Trump, who packs rallies despite somehow losing the last election, took the stage again in Butler, Pennsylvania.
Nearby another man crawls on a roof top, a rifle in his hands, takes aim and he pulls the trigger. He missed his mark, but continues to fire, one bullet fired striking a person in the crowd, killing them instantly, another hit the former President who drops.
Thomas Matthew Crook was only 20-years-old. His entire life he has been propagandized by a partisan media blinded by rage. After the dismal debate performance of Joe Biden, a heroic old man fighting till his last breath for the good of the country he loved, great fear gripped this young man. The evil Drumfler would ascend to power again!
And this time, as the headlines screamed in warning and even Biden himself claimed in the debate, Trump would be out for revenge—which would lead to a literal bloodbath.
Worse yet, the justice system that a month back would never make an error in regards to charges against Trump, suddenly gave way to a Supreme Court that wants Trump to be a dictator! This gullible young mind absorbed the hysteria.
Voting would not be enough!
No, Crook wasn’t going to leave the future of the nation in the hands of fate. Women depended on him. Black people too. Gays and lesbians as well. The time for talk was over, Trump and his MAGAt minions needed to be stopped and he was prepared to lay down his life for the good of his country to put an end to this threat. If the courts could not stop Trump, if Biden couldn’t, then the only option left was a rifle.
If only someone could have talked some sense into him. If only he had gone outside the ‘mainstream’ corporate news bubble or considered other possibilities.
Had he done this he would’ve have learned Trump is liberal, a New York businessman with an immigrant mother and married to a foreign born wife, who (despite gesturing to Evangelicals) has the morals of Bill Clinton and is therefore not remotely interested in implementing the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 25” conservative fever dream.
Trump is actually a disappointment to the right-wing, he banned bump stops and has a centrist platform when you stop taking the Democrat claims as fact or the full truth. It isn’t like he’s going to bring back slavery or force women to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. He’s a fiscal conservative who supports bringing manufacturing jobs back and likes trolling on social media. That’s it. He’s not a fascist. He won’t ban abortion (which he says should be up to states) nor is he any more evil than those who falsely accuse him for their own gain.
Crook came within millimeters of his target, which is quite impressive for 150 meters, but will be remembered as a brainwashed fool who mistook rhetoric for reality.
He may have actually secured a second term for Trump when most people take a step back and realize that the extremists might be on the side of the leftist media—that initially had responded to the assassination attempt by playing it off as popping noises and Trump falling down.
Reprehensible misreporting!
It is time to start seeing through this nonsense.
If Trump were literally Hitler, the President Biden would not have come out against the shooter. No, he would’ve lamented the bad aim and reiterated the bullseye statement he made just days ago. Instead he is now pulling ads and admitting that the show has gone too far after his opponent was nearly killed. Ironically, for a brief moment, Biden has looked very presidential.
Too bad Crook didn’t realize that he was a pawn in a manipulation game before he executed on the plan.
After reading a review of Gran Torino, a Clint Eastwood movie from 2008, that dismissed it as shallow in its exploration of racism, I’ve decided to explore some of the depth of the movie that was missed. It was a great story about finding common ground, that takes a bit of twist at the end from the typical Clint Eastwood film. My family (mixed race and culture) could appreciate the themes more than the average viewer—yet is a beautiful redemption story that all people can enjoy as well.
“Get off my lawn!'”
The story is about an angry old man who is not dealing well with change. Walter ‘Walt’ Kowalski, a Polish-American retired auto worker, Korean War veteran, and recent widower—his beloved wife passing right before the start of the narrative.
In the opening frame, he fits a stereotype of an elderly homeowner defending their patch of turf from an encroaching world. It seems every small town has one. That guy who trims his front lawn with scissors and does not deal well with the trespasses of the younger generation, the snarling “get off my lawn” line from the movie became an instant meme.
Why?
It is just too familiar.
The expression captures the essence of a fading dream. The American middle class values property ownership. A lawn, once a complete luxury and exclusively for wealthy estates, had become the mark of post-WW2 affluence. Walt was the beneficiary of this period of economic growth. He had lived a quintessential suburban life.
But now it had become a nightmare. It is not the same neighborhood anymore. The once tidy little homes, owned by people like him, had fallen into disrepair as a new group of immigrants took over. The woman who he built a home with was gone. His sons bought foreign brand vehicles and betrayed the legacy their father had built working at Ford. The world Walt had known was falling apart and he was bitter.
