The charge of Republican racism

Gerard Alexander disputes a narrative that we keep hearing:

The narrative usually begins with Barry Goldwater opposing provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and with Richard Nixon scheming to win the presidency through a “Southern strategy” — appealing to the racial prejudice of working-class whites in the South to pry them away from the Democratic coalition assembled by Franklin Roosevelt. In this telling, bigoted Southerners were the electoral mountain to which the Republican Moses had to come, the key to the GOP winning the White House. Wooing them entailed much more than shifting the party slightly away from Democrats on racial issues; in return for political power, Republicans had to move their politics and policies to where bigots wanted them to be. This alliance supposedly laid the foundation for a new American politics. . . .

First, Republicans did not decisively depend on white Southerners to create their modern presidential majorities when the race issue was at its most polarizing. The conventional wisdom is that the GOP had little choice in the 1960s but to seek out Southern white voters and tacked hard to the right on civil rights to do it. But Republican presidential candidates pried apart the New Deal coalition in the 1950s, with the performance of Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and Nixon in 1960. This chronology has big implications. From 1952 through the 1980s, GOP presidential candidates consistently beat or nearly matched their Democratic opponents, with the clear exceptions only of 1964 and 1976. Republicans did this mostly by crafting majority coalitions in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states, in the industrial Midwest and mid-Atlantic, and ultimately in California — and only partially by realigning several Southern states. Moreover, these were the least “Southern” states, such as Florida, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

This means that the GOP presidential majority and much of the party’s modern policy agenda were forged not in the racial heat of the 1960s South, but first in the 1950s and across the country. . . .

The remainder of the region — the race-obsessed Deep South — repeatedly tried to be a presidential kingmaker in the 1960s but failed. Instead of reforming the GOP in its image, the Deep South’s white electorate was among the last to join an already-winning Republican presidential coalition in the early 1970s. Wallace voters ended up supporting Nixon, Reagan and other Republicans, but much more on the national GOP’s terms than their own. The Republican Party proved to be the mountain to which the Deep South had to come, not the other way around. . . .

This explains why the second assumption is also wrong. Nixon made more symbolic than substantive accommodations to white Southerners. He enforced the Civil Rights Act and extended the Voting Rights Act. On school desegregation, he had to be prodded by the courts in some ways but went further than them in others: He supervised a desegregation of Deep South schools that had eluded his predecessors and then denied tax-exempt status to many private “desegregation academies” to which white Southerners tried to flee. Nixon also institutionalized affirmative action and set-asides for minorities in federal contracting.

Not surprisingly, white Southern leaders such as Strom Thurmond grew bitterly frustrated with Nixon. This explains what Gallup polls detected in 1971-72: A large number of white Southern voters preferred Wallace to Nixon. Only when the Alabaman was shot in May 1972 did Nixon inherit Wallace’s voters — not because of Nixon’s policies on race but despite them.

via Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do many liberals assume it does?.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Well now. This analysis is true enough, but it is missing one critical element in the calculus.

    Our constitutional republic is designed from it´s inception to be democratically unequal. It gives equal power to rural areas that tend to be more conservative . Tiny (by population) Wyoming, has a population, throwing in that of the dakotas as well, that would fit into a city the size of …well bakersfield california. Yet this state alone has equal power in the Senate to California, Texas or New York.

    Why did we do this? It was to ensure that….. those southern states would join the union of the 13 colonies! You could say that from it´s inception, our constitution and form of government has had adversarialism and division and strife built into it´s very DNA.

    How would it be possible that 800,000 people of tiny wyoming could dictate to the 200,000,000 of new york , california , texas and florida and not have a lurking sense of democratic unfairness?

    This pales against the republican and constitutional irritation that conservatives deplore when a justice rules democratic california propositions won by a slim majority unconstitutional doesn´t it?

    So it was not so much about racism but about change. Our constitution puts a brake on change. That is a fact. Conservatives learned this lesson about constitutional republicanism in Massachussets when the Mass supreme court ruled it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. Why hasn´t this been challenged by conservatives ? It would require 4 years at a minimun to change the Mass constitution. It is the most republican of constitutions in our nation is why that is.

    Fact: Conservative culture war issues get won democratically, not by republican means. This means shrill campaigns designed to manipulate and move people emotionally and usually out of fear of change and for the moment. democratic propositions are tailor made for this sort of activity. Republican constitutional means, in contrast, look like the eyeglazing details of this 83 page decision that is about technicalities and legal categories that conform to precident or do not.

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/PhillipsDecision.pdf

    True republicanism and it´s court system is also falable. But I will take republican methods over democratic ones any time.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Well now. This analysis is true enough, but it is missing one critical element in the calculus.

    Our constitutional republic is designed from it´s inception to be democratically unequal. It gives equal power to rural areas that tend to be more conservative . Tiny (by population) Wyoming, has a population, throwing in that of the dakotas as well, that would fit into a city the size of …well bakersfield california. Yet this state alone has equal power in the Senate to California, Texas or New York.

    Why did we do this? It was to ensure that….. those southern states would join the union of the 13 colonies! You could say that from it´s inception, our constitution and form of government has had adversarialism and division and strife built into it´s very DNA.

    How would it be possible that 800,000 people of tiny wyoming could dictate to the 200,000,000 of new york , california , texas and florida and not have a lurking sense of democratic unfairness?

    This pales against the republican and constitutional irritation that conservatives deplore when a justice rules democratic california propositions won by a slim majority unconstitutional doesn´t it?

    So it was not so much about racism but about change. Our constitution puts a brake on change. That is a fact. Conservatives learned this lesson about constitutional republicanism in Massachussets when the Mass supreme court ruled it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. Why hasn´t this been challenged by conservatives ? It would require 4 years at a minimun to change the Mass constitution. It is the most republican of constitutions in our nation is why that is.

    Fact: Conservative culture war issues get won democratically, not by republican means. This means shrill campaigns designed to manipulate and move people emotionally and usually out of fear of change and for the moment. democratic propositions are tailor made for this sort of activity. Republican constitutional means, in contrast, look like the eyeglazing details of this 83 page decision that is about technicalities and legal categories that conform to precident or do not.

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/PhillipsDecision.pdf

    True republicanism and it´s court system is also falable. But I will take republican methods over democratic ones any time.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    Good points, fws, but I would counter with two observations. First, the original vision for the United States was just that – sovereign states that were united for a few very specific purposes. The vision was much closer to the EU than what we have evolved into. Because the states were united for common defense and interstate commerce, it makes perfect sense for Wyoming to have the save voting power as New Jersey or California.

    However, my second point is that the unit of governance is moving rapidly away from large tracts of land, and toward megalopoli – as you pointed out, Bakersfield is already larger in terms of population than Wyoming. I am not sure how this will work itself out in the future, but I am pretty sure our current model will be soon obsolete.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com/ John

    Good points, fws, but I would counter with two observations. First, the original vision for the United States was just that – sovereign states that were united for a few very specific purposes. The vision was much closer to the EU than what we have evolved into. Because the states were united for common defense and interstate commerce, it makes perfect sense for Wyoming to have the save voting power as New Jersey or California.

    However, my second point is that the unit of governance is moving rapidly away from large tracts of land, and toward megalopoli – as you pointed out, Bakersfield is already larger in terms of population than Wyoming. I am not sure how this will work itself out in the future, but I am pretty sure our current model will be soon obsolete.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    john @2

    Arguing for original intent (which is not what you are doing) can be an exercise in trying to ignore and deal with the current reality, or worse to try to deal with the current reality with some sort of romanticized and idealized past glory that is largely a fantasm.

    Indeed. Both conservatives and liberals seem to be pushing full tilt away from republicanism and towards democracy.

    For a conservative to argue in favor of a democratically victorious proposition 8 in california for example, arguing that the the majority´s will must prevail to be just, and against the constitutional, lawful and republican mechanism (flawed and “politicized” as it may well be!) of the courts seems sort of bizarre for ones who also claim to be federalist, strict constructionists, etc.

    The conservative stance would be instead to deplore the entire proposition system and the deplore having persons vote directly on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, in favor of the constitutional protections of representative government and the court system. While republican government is flawed, it beats any democratic method hands down.

    Means and methods matter more in most ways than any just end. The right-ness of any end never justifies flawed means to that end unless that end is mercy. Even then the means to mercy will be also just even if they do not follow the letter. they will demonstrably exhibit the spirit of the law, which must always be love.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    john @2

    Arguing for original intent (which is not what you are doing) can be an exercise in trying to ignore and deal with the current reality, or worse to try to deal with the current reality with some sort of romanticized and idealized past glory that is largely a fantasm.

    Indeed. Both conservatives and liberals seem to be pushing full tilt away from republicanism and towards democracy.

    For a conservative to argue in favor of a democratically victorious proposition 8 in california for example, arguing that the the majority´s will must prevail to be just, and against the constitutional, lawful and republican mechanism (flawed and “politicized” as it may well be!) of the courts seems sort of bizarre for ones who also claim to be federalist, strict constructionists, etc.

    The conservative stance would be instead to deplore the entire proposition system and the deplore having persons vote directly on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, in favor of the constitutional protections of representative government and the court system. While republican government is flawed, it beats any democratic method hands down.

    Means and methods matter more in most ways than any just end. The right-ness of any end never justifies flawed means to that end unless that end is mercy. Even then the means to mercy will be also just even if they do not follow the letter. they will demonstrably exhibit the spirit of the law, which must always be love.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    I was with you on 3 until the end, fws, when you say the spirit of the law must always be love. Isn’t the spirit of the law always justice?

    Isn’t the spirit that is love something else entirely?

    Both are important, one more important. But they’re not the same thing. You threw me off there, like I said, I was right there with you until the end.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    I was with you on 3 until the end, fws, when you say the spirit of the law must always be love. Isn’t the spirit of the law always justice?

    Isn’t the spirit that is love something else entirely?

    Both are important, one more important. But they’re not the same thing. You threw me off there, like I said, I was right there with you until the end.

  • Porcell

    FWS, conservatives in Massachusetts twice got the requisite signatures to request the state legislature to place an amendment on the ballot that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman. In both cases the petition was defeated through underhanded legislative parliamentary procedural devices by the liberal leaders of the legislature who feared that the voters would approve the measure in the same way that some thirty other states aproved similar measures. The arrogance of liberal legislators in Massachusetts is mind boggling.

    The Republican Party, as Prof. Alexander points out well, cannot be tarred with the racist brush. Being against affirmative action and any other form of group preference doesn’t make one a “racist.” Neither does having a legitimate concern about the level of black single parent families or excessive crime make one a racist, anymore than having principled arguments against homosexual behavior and marriage make one a homophobe, another of the typical liberal slurs.

    Alexander’s earlier WAPO article, Why are liberals so condescending?, explains why liberals so blithely write their conservative opponents off as racists, homophobes, and anti-Muslims.

  • Porcell

    FWS, conservatives in Massachusetts twice got the requisite signatures to request the state legislature to place an amendment on the ballot that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman. In both cases the petition was defeated through underhanded legislative parliamentary procedural devices by the liberal leaders of the legislature who feared that the voters would approve the measure in the same way that some thirty other states aproved similar measures. The arrogance of liberal legislators in Massachusetts is mind boggling.

    The Republican Party, as Prof. Alexander points out well, cannot be tarred with the racist brush. Being against affirmative action and any other form of group preference doesn’t make one a “racist.” Neither does having a legitimate concern about the level of black single parent families or excessive crime make one a racist, anymore than having principled arguments against homosexual behavior and marriage make one a homophobe, another of the typical liberal slurs.

    Alexander’s earlier WAPO article, Why are liberals so condescending?, explains why liberals so blithely write their conservative opponents off as racists, homophobes, and anti-Muslims.

  • Louis

    In my experience, racism is found in many political persuasions – it just doesn’t always look the same. But shouting racist! is not the same thing as proving it either.

  • Louis

    In my experience, racism is found in many political persuasions – it just doesn’t always look the same. But shouting racist! is not the same thing as proving it either.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    bryan Lindemood @4

    FWS The more I read your posts, the more I come to appreciate and love you as a christian brother. My wording may be clumsy, but the idea is true I think based on the Confessions. You get at the very heart of the matter thussly:

    BRYAN “… you say the spirit of the law must always be love. Isn’t the spirit of the law always justice?”

    FWS No. Lets do some law and law here. Not law and gospel:

    The fulfillment of the law is love not justice. Justice is mortification and the means to the Godly desired end which is love. Which is everything Luther includes in Daily Bread.

    Now for some Gospel: You in your new man are the fulfillment of the shaddow that is the law. Bryan=love in his new man. Love then is just a consequence, it is not something you do. it is light from bryan-as-sun. It is Jesus in the Blessed incarnation. Jesus did not show up and do either righteousness or love. He is Love, and so he merely had to show up and “do jesus.” We do “do” righteousness as new men here on earth. This is true. But is that doing is as unlabored breathing is to the body, or light is from sun or Son, then that “doing” is not really doing. It is not something we have to effort at or are even aware of doing since for new man doing=being.

