Why do people talk about being overburdened by politics, religious controversies, etc.?

It's one thing to be worn out because you've done a lot of work. It's another thing to be worn out because you've done a small amount of work while being out of shape.

When it comes to matters like religion and politics, modern Americans (and whoever else) are clearly in the latter category, not the former. For a large amount of documentation to that effect, see here.

Since Americans have false priorities, they're more concerned about politics than religion. I'll start with politics. One of the most common complaints you hear in political contexts is that people are tired of all of the political ads they see on television during a campaign season. Of course, to see a lot of television ads, you have to be watching a lot of television. And what people are watching is typically highly secular and/or trivial (and often sinful). The reason why political campaigns run so many television ads and do other such things is that they know people spend so much time watching certain television shows, listening to certain radio programs, and so on. And the ads are shallow because the audience is shallow. If you're hundreds of pounds overweight, you might complain that leaning over to pick up something you knocked on the floor is an excessive burden. But whose fault is it that you're so overweight and have been for so long? The fact that leaning over and picking something up wears you out doesn't prove that it's asking too much to expect you to do it. The same people who are irritated by having their television shows interrupted by political ads are also highly ignorant of their nation's history, their nation's political system, political issues, etc., and they're culpable for that ignorance.

The situation is even worse with religion, which is more important than politics and is even more neglected. Pastors, apologists, and others who are interacting with people on religious issues need to study the culture they're interacting with (like with the resources on the page I linked earlier) and make adjustments accordingly. When you hear about how people supposedly are worn out in religious contexts, are tired of all of the arguments about theology, are overburdened by apologetics, and so forth, you need to keep in mind that it's more often than not a matter of people being worn out by doing a small amount of work while they're out of shape. They need to get in better shape and start doing a lot more work, not less of it. Not only does far more work need to be done, but the neglect on the part of the large majority of people is placing too much of a burden on the small minority who are doing too much of the work.

Following The Media's False Lead

We're getting another round of widespread media coverage of a war, this time in Israel. Like the large amount of coverage of the war in Ukraine. And of other wars over the years. The people watching it are wasting their time for the most part. Sort of like watching hours upon hours of highly repetitive coverage of a hurricane, rioting that's occurring somewhere, etc. People enjoy passively taking in that sort of coverage on television, the internet, radio, or wherever else. They're following the crowd, it moves their emotions, and so on. They can act as though it's virtuous to be concerned about such things and to stay informed about them, even though they aren't accomplishing much, and they're being so negligent about other things in the process.

Christians In The United States Government Trying To Stop UFO Research

Lue Elizondo, a former high-ranking official in the United States government's efforts to research UFOs, has said that he encountered significant opposition within the Department of Defense and Pentagon from Christians who said that the research should stop. According to them, we already know that UFOs are demons, and we shouldn't research them any further. Here's Ron James, of the UFO organization MUFON, discussing the topic. And here's Michael Knowles of the Daily Wire expressing agreement with Elizondo's Christian critics. Knowles' video includes a clip of Elizondo talking about the subject. James refers to other Christians who hold other views. And Elizondo may be oversimplifying the situation in some relevant way. But many Christians are like the critics Elizondo referred to, with Knowles being an example.

The Flattery Machine

We're in another presidential election season. That means we'll be getting a lot of flattery from a lot of politicians trying to get our vote. We'll hear about how we're such hard workers who deserve better leaders, how the nation's problems are so much the fault of some small minority of people rather than the average person, etc. Businesses and advertisers flatter us in an attempt to get our money, and politicians flatter us in an attempt to get our vote. And all of that is accompanied by a lot of talk about self-esteem, not letting anybody judge you, not letting anybody put you down, following your heart, etc. The fact that people are aware that they live in that sort of atmosphere of flattery and realize how misleading it is doesn't mean that it doesn't adversely affect them. You don't have to buy all of it in order to buy some of it. "Flattery is like perfume. Sniff it. Don't swallow it." A few facts to keep in mind as you take in all of the flattery of the presidential election season:

Overestimating Humor

People do it in a lot of ways. These are just some examples among others that could be mentioned:

Lest You Forget...