That patch of land, other than the ghosts of his past, was all Walt really had left. To set foot on it was to violate his sacred space. It was a shrine. And his 1972 Gran Torino in the garage likely represented the pinnacle of his productive career. Since the Korean War ended in 1953, this would put this car purchase around two decades into civilian life with a young family and point when the future looked bright. So he was clinging to what was left of his identity and willing to defend it with deadly force.
Demons of the Past
Early on we see Walt, the tough guy, who is playing a part. His racist language is a part of the facade—a barrier he puts up—because the alternative is to be vulnerable—or a victim. He is still haunted by his war experience, in the beginning using it as a threat, saying he could kill without remorse:
“Yeah? I blow a hole in your face and then I go in the house… and I sleep like a baby. You can count on that. We used to stack fucks like you five feet high in Korea… use ya for sandbags.”
However, later, when it comes to stopping the neighbor boy from taking revenge, we see the reality under the surface:
“You wanna know what it’s like to kill a man? Well, it’s goddamn awful, that’s what it is. The only thing worse is getting a medal… for killing some poor kid that wanted to just give up, that’s all. Yeah, some scared little gook just like you. I shot him in the face with that rifle you were holding in there a while ago. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about it, and you don’t want that on your soul.“
Just like today, where Russians are called “Orcs” and portrayed as subhuman by propagandists, racial and ethnic slurs were used against various Asian enemies of US policy in the region. But for Walt, he knew better, he knew that it was not a demon at the receiving end of his rifle. He had murdered a human child and he felt immense regret. Note how he says “poor kid” rather than all of the racist terms he used freely throughout his conversations. It is almost as if, up to this point, he had to reinforce the dehumanizing descriptions to keep ahead of his shame. The truth is Walt didn’t sleep like a baby. No, he was running his sins his entire life and exhausted.
War propaganda then and now. Enemies are always portrayed as evil and subhuman.
Walt’s racism was part of his pretty much equal-opportunity disdain for other people, including the young parish priest, and his own family. He was a broken and hurting man, who had driven away his children and was hiding his own terminal illness. What he needed was some compassion, a safe place where he could finally let his guard down, and it was the persistent effort of a young Hmong neighbor that finally broke through his wall of insults.
Finding Common Ground
The review, that sparked my response, tried to overlay a “white savior” trope on the story and completely missed that it was Walt who was being saved!
*spoiler alert*
Yes, ultimately, Walt sacrificed himself for the sake of the Asian family next door. But this only after Sue, played by an actual Hmong actress (some critics panned the amateurism, others praised), went above and beyond to disrupt his dismal world.
She was his savior.
It was by her effort that he would face the demons of his past and could be at peace with his Creator. It was a redemption story, a story of an old man who had lost his wife, lost his children, lost his religion and even lost his neighborhood, but finds life again by learning to love his enemies.
I can feel this character. My own life didn’t go as planned. I had to leave the religious culture where my hopes had been built. I had a beautiful Asian woman who was patient with me while I was still lost in delusion and did not give up when times were difficult. Now we have a blended-culture home. Yes, my Filipino wife and son are different from me in many regards. However, after seven years of knowing each other and now over a year of being married, our love has only continued to grow. Some of my happiest moments were with her family in the Philippines and recently while visiting her relatives in Canada.
I am Walt.
My ‘Sue’ did save me.
The real story of Gran Torino is an old man who finds more common ground with those he had thought were strange than he does with his own children. Once Walt had got past the superficial differences he realized he had more connection to these Hmong people than many who looked like him. Unlike the war, he was now defending real people and not political ideologies. He was fighting for the local community, against those within who are destroying it, and not gunning down random boys thrown into a conflict not truly their own. The storyline is a comparison between perspectives and shows us what really matters in the end.
It is about relationships, not race.
It is about building bridges.
The ongoing dialogue between Walt and his priest demonstrates this. The priest, who is of European descent based on appearance, is at first scoffed at by the grizzled military veteran for his youthfulness. The baby-faced “Padre” is bluntly rejected by him:
“I think you’re an overeducated 27-year-old virgin who likes to hold the hands of superstitious old ladies and promise them everlasting life.“
But, despite this insult, Father Janovich will not go away. And eventually, with his persistence, he does earn the respect of Walt. The bond, built over a few beers, culminates with Confession and Walt is finally able to have the guilt that had plagued him since Korea absolved. Now he is free and at peace, ready for a last act that goes contrary to expectations and confirms the redemptive arc.