    Now for some Law and Gospel in the form of Earthly Kingdom and Heavenly Kingdom interwoven: The parables twist our sense of law=justice=good/bad because in the parables God is recklessly good, which offends our sense of justice. This is because, as parables, Jesus is using earthy kingdom images and in the earthly kingdom, the law does in fact = justice: How does what we do balance to written moral code, ie justice. eye for eye. Tooth for tooth. Baby-cut-in-two. This is justice. Sacrifice. But this is not love.

    Now more pure Law: You are right in only a sense. Law = mortification or justice. Love is not law or gospel. It is righteousness. It is fruit. Law does not equal love. Neither does Gospel in terms of doing. But here on earth, love can only exist as a consequence of Law. Love is the product of mortification and justice applied to Old Adam. Law, mortification and justice are means to an end. The end, the “eternal will of God (FC art VI) h0wever is love. It is mercy and not sacrifice. I am told that the Italian department of justice is titled “The department of Justice and Mercy”. If that is true that is very very cool.

    St James is right in James 2:24 Here in the Earthly Kingdom, we are judged and declared righteous on the scales of justice blind to who we are and where James correctly says “see you are justified by what you do and not by faith”. But the parables use earthly kingdom things to describe heavenly kingdom things. There we are judged, alone, by who we are. Not at all by anything we can do.

    BRYAN Isn’t the spirit that is love something else entirely? Both are important, one more important. But they’re not the same thing.

    FWS . I would argue that the confessions assert that they in fact are the same thing. So I argue that you divide law and gospel in the wrong place like the Reformed. You contrast justification with sanctification. A Lutheran should never ever do this. The proper law gospel divide is between sanctification-as-new-birth vs mortification-upon-old-adam.

    This is a common error. Most LCMS Lutherans and WELS live actually as Reformed on sanctification. We can see no difference between our views and those of the Reformed, and imagine the problem is Arminianism. It is not. It is Reformed neo-scholasticism. Pietism and arminianism are totally reformed as to the teaching of sanctification even if they may differ otherwise.

    Some Lutherans say that the formula for righteousness looks like the scholastic and neoscholastic (ie calvinistic/melancthonian) formula:

    True righteousness = right motive + conformity to God´s revealed moral code.

    Here “right motive” is some imagined “sanctified ” willpower that is about “loving response to the gospel without thought of reward” + a biblical checklist of do´s and don´ts. Here we imagine that our will or will power is sanctified! as in the CFW Walther bit of pietism in his otherwise brilliant book “Law & Gospel”: “a christian will never willfully sin”. Luther says that every sin is willful to the extent that every fiber of our old adam being wills to commit any sin in thought word and deed! My proof is Luther´s preface to his 1545 Romans translation. Here is the link…

    http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    The error here is serious. It says that the things we do that is that is real righteousness and pleases God is what we do out of our sanctification. This says that something we do or effort at is part of the definition of that word “christian” since sanctification can only = christian. Amd with this understanding sanctification is not faith alone. It is faith plus mortification. And so being a christian is not faith alone. and so being saved is not a matter of faith alone either is it? The Reformed confessions see this quite clearly. This is why they fully include, at least in the continental confessions, mortification as a part of sanctification. That is the problem with reformed and roman theology right there. And we confessional Lutherans largely have adopted this view even within the LCMS and WELS.

    The confessional definition of True righteousness is in contrast this:

    Righteousness = mortification + love.

    This is true for christian and pagan alike as to old adam (FC art VI)

    Now see how this differs now for the sanctified new man. The part of the believer that alone allows old adam/new man=believer=christian:

    righteousness = love.

    Note that the righteousness is the same and the love is the same. There is no difference at all between works of the law and fruit of the spirit this says (FC art VI)! Daily bread produced by pagan old adam or new man is exactly identical (Luther´s Catechisms 1st article , 4th petition). daily bread = love. daily bread fully includes peace, joy , hope , emotional love, and all the other stuff that we wake up with the deepest longing to have. Pagans too. My proof is poems and songs by pagans. what the world needs now is love sweet love. Love makes the world go around. This love is no different for christian or pagan. Justice is not love. Nor is law. These are means to God´s providing according to his eternal will. And his eternal will is to love us.

    The only difference for us as christians is that now the veil of moses has been removed and we see this love in Christ, and we do not look for it in sacrifice or mortification, and so we see that the aim is mercy and not sacrifice and that it has always been so. Even for the Jews with their sacrifice of bulls and goats and blood and keeping the sabbath. Doing the rules checklist version of morality that is mortification.

    To see the difference between justice/mortification/law and love is really the point of the story of the good samaritan and Jesus point whenever he meets truly righteous people. We would do well not to put quotation marks around “righteous” when we consider the pharisees or that young lawyer that was served the story of the good samaritan.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    bryan Lindemood @4

    FWS The more I read your posts, the more I come to appreciate and love you as a christian brother. My wording may be clumsy, but the idea is true I think based on the Confessions. You get at the very heart of the matter thussly:

    BRYAN “… you say the spirit of the law must always be love. Isn’t the spirit of the law always justice?”

    FWS No. Lets do some law and law here. Not law and gospel:

    The fulfillment of the law is love not justice. Justice is mortification and the means to the Godly desired end which is love. Which is everything Luther includes in Daily Bread.

    Now for some Gospel: You in your new man are the fulfillment of the shaddow that is the law. Bryan=love in his new man. Love then is just a consequence, it is not something you do. it is light from bryan-as-sun. It is Jesus in the Blessed incarnation. Jesus did not show up and do either righteousness or love. He is Love, and so he merely had to show up and “do jesus.” We do “do” righteousness as new men here on earth. This is true. But is that doing is as unlabored breathing is to the body, or light is from sun or Son, then that “doing” is not really doing. It is not something we have to effort at or are even aware of doing since for new man doing=being.

    Now for some Law and Gospel in the form of Earthly Kingdom and Heavenly Kingdom interwoven: The parables twist our sense of law=justice=good/bad because in the parables God is recklessly good, which offends our sense of justice. This is because, as parables, Jesus is using earthy kingdom images and in the earthly kingdom, the law does in fact = justice: How does what we do balance to written moral code, ie justice. eye for eye. Tooth for tooth. Baby-cut-in-two. This is justice. Sacrifice. But this is not love.

    Now more pure Law: You are right in only a sense. Law = mortification or justice. Love is not law or gospel. It is righteousness. It is fruit. Law does not equal love. Neither does Gospel in terms of doing. But here on earth, love can only exist as a consequence of Law. Love is the product of mortification and justice applied to Old Adam. Law, mortification and justice are means to an end. The end, the “eternal will of God (FC art VI) h0wever is love. It is mercy and not sacrifice. I am told that the Italian department of justice is titled “The department of Justice and Mercy”. If that is true that is very very cool.

    St James is right in James 2:24 Here in the Earthly Kingdom, we are judged and declared righteous on the scales of justice blind to who we are and where James correctly says “see you are justified by what you do and not by faith”. But the parables use earthly kingdom things to describe heavenly kingdom things. There we are judged, alone, by who we are. Not at all by anything we can do.

    BRYAN Isn’t the spirit that is love something else entirely? Both are important, one more important. But they’re not the same thing.

    FWS . I would argue that the confessions assert that they in fact are the same thing. So I argue that you divide law and gospel in the wrong place like the Reformed. You contrast justification with sanctification. A Lutheran should never ever do this. The proper law gospel divide is between sanctification-as-new-birth vs mortification-upon-old-adam.

    This is a common error. Most LCMS Lutherans and WELS live actually as Reformed on sanctification. We can see no difference between our views and those of the Reformed, and imagine the problem is Arminianism. It is not. It is Reformed neo-scholasticism. Pietism and arminianism are totally reformed as to the teaching of sanctification even if they may differ otherwise.

    Some Lutherans say that the formula for righteousness looks like the scholastic and neoscholastic (ie calvinistic/melancthonian) formula:

    True righteousness = right motive + conformity to God´s revealed moral code.

    Here “right motive” is some imagined “sanctified ” willpower that is about “loving response to the gospel without thought of reward” + a biblical checklist of do´s and don´ts. Here we imagine that our will or will power is sanctified! as in the CFW Walther bit of pietism in his otherwise brilliant book “Law & Gospel”: “a christian will never willfully sin”. Luther says that every sin is willful to the extent that every fiber of our old adam being wills to commit any sin in thought word and deed! My proof is Luther´s preface to his 1545 Romans translation. Here is the link…

    http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

    The error here is serious. It says that the things we do that is that is real righteousness and pleases God is what we do out of our sanctification. This says that something we do or effort at is part of the definition of that word “christian” since sanctification can only = christian. Amd with this understanding sanctification is not faith alone. It is faith plus mortification. And so being a christian is not faith alone. and so being saved is not a matter of faith alone either is it? The Reformed confessions see this quite clearly. This is why they fully include, at least in the continental confessions, mortification as a part of sanctification. That is the problem with reformed and roman theology right there. And we confessional Lutherans largely have adopted this view even within the LCMS and WELS.

    The confessional definition of True righteousness is in contrast this:

    Righteousness = mortification + love.

    This is true for christian and pagan alike as to old adam (FC art VI)

    Now see how this differs now for the sanctified new man. The part of the believer that alone allows old adam/new man=believer=christian:

    righteousness = love.

    Note that the righteousness is the same and the love is the same. There is no difference at all between works of the law and fruit of the spirit this says (FC art VI)! Daily bread produced by pagan old adam or new man is exactly identical (Luther´s Catechisms 1st article , 4th petition). daily bread = love. daily bread fully includes peace, joy , hope , emotional love, and all the other stuff that we wake up with the deepest longing to have. Pagans too. My proof is poems and songs by pagans. what the world needs now is love sweet love. Love makes the world go around. This love is no different for christian or pagan. Justice is not love. Nor is law. These are means to God´s providing according to his eternal will. And his eternal will is to love us.

    The only difference for us as christians is that now the veil of moses has been removed and we see this love in Christ, and we do not look for it in sacrifice or mortification, and so we see that the aim is mercy and not sacrifice and that it has always been so. Even for the Jews with their sacrifice of bulls and goats and blood and keeping the sabbath. Doing the rules checklist version of morality that is mortification.

    To see the difference between justice/mortification/law and love is really the point of the story of the good samaritan and Jesus point whenever he meets truly righteous people. We would do well not to put quotation marks around “righteous” when we consider the pharisees or that young lawyer that was served the story of the good samaritan.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Gay marriage has failed everywhere that people actually got to vote.

    It is the least controversial issue.

    It is universally unpopular.

    As for some states having different populations, big deal. Most of the tiny states are blue states anyway. It is just a wash.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

    Also, the racists are the ones who are in those race promoting organizations who want special privileges for their race.

    They don’t want equal opportunity. They want privileged status over whites and Asians. That is racism.

    The media rarely trots out the numbers so people don’t know what is going on. Even the commenter, tODD, recently innocently suggested that students pass some minimum standards test in order to qualify to get loans for college study. Most people simply do not know how extremely poorly some do on these tests. Even adjusted for income, Asians are at the top, then white, hispanic, black. On average Asians in poverty outscore rich blacks and hispanics. That isn’t racism. It is nature. It is not our fault. It is no one’s fault. However, rather than treating people as individuals and helping students get the training they need while they are still in high school, we make high school so hard and impractical that the weakest students just quit. If they want training, they have to get college/tech school loans loans and go into debt. It is madness.

    When anyone just states the facts, they are labeled racist. It is insane.

    Whites and Asians and men, just don’t want to be discriminated against. That is not racism.

    Equality before the law and equality of opportunity guarantee unequal outcomes because some people can run faster, work longer, think more deeply than others. Best to treat each person as an individual and not worry so much that there are too many of thus and such group doing this job or the other.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Gay marriage has failed everywhere that people actually got to vote.

    It is the least controversial issue.

    It is universally unpopular.

    As for some states having different populations, big deal. Most of the tiny states are blue states anyway. It is just a wash.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

    Also, the racists are the ones who are in those race promoting organizations who want special privileges for their race.

    They don’t want equal opportunity. They want privileged status over whites and Asians. That is racism.

    The media rarely trots out the numbers so people don’t know what is going on. Even the commenter, tODD, recently innocently suggested that students pass some minimum standards test in order to qualify to get loans for college study. Most people simply do not know how extremely poorly some do on these tests. Even adjusted for income, Asians are at the top, then white, hispanic, black. On average Asians in poverty outscore rich blacks and hispanics. That isn’t racism. It is nature. It is not our fault. It is no one’s fault. However, rather than treating people as individuals and helping students get the training they need while they are still in high school, we make high school so hard and impractical that the weakest students just quit. If they want training, they have to get college/tech school loans loans and go into debt. It is madness.