The current President has demonstrated he is not equal to the enormous responsibilities of his office; he cannot rise to meet challenges large or small. Thanks to his disdainful attitude and his failures, our allies no longer trust or respect us, and our enemies no longer fear us.

That's a pretty harsh indictment of Biden.

What?

That was the letter signed by more than 200 retired generals against Trump last year?

Oh.

Well, at least there are no mean tweets anymore. 

Surely this isn't evidence that God is upset with people who preach, but do not practice. Who tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and give rules like "don't misgender" and "check your privilege." God's not going to be upset with people who do their good deeds on Twitter for all to see while in secret they grope their interns. These people who cross sea and land to gain a single convert, and once they have that convert they turn them twice as woke as they themselves.

Don't harsh my buzz, and other things Boomers say. God is love. He understands you did your best.

I mean, you didn't, but you would have if it hadn't been for Netflix.  And that's the important part.

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.

What's wrong with illegal immigration?

Philosopher Bill Vallicella makes a number of good points regarding illegal immigration.

"Democracy" in America

If we want to know who's really in power, then perhaps one way to know is to think about who or what we cannot openly criticize in a reasonable manner...

...without being shouted down.

...without being publicly shamed.

...without being called false names.

...without losing our reputations.

...without made into social pariahs in our own communities.

...without being ostracized in our own nation.

...without having our speech curtailed or even silenced.

...without being fined.

...without losing our jobs.

...without being imprisoned.

...without being forcibly "re-educated".

...without unjust corporeal punishment.

...without being "disappeared" in the middle of the night.

...without being publicly executed.

...without being (shall we say) "canceled".

In China, it is the CCP.

In North Korea, it is the Kim family.

In Russia, it is Putin.

In Iran, it is the ayatollah.

In many Middle Eastern nations, it is Islam.

In the US, are we still able to openly criticize in a reasonable manner people, organizations, institutions, the government, and so forth without significant cost to us or our families?

[O]ne theme in particular dominated all others: the growing tyranny of the majority, the ever-increasing and most formidable barriers raised by the majority around the free expression of opinion, and, as a result, the frightening oneness of American thinking, the absence of eccentricity and divergence from the norm.

A perfect liberty of the mind exists in America, said Tocqueville, just as long as the sovereign majority has yet to decide its course. But once the majority has made up its mind, then all contrary thought must cease, and all controversy must be abandoned, not at the risk of death or physical punishment, but rather at the more subtle and more intolerable pain of ostracism, of being shunned by one's fellows, of being rejected by society.

Throughout history kings and princely rulers had sought without success to control human thought, that most elusive and invisible power of all. Yet where absolute monarchs had failed, democracy succeeds, for the strength of the majority is unlimited and all pervasive, and the doctrines of equality and majority rule have substituted for the tyranny of the few over the many, the more absolute, imperious, and widely accepted tyranny of the many over the few. (Richard Heffner, Democracy in America)

The purge

So the purge is on:

1. Just as many conservatives predicted: if the Democrats win the White House and the Senate, then the left will seek to silence opposition or dissent. That's what's happening right now.

Specifically, as many know by now, Twitter banned Trump and locked the POTUS account too. They won't reinstate the POTUS account until Biden takes office. This is despite the fact that Trump is still the sitting president. And not only has Trump been banned, but many of his supporters too, even though many of his supporters haven't said anything that would incite riots or racism.

In addition, big tech companies removed alternatives to Twitter like Parler and Gab. I can no longer download either app via Google Play or the Apple Store. These apps can still be downloaded via a site like APKPure. However, if Parler and Gab have their businesses ended, thanks to big tech's concerted effort to destroy their businesses, then there's no point downloading either app.

In a way, it feels more like this is communist China, not the United States, where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will "direct" all "loyal" Chinese including Chinese companies to do what the CCP deems best for "the people", then Chinese companies and other organizations immediately comply.

