up of African-American and immigrant businesses, was among the worst hit by looting. https://t.co/JXBkoo6eZ4 via @WSJ

— Kate Milani (@KateMilani) June 4, 2020

Too many black progressive voices out there on the "property can be replaced; lives can't" bandwagon. If you accept the fragility of black existence under the status quo, why would you give even a hint of support to this sort of destructive behavior? https://t.co/Q3npllzvPd

— Robert A George (@RobGeorge) June 4, 2020

Some observations about the riots

(Thanks to Jitt Teng for helping to restore this post!)

1. Will people be as outraged about 77 year old retired police captain David Dorn's death as they are about George Floyd's? Will, say, CNN cover the brutality of rioters as much as they cover police brutality? Otherwise it sounds like some black lives matter less than other black lives. (Not to mention other injuries and fatalities.)

2. Also, I guess property damage is acceptable, but not when it hits too close to home.

3. As others have noticed, it may be one thing if the rioters are the poor who have no voice, or if looters are stealing out of hunger, but many rioters appear to be from affluent backgrounds and stealing high-end goods. It's not as if they're all stealing bread because they're starving.

4. Related, many of them are taking selfies of themselves participating in the protests with their own smartphones, then immediately posting their photos or videos on places like Instagram or TikTok. I guess to show that they've done something? I guess they're virtue signaling? Some of it may even be fake. Like this woman.

5. Many rioters seem to be led by liberal whites from middle class or better socioeconomic backgrounds. This makes one wonder if liberal whites are the ones really in charge. Consider Antifa.

6. If it's really the fact that there's systemic racism against blacks by whites, then it'd make sense to think the racism is largely led by rich and powerful whites. As such, why not call for protests at places where rich and well-connected whites live, like Beverly Hills and the Hamptons? Why not destroy their property, like slaves destroying their masters' plantations (cue Django Unchained)? Why not call for the overthrow of rich and powerful politicians? Leftist politicians, professors, and Hollywood entertainers are more than willing to support the "revolution", but why couldn't they be viewed as part of the system and part of the problem too?

7. Finally, it looks like liberals regard large crowds gathered to "protest" as necessary and morally justifiable, but church services are somehow "non-essential".

Non-conformists

The rituals at these protests closely resemble what you would see at an Evangelical-style religious service. Collective kneeling or sitting in prayer. Hands raised reverentially to the sky. Liturgical chants. This is a new expression of secular, civic religion pic.twitter.com/XZo021AZgp

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) June 3, 2020

Fathers matter

Are white cops more likely to shoot minorities?

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-white-police-officers-minorities.html

Not black enough

Joe Biden succumbs to the #NotBlackEnough trope.

By this logic, it would be fair to proclaim to white men who vote Democrat “you ain’t white!” 🤦🏽‍♂️

This is lazy, nasty, vindictive, race-baiting, far-left collectivism, and it must cease.

Do not tell PoC how to think ✋🏽 https://t.co/H77koDe2Q9

— أبو عمّار (@MaajidNawaz) May 22, 2020

The Arbery case

I haven't followed the Arbery case closely, so this post is discussing the issues more from a hypothetical standpoint: 

1. It's a problem when pundits default to a racial motive. This assumes, and pundits are usually explicit about this assumption, that nearly all whites are racist to some degree or another. Ironically, that's a bigoted assumption. It stereotypes whites as a class. A paradigm example of prejudice. 

In addition, it can be a self-fulling prophecy. If you constantly blame whites for racism without specific evidence for specific individuals, that foments racial animus. That foments racial resentment.

Since white folks kill other white folks and black folks kill other black folks, I don't think there's a presumptive racial motive when the assailant is white and the victim is black, or vice versa. 

It's like, suppose I bet on sports teams. If I normally bet on one team, then there's a pattern or bias. If, however, I normally bet on two different teams, if I alternate, then there's no discernible pattern or bias. 

2. Different people have different motives for inspecting a house under construction. In some cases they are looking to buy a house, and they want to see if this is a house they'd consider buying. 

In other cases, they're just curious. For instance, a house might be way outside their price range, and they like to see how the other half lives. This is their chance to see the kind of mansion rich folks live in. 

And in other cases, they're up to no good. 

3. This also raises the question of when we should be prepared to kill someone. We have a right to protect our life and livelihood. We have a right to protect our home and business. And just in general, if someone pulls a gun on you, that justifies killing them. They've threatened your life.

If someone commits armed robbery or armed burglary, I think they forfeit the right to life in relation to the victim because they forfeit the presumption that they won't murder the victim. They forfeit the presumption that they won't carry out their threat. Armed robbery or armed burglary carries the explicit or implicit threat to murder the victim. 

But to kill someone because they may be trespassing on someone else's property or robbing someone else's business is hardly justification to kill them. That's both literally and figuratively none of our business. You might report them to the police, but that's it. Same thing with merely suspicious activity. 