    When anyone just states the facts, they are labeled racist. It is insane.

    Whites and Asians and men, just don’t want to be discriminated against. That is not racism.

    Equality before the law and equality of opportunity guarantee unequal outcomes because some people can run faster, work longer, think more deeply than others. Best to treat each person as an individual and not worry so much that there are too many of thus and such group doing this job or the other.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    porcell @ 5

    So this reinforces what I said. The massachussetts form of republican constitutional law places an extremely high barrier against change. One of these barriers is enshrined in the idea of representative government as opposed to the public will!

    petition drives alone do not carry it.

    first there must be a petition drive
    then a legislative vote
    then two successive votes by the public spaced two years apart.

    You made my exact point Purcell. The entire point of republican constitutional law IS exactly to frustrate the will of the majority when it butts up against the constitution.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    porcell @ 5

    So this reinforces what I said. The massachussetts form of republican constitutional law places an extremely high barrier against change. One of these barriers is enshrined in the idea of representative government as opposed to the public will!

    petition drives alone do not carry it.

    first there must be a petition drive
    then a legislative vote
    then two successive votes by the public spaced two years apart.

    You made my exact point Purcell. The entire point of republican constitutional law IS exactly to frustrate the will of the majority when it butts up against the constitution.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @8

    see my posts at 3 and 9

    You are declaring yourself to be a small-d democrat and opposed, utterly to the principles of small-r republicanism.

    Yet I suppose you would label yourself a conservative. Ok. There are in fact definitions of that label conservative that would apply to you. No foul there. Small-r republican is not one of the labels you are entitled to however.

    You are an object lesson and example for this.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @8

    see my posts at 3 and 9

    You are declaring yourself to be a small-d democrat and opposed, utterly to the principles of small-r republicanism.

    Yet I suppose you would label yourself a conservative. Ok. There are in fact definitions of that label conservative that would apply to you. No foul there. Small-r republican is not one of the labels you are entitled to however.

    You are an object lesson and example for this.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Bryan @ 4

    Note I am saying that we are talking about law vs righteousness and not exactly law and gospel.

    This parallels the Lutheran argument against the scholastics. “Good works ARE necessary” “sacrifice is useless” These are both arguments and not mere comments.

    mortification/justice alone does not = righteousness.

    mortification/justice only that produces daily bread =righteousness.

    therefore “good works are necessary” does not mean “good works are necessary because God requires them for his justice to be done”. This would make works about sacrifice rather than mercy. This would be the exact contrary of the Lutheran argument.

    Instead it reads like “Daily bread is necessary simply because life on earth would be impossible without this love being done”. This is the Lutheran argument. On earth mercy is the will of God and so conforms to God´s Word. Mortification alone is false “righteousness” therefore. Even if the form of this mortification is conforming to revealed law. So then from that then , this is especially if it conforms to man made rules. And so the story of the Good Samaritan. And the parables, and Jesus breaking the sabbath rules. and david eating the shobread. etc etc etc.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Bryan @ 4

    Note I am saying that we are talking about law vs righteousness and not exactly law and gospel.

    This parallels the Lutheran argument against the scholastics. “Good works ARE necessary” “sacrifice is useless” These are both arguments and not mere comments.

    mortification/justice alone does not = righteousness.

    mortification/justice only that produces daily bread =righteousness.

    therefore “good works are necessary” does not mean “good works are necessary because God requires them for his justice to be done”. This would make works about sacrifice rather than mercy. This would be the exact contrary of the Lutheran argument.

    Instead it reads like “Daily bread is necessary simply because life on earth would be impossible without this love being done”. This is the Lutheran argument. On earth mercy is the will of God and so conforms to God´s Word. Mortification alone is false “righteousness” therefore. Even if the form of this mortification is conforming to revealed law. So then from that then , this is especially if it conforms to man made rules. And so the story of the Good Samaritan. And the parables, and Jesus breaking the sabbath rules. and david eating the shobread. etc etc etc.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 8

    “Equality before the law and equality of opportunity guarantee unequal outcomes because some people can run faster, work longer, think more deeply than others. ”

    This IS justice sg. But it lacks mercy. This vision has this part in common with communism that says that a life that is not productive loses it´s right to exist. Capitalism only exists as a label since the invention of communism after all. Adam Smith was not a capitalist.

    We all receive what we have” indeed without any merit or worthiness on our part, indeed [even] without our asking, ” And God blesses us with everything we need “even for all the wicked” [place me and you in this category according to Luther].

    This means that we confess as Lutherans, that while it appears that some get richer or are more blessed because of something they do, that this is really only a surface truth. It is only “truthy”. It is missing something rather important to a christian observer I am saying.

    And what would that be?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 8

    “Equality before the law and equality of opportunity guarantee unequal outcomes because some people can run faster, work longer, think more deeply than others. ”

    This IS justice sg. But it lacks mercy. This vision has this part in common with communism that says that a life that is not productive loses it´s right to exist. Capitalism only exists as a label since the invention of communism after all. Adam Smith was not a capitalist.

    We all receive what we have” indeed without any merit or worthiness on our part, indeed [even] without our asking, ” And God blesses us with everything we need “even for all the wicked” [place me and you in this category according to Luther].

    This means that we confess as Lutherans, that while it appears that some get richer or are more blessed because of something they do, that this is really only a surface truth. It is only “truthy”. It is missing something rather important to a christian observer I am saying.

    And what would that be?

  • Another Kerner

    Typically, “Liberals” do not always simply assume “conservatism” equals “racism”.

    Generally, the word “racism” is hurled as a political weapon during discourse, in an attempt to neutralize any opposition to a current agenda.

    And “charges” such as this one will, oft times, re-direct the discussion, putting the “conservative” on the defensive: the discourse then becomes centered around who is a “racist”, who is not, and why not.

  • Another Kerner

    Typically, “Liberals” do not always simply assume “conservatism” equals “racism”.

    Generally, the word “racism” is hurled as a political weapon during discourse, in an attempt to neutralize any opposition to a current agenda.

    And “charges” such as this one will, oft times, re-direct the discussion, putting the “conservative” on the defensive: the discourse then becomes centered around who is a “racist”, who is not, and why not.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    another Kerner @ 13

    no less than ariana huffington accurately said that when one side resorts to labels, that this is a sure diagnostic that they have no more valid arguments left!

    I don´t see that conservatives are any more or less guilty of this than liberals eh?

    so what does that mean?

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    another Kerner @ 13

    no less than ariana huffington accurately said that when one side resorts to labels, that this is a sure diagnostic that they have no more valid arguments left!

    I don´t see that conservatives are any more or less guilty of this than liberals eh?

    so what does that mean?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    fws,

    I agree it is not mercy. However, it is also not mercy to discriminate against the able. We live in a broken world that we cannot fix.

    “This means that we confess as Lutherans, that while it appears that some get richer or are more blessed because of something they do, that this is really only a surface truth.”

    If it were because of what they do, they could teach others to do it too. Unfortunately certain abilities are gifts and those gifts are unequally distributed. I am slow afoot, like most women. I didn’t get the gift. No reason to discriminate against all the fleet footed men out there. They are not being unmerciful just because I can’t run in the Olympics.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    fws,

    I agree it is not mercy. However, it is also not mercy to discriminate against the able. We live in a broken world that we cannot fix.

    “This means that we confess as Lutherans, that while it appears that some get richer or are more blessed because of something they do, that this is really only a surface truth.”

    If it were because of what they do, they could teach others to do it too. Unfortunately certain abilities are gifts and those gifts are unequally distributed. I am slow afoot, like most women. I didn’t get the gift. No reason to discriminate against all the fleet footed men out there. They are not being unmerciful just because I can’t run in the Olympics.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    fws @10

    “Yet I suppose you would label yourself a conservative.”

    I generally bristle against any label or affiliation. I have only one loyalty. It makes life simpler.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    fws @10

    “Yet I suppose you would label yourself a conservative.”

    I generally bristle against any label or affiliation. I have only one loyalty. It makes life simpler.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 16

    But then, unlike ayn rand and the marquis de sade we will agree with them and say that “the world is thus”.

    But we will not stop there. We will encourage pagan and christian alike to interrupt their lives and do “random acts of kindness and reckless acts of love” as a bumper sticker said once that I saw…

    And this does not require christianity, but of course a society leavened by christians will start to look more merciful (so long as we are not in the majority and exercising the power that conveys….ha!)

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    sg @ 16

    But then, unlike ayn rand and the marquis de sade we will agree with them and say that “the world is thus”.

    But we will not stop there. We will encourage pagan and christian alike to interrupt their lives and do “random acts of kindness and reckless acts of love” as a bumper sticker said once that I saw…

    And this does not require christianity, but of course a society leavened by christians will start to look more merciful (so long as we are not in the majority and exercising the power that conveys….ha!)

  • Louis

    sg – yes and no. But I do think, that, as in our previous (heated) debate on these matters, one should look at all variables before making judgement. Academic performance, for instance, can be linked to poverty, culture, health, genetics, social influences, parental involvement etc etc. To pick a group, and look at only one subvariable (race, subset of genetics), and claim that this is the only reason, is unscientific, irresponsible, and makes the charge of racism not that illogical at all. Especially where this has been showed from earlier examples to be an invalid approach (19th Century Irish immigrants, for instance).

  • Louis

    sg – yes and no. But I do think, that, as in our previous (heated) debate on these matters, one should look at all variables before making judgement. Academic performance, for instance, can be linked to poverty, culture, health, genetics, social influences, parental involvement etc etc. To pick a group, and look at only one subvariable (race, subset of genetics), and claim that this is the only reason, is unscientific, irresponsible, and makes the charge of racism not that illogical at all. Especially where this has been showed from earlier examples to be an invalid approach (19th Century Irish immigrants, for instance).

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Sg @ 16

    no need to bristle. To the contrary. that never looks like love or being literally a servant to the needs of others does it?

    Labels are never true. Except for one. They limit and divide is why.

    However. Might I suggest that it is more servant-like to accept whatever label others give us and explode the untruth of the label from the inside.

    People put the label gay or homosexual on me. It is intended to make me something “other”. as in “other than christian” or “other than normal” or “other than human ” even. But what I really am created by God , and now saint and sinner remains the same regardless of the labels applied.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Sg @ 16

    no need to bristle. To the contrary. that never looks like love or being literally a servant to the needs of others does it?

    Labels are never true. Except for one. They limit and divide is why.

    However. Might I suggest that it is more servant-like to accept whatever label others give us and explode the untruth of the label from the inside.

    People put the label gay or homosexual on me. It is intended to make me something “other”. as in “other than christian” or “other than normal” or “other than human ” even. But what I really am created by God , and now saint and sinner remains the same regardless of the labels applied.

  • Another Kerner

    fws @ 14

    What do you mean, “What does this mean?”

    It means that nasty name calling is a bad thing to do….

    However, there are those moments when we need to assess the actions and/or ideas of individuals, and inspect the “fruit of the tree” assigning a name or label to it.

    And as my sainted German Grossmutter told me,

    “If the shoe fits….”
    :-)

  • Another Kerner

    fws @ 14

    What do you mean, “What does this mean?”

    It means that nasty name calling is a bad thing to do….

    However, there are those moments when we need to assess the actions and/or ideas of individuals, and inspect the “fruit of the tree” assigning a name or label to it.

    And as my sainted German Grossmutter told me,

    “If the shoe fits….”
    :-)

  • DonS

    Whenever I hear race discussed in the public square, it is always by the left. I think most folks on the right moved on toward the world Martin Luther King Jr. expressed a desire for 40 years ago — one where the color of one’s skin is a non-factor.

  • DonS

    Whenever I hear race discussed in the public square, it is always by the left. I think most folks on the right moved on toward the world Martin Luther King Jr. expressed a desire for 40 years ago — one where the color of one’s skin is a non-factor.

  • Porcell

    So far, despite all the rhetoric on side issues, no one has refuted Alexander’s salient point that the Republican Party cannot be legitimately accused of being racist in its policy. While some Republicans from the South were racists in the past, none of them are now, as the Republican Party from the time of Lincoln has not been racist; in fact it broke the back of slavery and from Eisenhower on enforced the Supreme Court Brown ruling against separate but ‘equal’ schooling in the South and elsewhere.

    Also, no one has refuted his point that the Democrats loosely and unjustly accuse conservatives of being racist.

    All this talk of republicanism and democracy along with Lutheran concepts of law and justice and variable causes of racial behavior is beside Alexander’s point. Of course, if one can’t refute Alexander, then better to blow smoke about some side issue. FWS is a master of such obfuscation.