My thoughts on the 2020 election

Here are my thoughts on the election so far:

1. The media has declared Biden the winner. However, that's not how our system works. The way it works is we vote. All the votes are in. Votes are counted. If there are discrepancies which warrant further investigation (e.g. voter fraud, irregularities that need to be reconciled), then independent investigations will be made. That's how we ensure the integrity of our elections. That's how we ensure future elections remain free and fair. This election isn't any different. We need to wait for the outcome, not accept what the media says - and arguably the media is saying Biden is the winner for malicious reasons (e.g. to foster the notion that Trump stole the election if he does win). In fact, isn't this what essentially happened in 2000 with Gore v. Bush?

2. However, even if Trump doesn't win the presidency, this election is an overall win for the GOP and conservatives in general:

Facts Don't Care About Your Religious Feelings

Ben Shapiro's line, "Facts don't care about your feelings.", is popular among political conservatives. And it should be. It's a good line. At the time I'm writing this, the tweet just linked has close to 400000 likes. The line and variants of it are often repeated, featured in memes, etc.

But it's remarkable how many conservatives have far less concern about facts and reason in religious contexts. If you follow religious discussions at political web sites, on political talk radio, on political television programs, and so forth, you notice that there isn't much interest in religion and that the few religious discussions that do occur tend to be of a shallow nature intellectually. There's often not much depth in their political discussions either. The people who go to these web sites, listen to these radio shows, etc. largely want somebody else, like Shapiro, to do the intellectual work for them. But at least there's more interest shown in intellectual matters and more intellectual work done by laymen in political contexts than in religious ones. And they don't just know more about politics than religion. They also seem to know a lot more about sports, humor, movies, music, and other subjects than they do about religious matters.

Political conservatives are better than the average American in a lot of ways. (See the sources linked here for some of the relevant documentation.) Most Americans don't care much about intellectual issues in religious or political contexts. But if political conservatives are going to be so (rightly) critical of the emotionalism of the political left, and they're going to keep showing so much interest in sentiments like the one expressed in Shapiro's popular line, they ought to be making far more of an effort to be consistent about it. The sentiment Shapiro is expressing matters more in religion than it does in politics, but people act as though the opposite is true.

Flattered To Death

As good as things like capitalism and democracy are, they come with some downsides. One of those is that we're often flattered by people who want our money, our vote, or both. We're surrounded by it. We swim in an ocean of it. And since this is a presidential election year in the United States, the situation is especially bad. We hear a lot about how the problem is with corrupt leaders in Washington (and wherever else), how good the American people are, what hard workers they are, how they deserve this and deserve that, are entitled to this and entitled to that, etc.

It would be simplistic to say that all of this flattery goes to people's heads. But some of it does. And that's added on top of all of the teaching of self-esteem in schools, in books, on television, and elsewhere, all of the popular sayings of a similar nature ("don't let anybody judge you", "don't let anybody put you down", "be yourself", "follow your heart", "you deserve a break today", "the customer is always right"), and so on.

For a partial antidote to all of this, see here. We should ask what we're doing to make the problem worse. Do we accept and repeat claims that most Americans are political conservatives or that most are traditional Christians, for example, despite the lack of evidence for such conclusions and the evidence to the contrary? Do we repeat common false notions of how Americans are such good people, but that a small group of political leaders (or the media, academia, Hollywood, etc.) are holding them back and bringing about most of our problems? How much of your view of America is based on wishful thinking or false notions you've accepted without subjecting them to much analysis?

Many years ago, I heard Alistair Begg tell a story from his childhood on his radio program. Listen at 17:18 here. A worker in a candy shop, apparently after hearing somebody compliment Begg about something, told him, "Sonny, flattery is like perfume. Sniff it. Don't swallow it."

"Why Derek Chauvin May Get Off His Murder Charge"

Here are six reasons why Derek Chauvin and the other three police officers involved in George Floyd's death may get off a murder charge:

1. George Floyd was experiencing cardiopulmonary and psychological distress minutes before he was placed on the ground, let alone had a knee to his neck.
2. The Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) allows the use of neck restraint on suspects who actively resist arrest, and George Floyd actively resisted arrest on two occasions, including immediately prior to neck restraint being used.
3. The officers were recorded on their body cams assessing George Floyd as suffering from “excited delirium syndrome” (ExDS), a condition which the MPD considers an extreme threat to both the officers and the suspect. A white paper used by the MPD acknowledges that ExDS suspects may die irrespective of force involved. The officers’ response to this situation was in line with MPD guidelines for ExDS.
4. Restraining the suspect on his or her abdomen (prone restraint) is a common tactic in ExDS situations, and the white paper used by the MPD instructs the officers to control the suspect until paramedics arrive.
5. Floyd’s autopsy revealed a potentially lethal concoction of drugs — not just a potentially lethal dose of fentanyl, but also methamphetamine. Together with his history of drug abuse and two serious heart conditions, Floyd’s condition was exceptionally and unusually fragile.
6. Chauvin’s neck restraint is unlikely to have exerted a dangerous amount of force to Floyd’s neck. Floyd is shown on video able to lift his head and neck, and a robust study on double-knee restraints showed a median force exertion of approximately approximately 105lbs.

Let’s be clear: the actions of Chauvin and the other officers were absolutely wrong. But they were also in line with MPD rules and procedures for the condition which they determined was George Floyd was suffering from. An act that would normally be considered a clear and heinous abuse of force, such as a knee-to-neck restraint on a suspect suffering from pulmonary distress, can be legitimatized if there are overriding concerns not known to bystanders but known to the officers. In the case of George Floyd, the overriding concern was that he was suffering from ExDS, given a number of relevant facts known to the officers. This was not known to the bystanders, who only saw a man with pulmonary distress pinned down with a knee on his neck. While the officers may still be found guilty of manslaughter, the probability of a guilty verdict for the murder charge is low, and the public should be aware of this well in advance of the verdict.

I don't know how reliable these statements are. However, if these statements are true, and Chauvin et al aren't found guilty of murder for one or more of these reasons (though they may be found guilty of manslaughter), then this makes me wonder about something the left often argues. The left often argues it's better for ten guilty persons to go free than it is for one innocent person to be convicted. Will the left argue the same to keep the lynch mobs at bay?

Of course, legally sophisticated leftists may be able to argue against the relevance of Blackstone's ratio in this case, but I'm referring to popular sentiments from the left about Blackstone's ratio. That's primarily because it's typically the sentiments that are used to incite mobs and the like. Yet if leftists incite mobs to protest and even riot (like they already are doing well before a trial has even occurred) if Chauvin et al aren't found guilty of murder, then whatever leftists may think about the theoretical arguments pertaining to Blackstone's ratio, the theoretical evidently doesn't trump the pragmatic.

NB. I myself am not agreeing or disagreeing with Blackstone's ratio. However, in case anyone is interested, Alexander Volokh's piece offers some helpful background information.

What is systemic racism?

What is systemic racism?

1. One definition is that institutions are racist. There's racial discrimination in housing, healthcare, education, employment, the justice system, politics, and so on. If this definition is the case, then I presume most conservatives would have no problem fighting against it. Show us where there's racial discrimination in this or that policy or law, and we'll fight against racism. For example, take the Asian-American Harvard law suit. It seems arguable there is institutionalized racial discrimination against Asian-Americans at Harvard in terms of their admissions policy (and likely other Ivy League institutions too). Why isn't this getting as much coverage as BLM?

2. Another definition is social inequalities are primarily or solely due to racial discrimination. If this definition is the case, then does that really explain most or all our social inequalities? For instance, is it the case that black students aren't admitted to prestigious institutions primarily or solely because there's racial discrimination against blacks? Is it the case that blacks are incarcerated at higher rates primarily or solely because there's racial discrimination against blacks? What about other factors such as the fact that a majority of blacks come from broken homes (e.g. single mothers, absentee fathers)? What about the fact that there's a culture of black students shaming other black students if they want to focus on academic achievement (and interestingly Asian culture is kind of the opposite where there's shaming of Asians by other Asians if they don't wish to focus on academic achievement)?