Ahmaud Arbery

I haven't paid close attention to this story, so I could be mistaken, but here's my opinion at this point:

1. Thanks to Steve for sending along what I think is a helpful analysis. I agree with what Laurie Higgins says here.

2. Many people are alleging it's racism (it seems) primarily because it took such a long time to investigate, bring charges, and make arrests. However, I don't know that's necessarily the case. For example, I've read the father was an ex-cop. If so, then that might be the main reason it took such a long time, i.e., the blue wall of silence. This in turn could imply corruption among the police, but not necessarily racism.

3. Of course, it's possible it could have been both racism and the blue wall. However, at least from what I've read, I don't see anything that points to racism as the main or sole motivation. Other than the fact that Arbery happens to be black and this happened in Georgia where there are supposedly a lot of racists. At best, wouldn't that just be circumstantial and guilt by association?

4. I'm no lawyer, so what do I know, but I guess the McMichaels' best defense is they were attempting to make a citizen's arrest in light of witnessing Arbery come to a home (under construction) multiple times in the past, Arbery grabbed hold of their gun, there was a struggle, then they either shot their gun in self-defense or it accidentally went off during the struggle.

I doubt this would hold up. It looks like they were chasing down a man and picking a fight. They could have been acting like vigilantes. As far as I know, Arbery wasn't actively committing a crime when the McMichaels' approached him. Maybe the McMichaels thought they had reasonable cause that Arbery had committed crimes in the past, but even if so Arbery's crime would have been trespassing, but does that justify a citizen's arrest? Or why not just call the actual cops in that case? And Arbery could have been scared for his life and acting in self-defense too.

"Ask China"

1. It's obvious the reporter was asking Trump a loaded question. Baiting Trump. Of course, the mainstream media doesn't focus on her loaded question. Just Trump's response.

2. I bet Trump would have said "ask China" regardless of the reporter's race/ethnicity.

3. Liberals are saying this isn't an isolated incident. They're saying Trump has a "pattern". However, even if (arguendo) that were true, that doesn't mean it's true in this case.

Also, if we want to talk about "patterns", then what about the "pattern" of liberals always getting so easily triggered and playing the victim?

4. Many people are saying Trump is thin-skinned. That he shouldn't have walked out on the press conference. Sure, Trump is thin-skinned. However, it's also true much of the media is out to get Trump. Gotcha journalism and the like. It's hardly a mystery why Trump would walk out. And I wouldn't blame him for walking out on these kind of people.

Likewise, what about the reporter and mainstream media being thin-skinned too? They're so touchy by assuming the president saying "ask China" to an Asian-American reporter must be due to racism.

5. Not to mention the reporter's virtue signaling by asking the question she asked. However, if she and other reporters are just going to go around self-righteously or sanctimoniously congratulating one another for asking these sorts of lame questions, then what's the point of the press conference? The press conference is a waste of time for Trump. Why shouldn't he walk out? He has more important things to do as the president.

Mohler purges seminary

http://www.worldviewconversation.com/2020/04/breaking-al-mohler-fires-conservative.html

Chinese takout

Due to the pandemic, many of the businesses where I live are closed. There's isn't a mandatory lockdown. 

There's a ban on dine-in, but takeout and delivery are still permitted. In that regard, two of the Asian-American takeout joints I frequent are now closed indefinitely. I find that odd. Although they had a dine-in option, I assume that was a small part of their business. Moreover, I'd expect whatever they lose in dine-in would be offset or more than offset by increased demand for takeout at this time.

So I'm wondering if all the hysteria about the coronavirus has fomented a backlash against Asian-American restaurateurs. One joint is run by Chinese immigrants. It's not like they just got off the boat. They've been here for years, long before the virus. They didn't bring it with them. The other joint is Japanese. Maybe it's just a coincidence, or perhaps the apocalyptic scenarios have scared customers into boycotting Asian-American takeout/delivery joints. 

While the coronavirus is dangerous, there's the danger of collateral damage to the innocent by all the hype and fear-mongering. 

International Women's Day

1. I'd argue Christianity has a higher regard for women than virtually any other religion or worldview. Perhaps a major exception is Judaism, though rabbinic Judaism is quite different than biblical Judaism. And secular humanism is parasitic on Judeo-Christian values about women. Anyway others better than I have written reams about all this so I won't belabor the point.

2. I don't know why we need an International Women's Day to celebrate women in general. I don't celebrate women in general, just like I don't celebrate men in general. There are good and bad among men and women.

3. It seems to me International Women's Day is just another diversity day to push feminism. I mean a mixture of second, third, and/or fourth wave feminism. Just like there are diversity days to push liberal or progressive values and goals about minorities like Native Americans, African-Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, and so on. Mind you, I support many minority issues, but what I don't support is the liberal or progressive use or manipulation of minorities to push their own agendas.

4. Besides, as far as that goes, why isn't there a UNESCO-recognized International Men's Day? Especially in light of all the issues and problems many men suffer today.