  • Porcell

    So far, despite all the rhetoric on side issues, no one has refuted Alexander’s salient point that the Republican Party cannot be legitimately accused of being racist in its policy. While some Republicans from the South were racists in the past, none of them are now, as the Republican Party from the time of Lincoln has not been racist; in fact it broke the back of slavery and from Eisenhower on enforced the Supreme Court Brown ruling against separate but ‘equal’ schooling in the South and elsewhere.

    Also, no one has refuted his point that the Democrats loosely and unjustly accuse conservatives of being racist.

    All this talk of republicanism and democracy along with Lutheran concepts of law and justice and variable causes of racial behavior is beside Alexander’s point. Of course, if one can’t refute Alexander, then better to blow smoke about some side issue. FWS is a master of such obfuscation.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Academic performance, for instance, can be linked to poverty, culture, health, genetics, social influences, parental involvement etc etc. To pick a group, and look at only one subvariable (race, subset of genetics), and claim that this is the only reason, is unscientific, irresponsible, and makes the charge of racism not that illogical at all. Especially where this has been showed from earlier examples to be an invalid approach”

    It has not been proven.

    It has merely been asserted, and speculated. The evidence is not there.

    We have experimented on millions of students, with no other factors emerging as strongly predictive.

    There is also the issue of what causes what, the direction of causality. What causes poverty? I would say crime causes poverty not poverty causes crime. High trust societies are more prosperous because there is less crime and violence and less time and effort spent on defending society against crime.

    Here is a regression analysis that accounts for income and race on academic performance. The author also has other analyses of other conditions.

    http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/diversity.htm

    I would suggest reading all of his analyses.
    He is not malicious, just honest.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Academic performance, for instance, can be linked to poverty, culture, health, genetics, social influences, parental involvement etc etc. To pick a group, and look at only one subvariable (race, subset of genetics), and claim that this is the only reason, is unscientific, irresponsible, and makes the charge of racism not that illogical at all. Especially where this has been showed from earlier examples to be an invalid approach”

    It has not been proven.

    It has merely been asserted, and speculated. The evidence is not there.

    We have experimented on millions of students, with no other factors emerging as strongly predictive.

    There is also the issue of what causes what, the direction of causality. What causes poverty? I would say crime causes poverty not poverty causes crime. High trust societies are more prosperous because there is less crime and violence and less time and effort spent on defending society against crime.

    Here is a regression analysis that accounts for income and race on academic performance. The author also has other analyses of other conditions.

    http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/diversity.htm

    I would suggest reading all of his analyses.
    He is not malicious, just honest.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Porcell, they are called racists because they are predominantly white. These days, one only need prove that a group is predominantly white in order to label the group as racist. Meanwhile groups that are predominantly some other race are just fine. They can’t be racists because they aren’t white. It is insane. What is morally wrong with being mostly white? What is morally wrong with being 100% white? Honestly, what? Don’t worry, no one will come up with a reason any more than they will come up with a logical basis for calling Republicans racists.

    The real reason for calling Republicans racists is to constantly pull the emotional chain of some minorities to get them to vote for Democrats and ignore issues. It is pretty simple. Human nature generally inclines one to his own group. So, implying that Republicans hate your group is an easy emotional ploy.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Porcell, they are called racists because they are predominantly white. These days, one only need prove that a group is predominantly white in order to label the group as racist. Meanwhile groups that are predominantly some other race are just fine. They can’t be racists because they aren’t white. It is insane. What is morally wrong with being mostly white? What is morally wrong with being 100% white? Honestly, what? Don’t worry, no one will come up with a reason any more than they will come up with a logical basis for calling Republicans racists.

    The real reason for calling Republicans racists is to constantly pull the emotional chain of some minorities to get them to vote for Democrats and ignore issues. It is pretty simple. Human nature generally inclines one to his own group. So, implying that Republicans hate your group is an easy emotional ploy.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “FWS is a master of such obfuscation.”

    hahahaha.

    In D&D, there is a spell called Leamund’s Lamentable Belaborment which causes the opponents to become confused and disperse!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “FWS is a master of such obfuscation.”

    hahahaha.

    In D&D, there is a spell called Leamund’s Lamentable Belaborment which causes the opponents to become confused and disperse!

  • Louis

    sg – He is adept at using stats, but not very good otherwise at all. He necessarily assumes that the only factor worthwhile is race. Of course, there are many other things -Race and culture are close cousins, so-to-speak, but one can change a culture. I would venture that in many, lets use the term, inner-city schools, the local culture is predominantly anti-intelectua;, defeatist etc. The fact that Asian kids there do well could possibly be attributed to the fact that they are recent “imports” from another culture, and have not been exposed to the bad influences over multiple generations. These “bad” inflences result from many things, including deliterous effects of segregation etc.

    People also tend to understimate the time it takes for cultures to change – individuals within a culture can change quickly, but the cultures as a whole – slowly.

    An example: When I was at University, we got a new student in our class – he was from Swaziland. He was one of the brightest guys in class. We spent a lot of time together, as some of the others had some reticence about spending a lot of time with a block fellow (my university, at that stage, was white dominated). We got onto these topics – and he clearly identified culture as an issue. Apparently, when he was a child (he folks died when he was still young), at holidays his aunt would call all the kids together, and have them show her their school reports. If one of them did badly, she would berate them there, in front of the others. The net result was a culture of learning within that family circle. Today, that fellow has a PhD in Geology, and not one given because of quotas’s. I know the prof under which he got that – he would have had to slog damn hard to get it. BTW, as a child, he still had to spend time cattle herding.

    This is but one story. But it illustrates my point. BTW, this fellow didn’t abandond all his cultural distinctives / traditions. He merely adopted rigorous intellectualism n addition to what he already was. He was traditional enough, btw, to even occasionaly wear his traditional clothes on campus (very, very unusual..). also, he wasn’t a Christian, in case you were thinking along those lines.

    It is one thing to sit in an office and pontificate. It is another to walk and slog next to these people.

    Addendum: My parents were missionaries of the Dutch Reformed Church in eastern Zambia in the 60′s. My dad still talks about this students there- he taught science in a mission school, in addition to missionary work. The existent cultural boundaries were obvious in that context too, as well as the enourmous potential once these boundaries were shaken off. But what further marred Africa was post-Colonial wars, which very often were proxy wars by the great powers (Civil wars in Angola and Mozambique come to mind), tribal conflict excarbated by colonial stupidity (Biafra for instance), as well as some colonial exploitation (the DRC, and the CIA’s killing of Lubumba come to mind).

    Not everything that is called racist, is racist, but racism does exist.

  • Louis

    sg – He is adept at using stats, but not very good otherwise at all. He necessarily assumes that the only factor worthwhile is race. Of course, there are many other things -Race and culture are close cousins, so-to-speak, but one can change a culture. I would venture that in many, lets use the term, inner-city schools, the local culture is predominantly anti-intelectua;, defeatist etc. The fact that Asian kids there do well could possibly be attributed to the fact that they are recent “imports” from another culture, and have not been exposed to the bad influences over multiple generations. These “bad” inflences result from many things, including deliterous effects of segregation etc.

    People also tend to understimate the time it takes for cultures to change – individuals within a culture can change quickly, but the cultures as a whole – slowly.

    An example: When I was at University, we got a new student in our class – he was from Swaziland. He was one of the brightest guys in class. We spent a lot of time together, as some of the others had some reticence about spending a lot of time with a block fellow (my university, at that stage, was white dominated). We got onto these topics – and he clearly identified culture as an issue. Apparently, when he was a child (he folks died when he was still young), at holidays his aunt would call all the kids together, and have them show her their school reports. If one of them did badly, she would berate them there, in front of the others. The net result was a culture of learning within that family circle. Today, that fellow has a PhD in Geology, and not one given because of quotas’s. I know the prof under which he got that – he would have had to slog damn hard to get it. BTW, as a child, he still had to spend time cattle herding.

    This is but one story. But it illustrates my point. BTW, this fellow didn’t abandond all his cultural distinctives / traditions. He merely adopted rigorous intellectualism n addition to what he already was. He was traditional enough, btw, to even occasionaly wear his traditional clothes on campus (very, very unusual..). also, he wasn’t a Christian, in case you were thinking along those lines.

    It is one thing to sit in an office and pontificate. It is another to walk and slog next to these people.

    Addendum: My parents were missionaries of the Dutch Reformed Church in eastern Zambia in the 60′s. My dad still talks about this students there- he taught science in a mission school, in addition to missionary work. The existent cultural boundaries were obvious in that context too, as well as the enourmous potential once these boundaries were shaken off. But what further marred Africa was post-Colonial wars, which very often were proxy wars by the great powers (Civil wars in Angola and Mozambique come to mind), tribal conflict excarbated by colonial stupidity (Biafra for instance), as well as some colonial exploitation (the DRC, and the CIA’s killing of Lubumba come to mind).

    Not everything that is called racist, is racist, but racism does exist.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “He is adept at using stats, but not very good otherwise at all. ”

    Merely an assertion and baseless.

    It is not statistics and assumptions.

    He used regression to tease out the controlling factors and show the extent to which they affect performance.

    Louis, all of what you say is, “what if, what if, what if.”

    Simply put it is baseless assertion. You have no evidence.

    As for your anecdote, I am all for giving every individual every opportunity to achieve all they can. However, beyond that, we can’t just discriminate endlessly against those who are successful in favor of those who are far less so. It is morally wrong to discriminate against people who are able just because so many people from their group are high achieving.

    Give up the colonialism nonsense. India, Africa, Australia, Canada, Brazil, United States, and many more have experienced colonialism. The farther you go back the more there is. India had great achievement before, during and after. So did China.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “He is adept at using stats, but not very good otherwise at all. ”

    Merely an assertion and baseless.

    It is not statistics and assumptions.

    He used regression to tease out the controlling factors and show the extent to which they affect performance.

    Louis, all of what you say is, “what if, what if, what if.”

    Simply put it is baseless assertion. You have no evidence.

    As for your anecdote, I am all for giving every individual every opportunity to achieve all they can. However, beyond that, we can’t just discriminate endlessly against those who are successful in favor of those who are far less so. It is morally wrong to discriminate against people who are able just because so many people from their group are high achieving.

    Give up the colonialism nonsense. India, Africa, Australia, Canada, Brazil, United States, and many more have experienced colonialism. The farther you go back the more there is. India had great achievement before, during and after. So did China.

  • Louis

    sg – I’ll put it blatantly: I am a victim of Affirmativ eAction – I was told – yes there are jobs, no you can’t have it because of your skin colour. Because of that, there is a reasonable change I’ll never see my parents again. So don’t give me any of that. I experienced it. I lived it. But I ALSO know their side of the story. So I understand, though not condone, the reasons.

    And unless you’ve heard both sides of the colonial experrience, you’ll be likely to either sprout one set, or the opposing set of propoganda. Good and bad, sg. Good and bad.

    And you keep on missing the point: Some groups are high achieving for a reason. I don’t support discriminating against them. I support expanding “those reasons” to other groups.

  • Louis

    sg – I’ll put it blatantly: I am a victim of Affirmativ eAction – I was told – yes there are jobs, no you can’t have it because of your skin colour. Because of that, there is a reasonable change I’ll never see my parents again. So don’t give me any of that. I experienced it. I lived it. But I ALSO know their side of the story. So I understand, though not condone, the reasons.

    And unless you’ve heard both sides of the colonial experrience, you’ll be likely to either sprout one set, or the opposing set of propoganda. Good and bad, sg. Good and bad.

    And you keep on missing the point: Some groups are high achieving for a reason. I don’t support discriminating against them. I support expanding “those reasons” to other groups.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    fws – In Jesus, and throughout God’s Word we see that the fulfillment of the Law is love. Yes.

    Amidst Republicans and Democrats I don’t see that working out too well. And I regularly see racism alive and active all across the political spectrum (not to mention emblazoned right across my own evil heart). It seems to me that the most dangerous person is the individual who foolishly believes they are free of such sins. Anyhoo…

  • Bryan Lindemood

    fws – In Jesus, and throughout God’s Word we see that the fulfillment of the Law is love. Yes.

    Amidst Republicans and Democrats I don’t see that working out too well. And I regularly see racism alive and active all across the political spectrum (not to mention emblazoned right across my own evil heart). It seems to me that the most dangerous person is the individual who foolishly believes they are free of such sins. Anyhoo…

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I would venture that in many, lets use the term, inner-city schools, the local culture is predominantly anti-intelectua;, defeatist etc. The fact that Asian kids there do well could possibly be attributed to the fact that they are recent “imports” from another culture, and have not been exposed to the bad influences over multiple generations.”

    Recent imports do have the advantage of coming from highly patriarchal systems. I will also agree that multiple generations of the bad influence of weakened family structure could possibly eventually affect Asians. However, it doesn’t take nearly as long to corrupt some groups.