3. There's a third definition regarding systemic racism: unconscious or implicit bias. People unconsciously having attitudes or stereotypes toward others based on their race. If this definition is the case, can one fight against implicit bias? How so? Fundamentally speaking I presume it would have to be by changing people's minds or attitudes. And there are various ways to change people's minds or attitudes toward others. Some may be licit, while others illicit (e.g. coercion, brainwashing). Yet the problem is it's usually white people who are expected to change their minds about their attitudes towards black people. Why shouldn't it be the case that blacks need to change their attitudes about whites too? And what about other races/ethnicities? Should Italians seek to change people's minds about their people due to how they're depicted in mafia movies by rioting, demanding mafia shows are canceled, Scorsese to issue a public apology for his movies, and so on? Another issue is it usually takes time to change people's minds, but leftists don't seem very patient. They don't want to play the long game. This makes it more tempting for them to coerce change in people's minds and attitudes if they have the ability to do so. And this in turn threatens to spill over into Orwellian machinations and designs.

4. Of course, these definitions aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and there may be other definitions. Indeed, a significant problem is leftists often use two or more of these definitions in the very same conversation or debate. Moreover, it seems leftists engage in this behavior because it suits them to move back and forth between one definition or the other (equivocation). Rather than because it's what's factually accurate. The mainstream media is rife with examples.

"Why Some People Hate Cops (An Ex-Con Explains)"

I saw Peter Pike mention David Wood's video here.

Also, Wood includes a lot of autobiographical material in his video. I think Wood is someone who was given so very little in life (albeit he's very intelligent), but who has turned his "little" into a tremendous harvest.

The State Of The Culture

When we're doing work in apologetics, evangelism, politics, or some other context, it's important to be well informed about the state of the culture we're interacting with. I want to recommend some resources. I can't be exhaustive, and I won't be saying much about these sources. But you can search the Triablogue archives or my posts on Facebook, for example, to find further discussion of the significance of these sources and their findings. I won't always link the latest research. Some of these sources are ones I don't consult every year, and there's only so much that I've read from these sites.

The Pew Research Center publishes a lot of material on relevant subjects. Go here for an article on where Americans find meaning in life, for example. Among other results, they reported, "Overall, 20% of Americans say religion is the most meaningful aspect of their lives, second only to the share who say this about family (40%)."

Around this time every year, the Department of Labor publishes their annual research on how Americans spend their time. See here. I've been following their research for several years, and they've consistently found that the average American spends more than five hours a day on what they call leisure and sports and less than ten minutes a day on religious and spiritual activities. Here's one of many posts over the years in which I've discussed the implications of those findings.

Gallup has a lot of useful information. Here's a collection of resources on moral issues. The page here shows you how Americans' views on moral issues have changed over time. And here's an article that discusses why acceptance of polygamy has been growing.

There's been a major reduction in global poverty in recent decades. See here and here. That has major implications for how concerned we should be about poverty, how much attention we should give it, how much Christians should be focused on poverty in the local church and other contexts (e.g., financial giving), the proper size and role of government programs addressing poverty, etc. In my experience, the vast majority of people seem unaware of statistics like these or haven't thought much about the implications of them.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center does a lot of research on how much Americans know about civics issues. See here, for example. C-SPAN has commissioned polling related to the Supreme Court. Their 2018 poll was done at the time of Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. A majority of Americans couldn't name a single Supreme Court justice.

Some of these sites have a lot of data on religious issues. See, for example, here on Bible reading, here on how Americans view the Bible, and here regarding their views on issues related to Christmas. On global percentages for religious affiliation, see here. One important fact to note from the page I just cited and others at these web sites is that atheists make up such a small percentage of the population. We should keep that in mind when considering issues like how much of our apologetic effort should be directed toward atheism. Barna does a lot of research on Evangelicals in particular. Another site has an article on church attendance numbers.

Floyd's funeral

On the one hand, it's perfectly fine for hundreds and thousands to attend George Floyd's memorial and funeral services. This includes and will include high profile figures like Al Sharpton and Joe Biden. No doubt these services will be broadcast by almost every major media outlet. You know, for maximum exposure, to ensure the right people can take advantage of Floyd's death for their agenda.

On the other hand, there are hard limits for funeral services for average Americans. In fact, many Americans weren't even allowed to see their loved ones pass away from the coronavirus or other conditions due to these hard limits. Many people died alone. But there's no double standard. /s

Will David Dorn get as much attention? Probably not because he wasn't the right kind of black. He was a police officer. Too blue to be black.

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

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".