    According to the US census annual illegitimate births per 1000 women.

    hispanic 106
    black 72
    white 32
    Asian 26

    Also, the Asian group represents many very different cultures.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I would venture that in many, lets use the term, inner-city schools, the local culture is predominantly anti-intelectua;, defeatist etc. The fact that Asian kids there do well could possibly be attributed to the fact that they are recent “imports” from another culture, and have not been exposed to the bad influences over multiple generations.”

    Recent imports do have the advantage of coming from highly patriarchal systems. I will also agree that multiple generations of the bad influence of weakened family structure could possibly eventually affect Asians. However, it doesn’t take nearly as long to corrupt some groups.

    According to the US census annual illegitimate births per 1000 women.

    hispanic 106
    black 72
    white 32
    Asian 26

    Also, the Asian group represents many very different cultures.

  • Louis

    sg – Why are you so hang up on race? Why?

  • Louis

    sg – Why are you so hang up on race? Why?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Louis,

    “And you keep on missing the point: Some groups are high achieving for a reason.”

    That is the point I am making. I don’t know how you can transfer it to others.

    As for colonialism, it hurt many people and was unfair. However, it is not the reason there are such different levels of ability among different groups.

    All the evidence is extremely consistent. The circumstances change but the results don’t. All I hear from you is that despite the evidence, you wish to believe there must be other reasons. That point of view is extremely popular these days. It is the reason that the USA spends the most on education. That doesn’t make it true.

    I understand you are a true believer. Maybe you have great pity on others and wish them success. I think your motives are pure. Personally, I think it is possible to treat people fairly by treating them as individuals, but our current system is discriminatory. I think folks like you should not be told they can’t have a job because they are the wrong color. I don’t believe a dishonest system like that truly benefits anyone. It becomes like the Soviet Union, where they pretend to work and the government pretends to pay them. It is not going to bring an equalitarian utopia, rather everyone suffers under the pretense.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Louis,

    “And you keep on missing the point: Some groups are high achieving for a reason.”

    That is the point I am making. I don’t know how you can transfer it to others.

    As for colonialism, it hurt many people and was unfair. However, it is not the reason there are such different levels of ability among different groups.

    All the evidence is extremely consistent. The circumstances change but the results don’t. All I hear from you is that despite the evidence, you wish to believe there must be other reasons. That point of view is extremely popular these days. It is the reason that the USA spends the most on education. That doesn’t make it true.

    I understand you are a true believer. Maybe you have great pity on others and wish them success. I think your motives are pure. Personally, I think it is possible to treat people fairly by treating them as individuals, but our current system is discriminatory. I think folks like you should not be told they can’t have a job because they are the wrong color. I don’t believe a dishonest system like that truly benefits anyone. It becomes like the Soviet Union, where they pretend to work and the government pretends to pay them. It is not going to bring an equalitarian utopia, rather everyone suffers under the pretense.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    And what I mean by 29 is that whereas Jesus fulfills the Law perfectly and shows love and mercy to all; Even your above average Democrat or Republican doesn’t. These lawmakers themselves need to be held accountable by laws of justice, not mercy. It is not the sphere for forgiveness, but life-shaping consequences. Pure justice no, for that would get too bloody. But certainly not pure mercy. Men must always be held in check this side of heaven.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    And what I mean by 29 is that whereas Jesus fulfills the Law perfectly and shows love and mercy to all; Even your above average Democrat or Republican doesn’t. These lawmakers themselves need to be held accountable by laws of justice, not mercy. It is not the sphere for forgiveness, but life-shaping consequences. Pure justice no, for that would get too bloody. But certainly not pure mercy. Men must always be held in check this side of heaven.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    sg – “Why are you so hang up on race? Why?”

    Why was Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu?

    Further, why are you so hung up on race that you gladly suffer injustice?

    My hangup is the bizarre condition where people make all kinds of excuses for the differences among folks and won’t even consider the possibility of the obvious explanation. The only explanation with actual evidence and to support it. And the only explanation against which no evidence exists. It contradicts neither religion nor science.
    I don’t know marxism well enough to know whether it contradicts Marx.

    Really I just need numbers to understand things. It harder for me to understand things that are not quantified. When I see the overwhelming data, I need a hefty counter set of data in order to take a counter argument seriously.

    I have looked and haven’t found it. What can I conclude? People are irrational. Whatever can’t go on forever, won’t. The America of opportunity is no exception.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    sg – “Why are you so hang up on race? Why?”

    Why was Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu?

    Further, why are you so hung up on race that you gladly suffer injustice?

    My hangup is the bizarre condition where people make all kinds of excuses for the differences among folks and won’t even consider the possibility of the obvious explanation. The only explanation with actual evidence and to support it. And the only explanation against which no evidence exists. It contradicts neither religion nor science.
    I don’t know marxism well enough to know whether it contradicts Marx.

    Really I just need numbers to understand things. It harder for me to understand things that are not quantified. When I see the overwhelming data, I need a hefty counter set of data in order to take a counter argument seriously.

    I have looked and haven’t found it. What can I conclude? People are irrational. Whatever can’t go on forever, won’t. The America of opportunity is no exception.

  • Louis

    sg – In spite of my, and other folks here’s, comments, and counter-arguments, you (and others) keep on posting statisitcs in which whites mostly, but not always, come off best, and Hispanics and blacks come off worst. So, let me ask you:

    What point are you making, and what is your goal in making that point? Also, how is that point Christ-like in any way?

  • Louis

    sg – In spite of my, and other folks here’s, comments, and counter-arguments, you (and others) keep on posting statisitcs in which whites mostly, but not always, come off best, and Hispanics and blacks come off worst. So, let me ask you:

    What point are you making, and what is your goal in making that point? Also, how is that point Christ-like in any way?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Louis, My question is why don’t you post some stats? You can’t seriously expect people to just trash evidence in favor of your opinion regardless of how popular your opinion is. My point is that we shouldn’t have discriminatory laws. Everyone regardless of race should have opportunity. My goal is fairness to everyone. What is your goal?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Louis, My question is why don’t you post some stats? You can’t seriously expect people to just trash evidence in favor of your opinion regardless of how popular your opinion is. My point is that we shouldn’t have discriminatory laws. Everyone regardless of race should have opportunity. My goal is fairness to everyone. What is your goal?

  • Porcell

    Bryan, most Christian Republicans are well aware that they congenitally sin, though, as Reinhold Niebuhr remarked, while weare equally sinners, we are unequal individually and collectively in our quanta of guilt on assorted issues.

    The issue on this thread that Alexander raises is whether the Democrats are fair in regarding the Republicans as racists. What might be your view on this concrete issue?

    Saying that all men sin in terms of racism is true in that we all tend more or less to reject to some degree outsiders, though regarding all such men as racists is a form of moral relativism. Most urbane Republicans, and Democrats for that matter, while aware of certain cultural differences, are not “racists.” I was taught in college in the fifties that the very term was not in use until the thirties when it started to become trendy.

    Alexander contends above with concrete arguments that the Republicans have been unfairly criticized by the Left as racists. Have you any concrete arguments contra Alexander?

    BTW, should anyone be interested in the Oxford derivation of the inane term, racism, have a look at The Origins of “Racism” by Samuel Francis. Racism has become a rather fuzzy buzzword, used mostly by the Left in the culture war.

  • Porcell

    Bryan, most Christian Republicans are well aware that they congenitally sin, though, as Reinhold Niebuhr remarked, while weare equally sinners, we are unequal individually and collectively in our quanta of guilt on assorted issues.

    The issue on this thread that Alexander raises is whether the Democrats are fair in regarding the Republicans as racists. What might be your view on this concrete issue?

    Saying that all men sin in terms of racism is true in that we all tend more or less to reject to some degree outsiders, though regarding all such men as racists is a form of moral relativism. Most urbane Republicans, and Democrats for that matter, while aware of certain cultural differences, are not “racists.” I was taught in college in the fifties that the very term was not in use until the thirties when it started to become trendy.

    Alexander contends above with concrete arguments that the Republicans have been unfairly criticized by the Left as racists. Have you any concrete arguments contra Alexander?

    BTW, should anyone be interested in the Oxford derivation of the inane term, racism, have a look at The Origins of “Racism” by Samuel Francis. Racism has become a rather fuzzy buzzword, used mostly by the Left in the culture war.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Also, how is that point Christ-like in any way”

    What is the point of this question? It seems to imply that if I don’t agree with you, I must not be a Christian. As though agreeing with the current zeitgeist of any time period is somehow an indicator of being a Christian.

    I actually am not so clueless that I don’t know that there are actual benefits to toeing the party line and asking no questions.

    Democrats were the enforcers of discrimination against blacks and now they are the enforcers of discrimination against whites and Asians. Nothing has changed. Racism characterizes the race obsessed Democrats, not the Republicans who focus on individual opportunity.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Also, how is that point Christ-like in any way”

    What is the point of this question? It seems to imply that if I don’t agree with you, I must not be a Christian. As though agreeing with the current zeitgeist of any time period is somehow an indicator of being a Christian.

    I actually am not so clueless that I don’t know that there are actual benefits to toeing the party line and asking no questions.

    Democrats were the enforcers of discrimination against blacks and now they are the enforcers of discrimination against whites and Asians. Nothing has changed. Racism characterizes the race obsessed Democrats, not the Republicans who focus on individual opportunity.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Porcell 37, in answer to your question: No.
    Read my comments as a critique of all who unfairly label their opponents as racist. They just need to at least get more creative in the name calling while at the same time get down to work defending and lifting up (blessing) their neighbor (their constituents and future constituents).

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Porcell 37, in answer to your question: No.
    Read my comments as a critique of all who unfairly label their opponents as racist. They just need to at least get more creative in the name calling while at the same time get down to work defending and lifting up (blessing) their neighbor (their constituents and future constituents).

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    bryan @ 29

    “fws – In Jesus, and throughout God’s Word we see that the fulfillment of the Law is love. Yes.”

    This would imply there is an intrisic difference between the love of a christian and the love of a pagan. This implies that the difference is in what is done, the fruit.

    The Lutheran confessions would beg to differ with this Bryan. We are here splitting that exact hair that resulted in the Lutheran and Conservative Reformation.

    Curious as to what your response will be.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    bryan @ 29

    “fws – In Jesus, and throughout God’s Word we see that the fulfillment of the Law is love. Yes.”

    This would imply there is an intrisic difference between the love of a christian and the love of a pagan. This implies that the difference is in what is done, the fruit.

    The Lutheran confessions would beg to differ with this Bryan. We are here splitting that exact hair that resulted in the Lutheran and Conservative Reformation.

    Curious as to what your response will be.

  • Porcell

    Thanks, Bryan. I agree with you.

  • Porcell

    Thanks, Bryan. I agree with you.

  • DonS

    Bryan @ 39 and Porcell @ 41: I, too, agree with both of your well stated comments. I add, however, the proviso that a “racism industry” has arisen in America since the 1960′s which seeks to exploit those categorized as “minorities” both politically and financially. This “industry”, which receives a great deal of attention and support from the media and other influential elites, has an ongoing political and financial interest in perpetuating the race divide in America, and is largely responsible for the despicable trend of labeling those with whom they disagree as racists, rather than engaging in substantive and constructive dialogue. We will probably be unable to move forward toward a truly colorblind society until this industry and way of thinking is repudiated and no longer enabled by our elitist leaders.

  • DonS

    Bryan @ 39 and Porcell @ 41: I, too, agree with both of your well stated comments. I add, however, the proviso that a “racism industry” has arisen in America since the 1960′s which seeks to exploit those categorized as “minorities” both politically and financially. This “industry”, which receives a great deal of attention and support from the media and other influential elites, has an ongoing political and financial interest in perpetuating the race divide in America, and is largely responsible for the despicable trend of labeling those with whom they disagree as racists, rather than engaging in substantive and constructive dialogue. We will probably be unable to move forward toward a truly colorblind society until this industry and way of thinking is repudiated and no longer enabled by our elitist leaders.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    fws 29 – I’m just saying there is a difference between the perfect love of Jesus and the fallen love of the rest of humanity. I’m also saying there is a difference between the role of Christ’s Bride, the Church and the role of God’s left hand, Government.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    fws 29 – I’m just saying there is a difference between the perfect love of Jesus and the fallen love of the rest of humanity. I’m also saying there is a difference between the role of Christ’s Bride, the Church and the role of God’s left hand, Government.

  • Porcell

    Good, Don, your view is that of Martin Luther King who stated well that people need to be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

    However, various groups of people in truth have characteristics that differ from one another that have been studied and commented on by scholars.

    Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, a couple of Harvard scholars, wrote a controversial book, The Bell Curve, arguing that cultural, socio-economic, and genetic factors play a role in I.Q. , though the evidence, while suggestive, is not conclusive. Of course these writers were vilified by the Left for studying the matter; in truth such studies are helpful and useful for policy makers.

    Most urbane people discuss these matters quietly; scholars try to shed light on the matters.Utopian, gnostic Leftists, who, also, discuss these matters, cry foul, usually bringing up anecdotal evidence.

  • Porcell

    Good, Don, your view is that of Martin Luther King who stated well that people need to be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

    However, various groups of people in truth have characteristics that differ from one another that have been studied and commented on by scholars.

    Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, a couple of Harvard scholars, wrote a controversial book, The Bell Curve, arguing that cultural, socio-economic, and genetic factors play a role in I.Q. , though the evidence, while suggestive, is not conclusive. Of course these writers were vilified by the Left for studying the matter; in truth such studies are helpful and useful for policy makers.

    Most urbane people discuss these matters quietly; scholars try to shed light on the matters.Utopian, gnostic Leftists, who, also, discuss these matters, cry foul, usually bringing up anecdotal evidence.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Bryan @ 43

    We started our little thread by your saying this>>>

    “….you say the spirit of the law must always be love. Isn’t the spirit of the law always justice? Isn’t the spirit that is love something else entirely? … they’re not the same thing. ”

    This could become law & Gospel Bryan. It could be if we exercised the theological mortification of sticking to the form and words and constrasts used by paul and Luther and the confessions.

    Paul and Luther use romans 8 contrast of flesh/body versus spirit. Where would your roll-your-own “spirit of the law” contrasted to “spirit that is love” fit into this contrast, from which sprang the entire Lutheran Reformation and the very idea that Law & Gospel is THE contrast that matters and makes all things clear?

    BRYAN “fws 29 – I’m just saying there is a difference between the perfect love of Jesus and the fallen love of the rest of humanity.”

    FRANK Ok. Now we are making yet another contrast. Nothing wrong with that. We get to practice our Law/Gospel distinction-ment-ility. Cool. The perfect Love of christ could be christ as Moses. Law. How would it not be? This would be putting on Christ as example, which would be pure law and would be the law contrast between christ and fallen man. This is a law-law contrast. Christ as example is pure Earthly Kingdom. It is not christian and it is not about the church. Every world religion makes room for this Christ.

    BRYAN ” I’m also saying there is a difference between the role of Christ’s Bride, the Church and the role of God’s left hand, Government.”

    FWS This is also entirely law & law in your context. Your context is about what we can do in our bodies. That would be from the word “role”. Role is the part we play. what we do. So it is all entirely Earthly Kingdom. Even the church part. The contrast here is in vocations, pastor vs plumber vs missionary vs housewife. It is all Earthly Kingdom. Whatever we can work at doing in Vocation and life is about mortification. Those romans 8 things that will perish. Part of body/flesh. Even the church part that is about role (“station in life”?) Therfore, and for that reason, it fully excludes sanctification, and therefore the Heavenly Kingdom, and therefore is fully excluded from the definition of the word Christian.

    I am aiming for a Law & Gospel contrast. I hope you will in kindness further indulge me in this. This alone is the truly Lutheran Two Kingdoms doctrine which is found exactly where in our Lutheran Confessions. Article XVIII AC/Ap and FC art VI is where!

    That left hand right hand stuff , church vs government is simply not where Lutherans are supposed to make that law gospel distinction. That would be more the Reformed. That is really a law & law distinction. it is about variation in vocation. No eternal stuff here at all. it is all flesh/body romans 8 stuff. it will all perish with the earth.

    Succinctly: The two kingdoms are not church vs government. The two kingdoms are romans 8 flesh/body vs spirit. This is exactly the basis for the Lutheran doctrine of the Two Kingdoms or Two Powers. It is the purest Law & Gospel distinction Bryan. It is about what we can do in our flesh/bodies, including righteousness/love, vs Spirit or spirit, which is alone faith in Christ. It doesn´t matter whether you want to call spirit new man or Spirit capital S which is then the Holy Spirit. It works out the same way.

    Earthly left hand kingdom fully includes ALL true earthly visible outward righteousness that truly pleases God, that is every and anything at all we can do in our bodies . It needs to look and feel like love to be righteousness by the way. It needs to be practical and useful. The evidence that this righteousness is being done is tangible and fully sense-ible. It looks feels tastes and smells like daily bread.

    Heavenly right hand Kingdom stuff includes only ONE thing. Alone. Invisible faith in christ. this love/righteousness is utterly useless and meaningless in the earthly left handed kingdom except to God and a troubled conscience. It is tastlesss oderless colorless and in-tangible. It “does” nothing at all on earth.

    But don´t take my word for it. Please. Read the Luther sermon that is the stated basis of FC art VI, and then read art VI with that sermon being your lense, as article VI asks you to do. This is where Lutherans find the real Two Kingdoms doctrine.

    Here is the Link:

    www. thirduse.com

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    Bryan @ 43

    We started our little thread by your saying this>>>

    “….you say the spirit of the law must always be love. Isn’t the spirit of the law always justice? Isn’t the spirit that is love something else entirely? … they’re not the same thing. ”

    This could become law & Gospel Bryan. It could be if we exercised the theological mortification of sticking to the form and words and constrasts used by paul and Luther and the confessions.

    Paul and Luther use romans 8 contrast of flesh/body versus spirit. Where would your roll-your-own “spirit of the law” contrasted to “spirit that is love” fit into this contrast, from which sprang the entire Lutheran Reformation and the very idea that Law & Gospel is THE contrast that matters and makes all things clear?

    BRYAN “fws 29 – I’m just saying there is a difference between the perfect love of Jesus and the fallen love of the rest of humanity.”

    FRANK Ok. Now we are making yet another contrast. Nothing wrong with that. We get to practice our Law/Gospel distinction-ment-ility. Cool. The perfect Love of christ could be christ as Moses. Law. How would it not be? This would be putting on Christ as example, which would be pure law and would be the law contrast between christ and fallen man. This is a law-law contrast. Christ as example is pure Earthly Kingdom. It is not christian and it is not about the church. Every world religion makes room for this Christ.

    BRYAN ” I’m also saying there is a difference between the role of Christ’s Bride, the Church and the role of God’s left hand, Government.”

    FWS This is also entirely law & law in your context. Your context is about what we can do in our bodies. That would be from the word “role”. Role is the part we play. what we do. So it is all entirely Earthly Kingdom. Even the church part. The contrast here is in vocations, pastor vs plumber vs missionary vs housewife. It is all Earthly Kingdom. Whatever we can work at doing in Vocation and life is about mortification. Those romans 8 things that will perish. Part of body/flesh. Even the church part that is about role (“station in life”?) Therfore, and for that reason, it fully excludes sanctification, and therefore the Heavenly Kingdom, and therefore is fully excluded from the definition of the word Christian.

    I am aiming for a Law & Gospel contrast. I hope you will in kindness further indulge me in this. This alone is the truly Lutheran Two Kingdoms doctrine which is found exactly where in our Lutheran Confessions. Article XVIII AC/Ap and FC art VI is where!

    That left hand right hand stuff , church vs government is simply not where Lutherans are supposed to make that law gospel distinction. That would be more the Reformed. That is really a law & law distinction. it is about variation in vocation. No eternal stuff here at all. it is all flesh/body romans 8 stuff. it will all perish with the earth.

    Succinctly: The two kingdoms are not church vs government. The two kingdoms are romans 8 flesh/body vs spirit. This is exactly the basis for the Lutheran doctrine of the Two Kingdoms or Two Powers. It is the purest Law & Gospel distinction Bryan. It is about what we can do in our flesh/bodies, including righteousness/love, vs Spirit or spirit, which is alone faith in Christ. It doesn´t matter whether you want to call spirit new man or Spirit capital S which is then the Holy Spirit. It works out the same way.

    Earthly left hand kingdom fully includes ALL true earthly visible outward righteousness that truly pleases God, that is every and anything at all we can do in our bodies . It needs to look and feel like love to be righteousness by the way. It needs to be practical and useful. The evidence that this righteousness is being done is tangible and fully sense-ible. It looks feels tastes and smells like daily bread.

    Heavenly right hand Kingdom stuff includes only ONE thing. Alone. Invisible faith in christ. this love/righteousness is utterly useless and meaningless in the earthly left handed kingdom except to God and a troubled conscience. It is tastlesss oderless colorless and in-tangible. It “does” nothing at all on earth.

    But don´t take my word for it. Please. Read the Luther sermon that is the stated basis of FC art VI, and then read art VI with that sermon being your lense, as article VI asks you to do. This is where Lutherans find the real Two Kingdoms doctrine.

    Here is the Link:

    www. thirduse.com

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Sinclair Lewis said, “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

    Well, that settles it. Patriots and Christians should not be trusted.

    Goofy.

    Who cares what he said?

    It is just a figment of his imagination.

    So he didn’t like Christians or Americans. That doesn’t make him special or enlightened.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Sinclair Lewis said, “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

    Well, that settles it. Patriots and Christians should not be trusted.

    Goofy.

    Who cares what he said?

    It is just a figment of his imagination.

    So he didn’t like Christians or Americans. That doesn’t make him special or enlightened.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “So if the GOP is such a friend of nonwhites, why do so few join the party and vote for its candidates?”

    Gee, dunno. Could it be the endless (yet baseless) charges of racism the Dems keep making about the GOP?

    No, of course not. Silly.

    Every minority in America is better off here than anywhere else, and has more opportunity, despite this country allegedly being filled with racists. It is so patently absurd. If America is so bad, why do they keep coming?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “So if the GOP is such a friend of nonwhites, why do so few join the party and vote for its candidates?”

    Gee, dunno. Could it be the endless (yet baseless) charges of racism the Dems keep making about the GOP?

    No, of course not. Silly.

    Every minority in America is better off here than anywhere else, and has more opportunity, despite this country allegedly being filled with racists. It is so patently absurd. If America is so bad, why do they keep coming?

  • Bryan Lindemood

    fws 46, Perhaps I was careless in the “spirit that is love” talk. By “love” I had in mind Christian mercy, motivated by Christ’s forgiveness, in the realm of the Gospel (right hand – you know pronounced forgiveness in the face of sin) as distinct from realm of God’s Law with its demands and prohibitions which kills because we can’t help ourselves or because we can’t shake our sense of justice (left hand – you know throwing the moron behind bars because its what his honest deeds deserve).

    By the way, I’m one of those wackos that isn’t really sure “the third use” is a real thing (which is what I think the reformers were trying to say nicely in FC VI). We live always in the first and second (uses of the law) and they’re always working back and forth making us do things we would rather not cuz we’re lazy (and so God keeps making us serve each other even when we don’t want to) and keeping us from doing things we perversely love because they’re wrong (thus God keeps us all mostly safe) and reminding Christians of their sorry state and putrid need for a blessed Savior, repentance and humility. Somewhere in the midst of this dynamo of us trying to make sense of all that some guys calling themselves Lutheran imagined something that isn’t real. “Third Use of the Law” talk ends up becoming just a confusing mess of Lutheran Pietism and self-congratulatory back slapping which really hurts your elbow so I suggest refraining. (I might have time to read that sermon tomorrow, or perhaps tonight). Instead, I suggest going to a any ol’ mediocre faithful Lutheran Church where you’re sure to be killed and made alive through the proclamation of the Word and stop thinking about doing so much (the do is supposed to just flow then, right?). Anyway, I still agree with the other caveats I mentioned before and I’m not sure what they have to do with us being clear on the 3rd use of the law (again, its existence I question – just to be clear) except that I’m sometimes sloppy in my language (as were the guys to started this 3rd use debacle), so sorry about that (human? – I raise my hand.) Dammit.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    fws 46, Perhaps I was careless in the “spirit that is love” talk. By “love” I had in mind Christian mercy, motivated by Christ’s forgiveness, in the realm of the Gospel (right hand – you know pronounced forgiveness in the face of sin) as distinct from realm of God’s Law with its demands and prohibitions which kills because we can’t help ourselves or because we can’t shake our sense of justice (left hand – you know throwing the moron behind bars because its what his honest deeds deserve).

    By the way, I’m one of those wackos that isn’t really sure “the third use” is a real thing (which is what I think the reformers were trying to say nicely in FC VI). We live always in the first and second (uses of the law) and they’re always working back and forth making us do things we would rather not cuz we’re lazy (and so God keeps making us serve each other even when we don’t want to) and keeping us from doing things we perversely love because they’re wrong (thus God keeps us all mostly safe) and reminding Christians of their sorry state and putrid need for a blessed Savior, repentance and humility. Somewhere in the midst of this dynamo of us trying to make sense of all that some guys calling themselves Lutheran imagined something that isn’t real. “Third Use of the Law” talk ends up becoming just a confusing mess of Lutheran Pietism and self-congratulatory back slapping which really hurts your elbow so I suggest refraining. (I might have time to read that sermon tomorrow, or perhaps tonight). Instead, I suggest going to a any ol’ mediocre faithful Lutheran Church where you’re sure to be killed and made alive through the proclamation of the Word and stop thinking about doing so much (the do is supposed to just flow then, right?). Anyway, I still agree with the other caveats I mentioned before and I’m not sure what they have to do with us being clear on the 3rd use of the law (again, its existence I question – just to be clear) except that I’m sometimes sloppy in my language (as were the guys to started this 3rd use debacle), so sorry about that (human? – I raise my hand.) Dammit.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    bryan @50

    “By the way, I’m one of those wackos that isn’t really sure “the third use” is a real thing (which is what I think the reformers were trying to say nicely in FC VI). ”

    There is NO doubt. Amen! That title 3rd use is a polemic much like Luther´s title for the Table of Duties was the Holy Orders. Both sections of the confessions are exactly meant to destroy what their title is a polemic against!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    bryan @50

    “By the way, I’m one of those wackos that isn’t really sure “the third use” is a real thing (which is what I think the reformers were trying to say nicely in FC VI). ”

    There is NO doubt. Amen! That title 3rd use is a polemic much like Luther´s title for the Table of Duties was the Holy Orders. Both sections of the confessions are exactly meant to destroy what their title is a polemic against!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    bryan @50

    BRYAN (I might have time to read that sermon tomorrow, or perhaps tonight).

    FWS That is a shame. It is one of only two Luther sermons referred to by our Confessions, as a basis for understanding the article that refers to it. And you have never read the sermon! And seem to think there is something better to do…. ok…

    BRYAN Instead, I suggest going to a any ol’ mediocre faithful Lutheran Church where you’re sure to be killed and made alive through the proclamation of the Word and stop thinking about doing so much (the do is supposed to just flow then, right?).

    FWS Yes and No. Gospel and Law. Old Adam in christian = doing is mortification. it is necessary per the confessions. it is effort. it only happens with effort. New man = it just happens.

    BRYAN Anyway, I still agree with the other caveats I mentioned before and I’m not sure what they have to do with us being clear on the 3rd use of the law

    FWS article VI is about law and gospel as new man vs old adam. it is not about a third use ala john calvin. reread it using luthers sermon as the template. you will be blest!

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    bryan @50

    BRYAN (I might have time to read that sermon tomorrow, or perhaps tonight).

    FWS That is a shame. It is one of only two Luther sermons referred to by our Confessions, as a basis for understanding the article that refers to it. And you have never read the sermon! And seem to think there is something better to do…. ok…

    BRYAN Instead, I suggest going to a any ol’ mediocre faithful Lutheran Church where you’re sure to be killed and made alive through the proclamation of the Word and stop thinking about doing so much (the do is supposed to just flow then, right?).

    FWS Yes and No. Gospel and Law. Old Adam in christian = doing is mortification. it is necessary per the confessions. it is effort. it only happens with effort. New man = it just happens.

    BRYAN Anyway, I still agree with the other caveats I mentioned before and I’m not sure what they have to do with us being clear on the 3rd use of the law

    FWS article VI is about law and gospel as new man vs old adam. it is not about a third use ala john calvin. reread it using luthers sermon as the template. you will be blest!

  • Porcell

    FWS, I see that you’re a cafeteria Lutheran of an antinomian stripe who picks and chooses among the Confessions and Luther’s sermons. You who lecture folk to stick to the Confessions for the straight Lutheran word. The Third Use of the law is crystal clear in the Book of Concord whether you like it or not.

    4]For the explanation and final settlement of this dissent we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that although the truly believing and truly converted to God and justified Christians are liberated and made free from the curse of the Law, yet they should daily exercise themselves in the Law of the Lord, as it is written, Ps. 1:2;119:1: Blessed is the man whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, and in His Law doth he meditate day and night. For the Law is a mirror in which the will of God, and what pleases Him, are exactly portrayed, and which should [therefore] be constantly held up to the believers and be diligently urged upon them without ceasing.

    5] For although the Law is not made for a righteous man, as the apostle testifies 1 Tim. 1:9, but for the unrighteous, yet this is not to be understood in the bare meaning, that the justified are to live without law. For the Law of God has been written in their heart, and also to the first man immediately after his creation a law was given according to which he was to conduct himself. But the meaning of St. Paul is that the Law cannot burden with its curse those who have been reconciled to God through Christ; nor must it vex the regenerate with its coercion, because they have pleasure in God’s Law after the inner man.

    What could be more clear.

  • Porcell

    FWS, I see that you’re a cafeteria Lutheran of an antinomian stripe who picks and chooses among the Confessions and Luther’s sermons. You who lecture folk to stick to the Confessions for the straight Lutheran word. The Third Use of the law is crystal clear in the Book of Concord whether you like it or not.

    4]For the explanation and final settlement of this dissent we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that although the truly believing and truly converted to God and justified Christians are liberated and made free from the curse of the Law, yet they should daily exercise themselves in the Law of the Lord, as it is written, Ps. 1:2;119:1: Blessed is the man whose delight is in the Law of the Lord, and in His Law doth he meditate day and night. For the Law is a mirror in which the will of God, and what pleases Him, are exactly portrayed, and which should [therefore] be constantly held up to the believers and be diligently urged upon them without ceasing.

    5] For although the Law is not made for a righteous man, as the apostle testifies 1 Tim. 1:9, but for the unrighteous, yet this is not to be understood in the bare meaning, that the justified are to live without law. For the Law of God has been written in their heart, and also to the first man immediately after his creation a law was given according to which he was to conduct himself. But the meaning of St. Paul is that the Law cannot burden with its curse those who have been reconciled to God through Christ; nor must it vex the regenerate with its coercion, because they have pleasure in God’s Law after the inner man.

    What could be more clear.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    fws 50, yep. Have a family and like to give reading like that its due time.
    So, you’re agreeing with me? I thought so. good. Get back to ya later on the reading tip. And no, the Gospel doesn’t take effort. The mortification of the flesh – yes that takes effort. But its not the gospel – can it train us to hear the gospel – yes. But it should only be done in service to hearing the gospel and in the end resting in the Promise. Any other reason and its just a waste of time. Time for that glass of wine I was wanting. Doh!

  • Bryan Lindemood

    fws 50, yep. Have a family and like to give reading like that its due time.
    So, you’re agreeing with me? I thought so. good. Get back to ya later on the reading tip. And no, the Gospel doesn’t take effort. The mortification of the flesh – yes that takes effort. But its not the gospel – can it train us to hear the gospel – yes. But it should only be done in service to hearing the gospel and in the end resting in the Promise. Any other reason and its just a waste of time. Time for that glass of wine I was wanting. Doh!

  • Grace

    Racism lives… it dwells within every crevice of society. We live in an area of southern CA where most of the homeowners constitute half of the world countries, very educated but interested ONLY in what the United States can give them, ie: professional positions. They could care less about politics, unless it directly affects them, – they wouldn’t think of flying the American flag. Within this nucleus, there is is almost nil association with one another. Hence, no one knows their neighbors, except to wave either from the car window, or while walking our/their dogs.

    As Anglos, this has become not only obvious, but disturbing. We have reached out to many different ethnic groups, and so have other Anglos,…. only to be rejected. We have found that the dissention lies not with position but with our heritage. We find it wherever we go,…. whether it be a restaurant, business, store, manicurist, it all comes down to who we are in this country and what we represent.

    What I have outlined above has become the norm. The jealousy that once only appeared to germinate as a bad seed , has now spread, and its roots are well sown within the community that did not found our country or do they understand the sacrifice our loved ones gave, so that that THEY might have a better life, either in their country, or in ours.

    Racism has a fickle heart – it appears to side with those of the oppressed, but changes to engage the very peoples who would hurt the ones who gave the most.

  • Grace

    Racism lives… it dwells within every crevice of society. We live in an area of southern CA where most of the homeowners constitute half of the world countries, very educated but interested ONLY in what the United States can give them, ie: professional positions. They could care less about politics, unless it directly affects them, – they wouldn’t think of flying the American flag. Within this nucleus, there is is almost nil association with one another. Hence, no one knows their neighbors, except to wave either from the car window, or while walking our/their dogs.

    As Anglos, this has become not only obvious, but disturbing. We have reached out to many different ethnic groups, and so have other Anglos,…. only to be rejected. We have found that the dissention lies not with position but with our heritage. We find it wherever we go,…. whether it be a restaurant, business, store, manicurist, it all comes down to who we are in this country and what we represent.

    What I have outlined above has become the norm. The jealousy that once only appeared to germinate as a bad seed , has now spread, and its roots are well sown within the community that did not found our country or do they understand the sacrifice our loved ones gave, so that that THEY might have a better life, either in their country, or in ours.

    Racism has a fickle heart – it appears to side with those of the oppressed, but changes to engage the very peoples who would hurt the ones who gave the most.

  • kerner

    sg @30:

    You know, I wonder if that statistic about illegitimate births among Asians is strictly true. The fact is that a lot fewer first generation Asians are what we would call legally married than you think. In many Asian countries there is no such thing as a marriage license or certificate. The parties make a public commitment to live together as husband and wife, and nobody records a writing of this anywhere. If marriage, in the USA, means getting a license and making it legal, then a great many Asians, who consider themselves “married”, aren’t. Hence, their children are not legitimate.

    You could argue that parties to these Asian “marriages” should be considered married because in their culture this is a legitimate way to proceed. But if you do that, by the same logic don’t you have to accept the “common law” arrangements that other ethnic groups enter into as part of their cultures to be marriages as well?

    I mean, if moving in together, procreating, and raising kids means “marriage” to an Asian, why doesn’t the same series of acts committed by other races mean “marriage” just as much?

    The reason I bring this up is because, when we talk about culture and statistics we are talking about fluid systems and we are using terms that don’t always translate from one to the next. To draw conclusions from statistice, you have to be sure of what the terms mean.

    I’ll give you this, though. Cultures that rely primarily on fathers to provide financial support for their children are far more likely to be “patriarchal” than cultures that rely on sources of support other than fathers (eg. the government). Cultures that don’t provide a lot of non-paternal support for children encourage women to withold sex from men who won’t provide. Which encourages men to commit to providing. Which encourages strong family units. Which (I’ll bet you have the statistics handy, sg) produce pro-social children. Which in turn strengthen society as a whole.

  • kerner

    sg @30:

    You know, I wonder if that statistic about illegitimate births among Asians is strictly true. The fact is that a lot fewer first generation Asians are what we would call legally married than you think. In many Asian countries there is no such thing as a marriage license or certificate. The parties make a public commitment to live together as husband and wife, and nobody records a writing of this anywhere. If marriage, in the USA, means getting a license and making it legal, then a great many Asians, who consider themselves “married”, aren’t. Hence, their children are not legitimate.

    You could argue that parties to these Asian “marriages” should be considered married because in their culture this is a legitimate way to proceed. But if you do that, by the same logic don’t you have to accept the “common law” arrangements that other ethnic groups enter into as part of their cultures to be marriages as well?

    I mean, if moving in together, procreating, and raising kids means “marriage” to an Asian, why doesn’t the same series of acts committed by other races mean “marriage” just as much?

    The reason I bring this up is because, when we talk about culture and statistics we are talking about fluid systems and we are using terms that don’t always translate from one to the next. To draw conclusions from statistice, you have to be sure of what the terms mean.

    I’ll give you this, though. Cultures that rely primarily on fathers to provide financial support for their children are far more likely to be “patriarchal” than cultures that rely on sources of support other than fathers (eg. the government). Cultures that don’t provide a lot of non-paternal support for children encourage women to withold sex from men who won’t provide. Which encourages men to commit to providing. Which encourages strong family units. Which (I’ll bet you have the statistics handy, sg) produce pro-social children. Which in turn strengthen society as a whole.

  • kerner

    sg @ 23:

    I read the article and the alalysis of the statistical data, but I do not know if I agree with the author’s conclusions.

    Those conclusions are that: in schools where there are black students and white students, black students tend to do better. However, as the percentage of black students increases, black student performance may continue to increase, whereas white student performance decreases. The author asserts a “cause and effect” relationship between association with black students and poor white performance. Also a “cause and effect” relationship between association with white students and good black student performance.

    There may be some truth to that analysis, but I think it fails to take a lot of factors into account, including (dare I say it) racist factors.

    Racism is basicly a matter of perception (eg. the perception that “having black people around will have a bad effect on me.”) I think it is possible that this perception creates self fulfilling prophesies. For example, if the white people who value high academic performance the most perceive contact with black people to be detrimental to high academic performance, these will tend to avoid contact with black people more than any other sub-catagory. Whereas those white people who DON’T value high academic performance as much will be less likely to try to avoid contact with black people. Since those whites who don’t care about academic performance will be the ones who are more likely to remain in contact with black people, the academic performance of the white people who remain in contact with black people will decrease, not necessisarily because contact with the black students made them perform worse, but because the white students remaining in contact with the black students will be the ones who wouldn’t have performed that well anyway.

    I can’t prove any of this, but the statistics of the article don’t disprove it either. I have said on other threads that I believe that the perception of “good schools” is mostly psychological. Schools full of high academic achievers will tend to produce good grades and high test scores, and will then take credit for the performance of the students. You can read their ads: (99.9% of our graduates go to college!). Well, they all probably would have gone anyway, because they, and their parents, were motivated.

    The question is whether it is a good thing for society as a whole to allow all the highly motivated students to segregate themselves from the others. It can be argued that contact between students of varying ability levels promotes a sense of community that is lacking when subgroups know only others like themselves. But nowadays you see this only in small town and rural school systems in which everybody in a community all go to the same school. In large community, people pretty much self segregate along economic and social status lines. The well off lack any basis to understand why the less well off are in the condition they are. And the dysfunctional, who only know other dysfunctional people, have no knowledge that there is a better way to live, much less how to live that way.

  • kerner

    sg @ 23:

    I read the article and the alalysis of the statistical data, but I do not know if I agree with the author’s conclusions.

    Those conclusions are that: in schools where there are black students and white students, black students tend to do better. However, as the percentage of black students increases, black student performance may continue to increase, whereas white student performance decreases. The author asserts a “cause and effect” relationship between association with black students and poor white performance. Also a “cause and effect” relationship between association with white students and good black student performance.

    There may be some truth to that analysis, but I think it fails to take a lot of factors into account, including (dare I say it) racist factors.

    Racism is basicly a matter of perception (eg. the perception that “having black people around will have a bad effect on me.”) I think it is possible that this perception creates self fulfilling prophesies. For example, if the white people who value high academic performance the most perceive contact with black people to be detrimental to high academic performance, these will tend to avoid contact with black people more than any other sub-catagory. Whereas those white people who DON’T value high academic performance as much will be less likely to try to avoid contact with black people. Since those whites who don’t care about academic performance will be the ones who are more likely to remain in contact with black people, the academic performance of the white people who remain in contact with black people will decrease, not necessisarily because contact with the black students made them perform worse, but because the white students remaining in contact with the black students will be the ones who wouldn’t have performed that well anyway.

    I can’t prove any of this, but the statistics of the article don’t disprove it either. I have said on other threads that I believe that the perception of “good schools” is mostly psychological. Schools full of high academic achievers will tend to produce good grades and high test scores, and will then take credit for the performance of the students. You can read their ads: (99.9% of our graduates go to college!). Well, they all probably would have gone anyway, because they, and their parents, were motivated.

    The question is whether it is a good thing for society as a whole to allow all the highly motivated students to segregate themselves from the others. It can be argued that contact between students of varying ability levels promotes a sense of community that is lacking when subgroups know only others like themselves. But nowadays you see this only in small town and rural school systems in which everybody in a community all go to the same school. In large community, people pretty much self segregate along economic and social status lines. The well off lack any basis to understand why the less well off are in the condition they are. And the dysfunctional, who only know other dysfunctional people, have no knowledge that there is a better way to live, much less how to live that way.

  • Louis

    Grace – I’d like to point out to you that in my Lutheran congregation here in Saskatoon, we have people from the following backgrounds worshiping and fellowshipping in harmony:

    British, German, Eritrean, Ghanian, South African, First Nation / Metis. Some are first generation immigrants, some are from second / third / fourth generation immigrants, other perhaps much, much longer.

    I find you “Anglo” comments quite amusing, especially since a decent number of people here have as primary origin a non-”Anglo” heritage – I mean, just look at the surnames: Kerner, Erickson, Feldman, Lindemood….

    My own surname is French, though I count French, German, Dutch and English ancestors, and my wife has Dutch, Scots, Irish and Breton ancestors.

    And if you say Anglo, which do you prefer – the Celts (as in Briton), or the invading Saxons, Angles, Jutes or Danes – it is a fact that the Saxons and Angles were seen as the most uncivilised, brutish invaders of the Roman world. Or maybe you prefer the Normans, usurpers of Christian England, and descendants of those barbaric Norsemen? Or maybe you even mean Scots – which would place you as the descendant of the Scoti, which were raiders, or the Picts, who painted themselves blue, or the indegenous wild Celts, who the civilised Romans kept out by building Hadrian’s wall.

    Hopefully, you are getting my point?

  • Louis

    Grace – I’d like to point out to you that in my Lutheran congregation here in Saskatoon, we have people from the following backgrounds worshiping and fellowshipping in harmony:

    British, German, Eritrean, Ghanian, South African, First Nation / Metis. Some are first generation immigrants, some are from second / third / fourth generation immigrants, other perhaps much, much longer.

    I find you “Anglo” comments quite amusing, especially since a decent number of people here have as primary origin a non-”Anglo” heritage – I mean, just look at the surnames: Kerner, Erickson, Feldman, Lindemood….

    My own surname is French, though I count French, German, Dutch and English ancestors, and my wife has Dutch, Scots, Irish and Breton ancestors.

    And if you say Anglo, which do you prefer – the Celts (as in Briton), or the invading Saxons, Angles, Jutes or Danes – it is a fact that the Saxons and Angles were seen as the most uncivilised, brutish invaders of the Roman world. Or maybe you prefer the Normans, usurpers of Christian England, and descendants of those barbaric Norsemen? Or maybe you even mean Scots – which would place you as the descendant of the Scoti, which were raiders, or the Picts, who painted themselves blue, or the indegenous wild Celts, who the civilised Romans kept out by building Hadrian’s wall.

    Hopefully, you are getting my point?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    kerner @57

    I agree. So does the author of the analysis. He basically makes all your same points except one: racism as a possible cause.

    Racism to me is when one harbors ill will or actively tries to harm someone, even if only slightly, because of their perception of race. When you pay taxes into the big pot and are open to everyone and willing to give everyone a fair chance, that is not racism. It is also not racism to investigate the available data using the usual standard analysis techniques and just report the results.

    kerner@56

    On the marriage issue. The data is collected when the child is born. If the parents say they are married, that is what is recorded on the birth certificate. I think most adults know if they are married or not. Who cares what the customs are in their countries? As for cohabiting folks in the US counting as married, it is so easy to get married at the courthouse, if they don’t do it, it is because they don’t want to. They are not married by choice.

    The argument that the statistics are somehow way off is silly. It is the typical making excuses for poor behavior of some, while at the same time accusing those who exhibit good behavior of not really being so good after all.

    Why should we feel like we need to excuse or “understand” those with bad behavior and then turn around and accuse those who behave better of somehow cheating? Where does such thinking come from?

    The difference between groups is not 10% or 20% or even 50%, it is 200% and 300%. That is not some sort of statistical noise or error. It is a significant trend.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    kerner @57

    I agree. So does the author of the analysis. He basically makes all your same points except one: racism as a possible cause.

    Racism to me is when one harbors ill will or actively tries to harm someone, even if only slightly, because of their perception of race. When you pay taxes into the big pot and are open to everyone and willing to give everyone a fair chance, that is not racism. It is also not racism to investigate the available data using the usual standard analysis techniques and just report the results.

    kerner@56

    On the marriage issue. The data is collected when the child is born. If the parents say they are married, that is what is recorded on the birth certificate. I think most adults know if they are married or not. Who cares what the customs are in their countries? As for cohabiting folks in the US counting as married, it is so easy to get married at the courthouse, if they don’t do it, it is because they don’t want to. They are not married by choice.

    The argument that the statistics are somehow way off is silly. It is the typical making excuses for poor behavior of some, while at the same time accusing those who exhibit good behavior of not really being so good after all.

    Why should we feel like we need to excuse or “understand” those with bad behavior and then turn around and accuse those who behave better of somehow cheating? Where does such thinking come from?

    The difference between groups is not 10% or 20% or even 50%, it is 200% and 300%. That is not some sort of statistical noise or error. It is a significant trend.

  • kerner

    sg:

    I’m not accusing them of bad behavior. I’m just telling you that a very significant portion of southeast Asians in this country say they are married and consider themselves so, but legally are not. They have “cultural marriages” which are not recorded anywhere. There are “cultural divorces” too, which follow foreign customs, not ours.. Numerous times I have had to tell Asian clients to go to the courthouse and get legally married if they want some legal benefit that marriage confers, because they have no marriage certificate.

    It’s not that they don’t want to get legally married, so much as they don’t see any reason to. They simply follow their customs.

    You seem to see a great significance to these statistics, but all I am saying is that the significance is possibly less, or possibly different than you think. But I guess I should ask you directly, what do you think the statistics on illegitimate births mean?

    As to your definition of racism, I think “ill will” includes fear. Fearing someone because he/she belongs to a particular ethnic group, without any information about the individual, may very well be racist, especially if you exclude that person from institutions or opportunities that would benefit him/her because of one’s fear.

    While I agree that it is not racist to simply investigate statistical studies and report the results, I guess it has been my experience that different people often use the same facts to argue for different conclusions. @ 34 you mention the “obvious explanation” for the differences betwwen folks. The explanation may be obvious to you, but I would appreciate it if you would plainly state it, so we can both know what it is.

  • kerner

    sg:

    I’m not accusing them of bad behavior. I’m just telling you that a very significant portion of southeast Asians in this country say they are married and consider themselves so, but legally are not. They have “cultural marriages” which are not recorded anywhere. There are “cultural divorces” too, which follow foreign customs, not ours.. Numerous times I have had to tell Asian clients to go to the courthouse and get legally married if they want some legal benefit that marriage confers, because they have no marriage certificate.

    It’s not that they don’t want to get legally married, so much as they don’t see any reason to. They simply follow their customs.

    You seem to see a great significance to these statistics, but all I am saying is that the significance is possibly less, or possibly different than you think. But I guess I should ask you directly, what do you think the statistics on illegitimate births mean?

    As to your definition of racism, I think “ill will” includes fear. Fearing someone because he/she belongs to a particular ethnic group, without any information about the individual, may very well be racist, especially if you exclude that person from institutions or opportunities that would benefit him/her because of one’s fear.

    While I agree that it is not racist to simply investigate statistical studies and report the results, I guess it has been my experience that different people often use the same facts to argue for different conclusions. @ 34 you mention the “obvious explanation” for the differences betwwen folks. The explanation may be obvious to you, but I would appreciate it if you would plainly state it, so we can both know what it is.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    No marriage certificate is required to prove you are married when you fill out info on a birth certificate. The legal technicality you describe is irrelevant to this particular set of statistics. I get your point that in the US marriages are officially registered with the state and other places they aren’t, but it doesn’t change the fact that the people are married and act like they are married and do so publicly with all the usual married behavior. Simply put they are married. They come from different cultures but are not so clueless that they don’t know if they are married.

    As for the fear angle on racism, I think that it is normal for people to fear when there is reason. If one group has a crime incidence rate 5x, 10x or 20x that of your own group, then it is reasonable fear in some cases. It is atrocious to expect people to wantonly disregard their own safety. Obviously, this is not much of a factor in many situations like hiring, because the individual applies for job, so one knows something about him.

    “Fearing someone because he/she belongs to a particular ethnic group, without any information about the individual, may very well be racist, especially if you exclude that person from institutions or opportunities that would benefit him/her because of one’s fear.”

    Uh huh. What if you don’t exclude such folks in spite of fear or unease or whatever, rather give them every benefit of the doubt and support and encouragement? Are you still a racist that is somehow holding them back? I mean, how many extra miles do you have to go for them, that you don’t do for those in your own group, in order to prove you are not abusing them in some secret way?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    No marriage certificate is required to prove you are married when you fill out info on a birth certificate. The legal technicality you describe is irrelevant to this particular set of statistics. I get your point that in the US marriages are officially registered with the state and other places they aren’t, but it doesn’t change the fact that the people are married and act like they are married and do so publicly with all the usual married behavior. Simply put they are married. They come from different cultures but are not so clueless that they don’t know if they are married.

    As for the fear angle on racism, I think that it is normal for people to fear when there is reason. If one group has a crime incidence rate 5x, 10x or 20x that of your own group, then it is reasonable fear in some cases. It is atrocious to expect people to wantonly disregard their own safety. Obviously, this is not much of a factor in many situations like hiring, because the individual applies for job, so one knows something about him.

    “Fearing someone because he/she belongs to a particular ethnic group, without any information about the individual, may very well be racist, especially if you exclude that person from institutions or opportunities that would benefit him/her because of one’s fear.”

    Uh huh. What if you don’t exclude such folks in spite of fear or unease or whatever, rather give them every benefit of the doubt and support and encouragement? Are you still a racist that is somehow holding them back? I mean, how many extra miles do you have to go for them, that you don’t do for those in your own group, in order to prove you are not abusing them in some secret way?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X