It was faith that saved Walt, both that of the young woman who withheld judgment and didn’t allow his wall of nastiness to stop her and finally of the persistent outreach of the Church. And it is only because of this concerted effort that we get to see the protagonist do what is right. By the end of the film, Walt has overcome those demons driving his anti-social behavior and also has gained a son worthy of his prized Gran Torino.
Now To Review the Reviewer…
Why did the critic miss the obvious?
The reviewer who inspired me to write my own was projecting their own worldview onto the script. Eastwood is a rare conservative Hollywood producer. In fact, so conservative he spoke at a Republican National Convention and gave a mock interview with an empty chair, used to represent Obama, and he calls Biden “a grin with a body behind it.” Perhaps it is this that the review is responding to? But I think it goes a bit deeper than that.
The Marxist left sees the world as being a zero-sum game, or that for some people to gain others must lose, and thus everything is a competition for power. But, not only this, but everything is divided up into strictly bounded categories based on their skin color, financial status, or sexual classification. If someone cooperates across these lines then they are an “Uncle Tom” or traitor. So the themes of Gran Torino just do not compute. Asians are collaborators. Walt is an irredeemable privileged white man, he needs to be canceled—not humanized.
So, since we can’t have everyone come out as a winner, the only thing the woke reviewer has left is to hallucinate something color-coded and negative. Thus they see a movie that tells us to reach across lines of age, culture, and race as just another “white savior” trope. It is bizarre, such a narrow and distorted perspective, to entirely miss everything and then to insert what is not actually there. Yes, Walt saves, but in the context of others saving him, and that’s not even the point. The point of is that color (or age) doesn’t matter, finding our common ground and community does.
Gran Torino isn’t a perfect movie. It may go a bit overboard with ethnic slurs at times. But, then again, the comedic relief of the barber and Walt exchanging these insults as terms of endearment is also great commentary. Why do we let words be “violence” when the same utterances can be laughed at in another context? It is because these words have the power we give them. What this is suggesting is that we can go further when we reframe the conversation.
The left wants to believe that our behavior is determined by what others have done to us—Eastwood says we can be free to live above their rules.
Politics may be all about power, in-group and out-group, but love overcomes all.
A frequent complaint of Western men (who were burned) in a relationship with a Filipino woman is that she was only ever interested in his money and not truly in love. I mean, it couldn’t possibly be that he was an entitled and whiny beach who expected her undying adoration while producing minimal returns, right? She was supposed to love them like their dear mother who had let them live in the basement rent free for thirty years!
And you think I’m exaggerating.
Part of the problem (which is not a problem for those who understand the arrangement) is age-gap. My wife and I have a difference in age that is normal or within several years of each other. But frequently there is a gap of decades in these pairings and these men marrying women that are young enough to be their daughter (or granddaughter) don’t seem to get that she didn’t marry him for his charm or charisma. She is hoping for a bit of financial security and her happiness will depend on his ability to deliver.
Many are aghast that Bill Belichick, 73 years old, would dare to enter into a romantic relationship with a 23 year old Jordan Hudson. They say what business does a man his age have to date this young woman? Isn’t it exploitative, an illegitimate relationship? But they hate it because it exposes the reality of love. Sure, the young cheerleader and old coach is extreme on the age scale. And yet how is it any different from a 5′ tall 100lb female who picks a 220lb 6′ male rather than a guy that is her own size?
Is this gross?
Women Instinctively Marry Up
We all love those “living on a prayer” stories about two people surviving together against the odds. And certainly there is an element of this type of spirit that we will needed to sustain love through thick and thin. But, as my wife put plainly in our discussion of this, “You can’t live on just love.” The practical is not as glamorous, we prefer not to see the crude mechanics that are always working beneath the surface. And yet a man must deliver if he wants to have her adoration for more than the first year of marriage.
We don’t hear anything about Joseph when Jesus was an adult. He’s already out of the picture. And it is probably because he was older (maybe a widower) when he married Mary, a teenager, and died. Traditionally an older and thus more established man was considered to be safer. He already had his land and house. He could provide support for her children and had a reputation going before him that younger men did not. Why take a chance on an unknown commodity when there’s man who can afford to care for his new bride?
And despite the egalitarian push in the West women still want to marry up. High earning educated women do not lose this tendency towards hypergamy. Sure, maybe they will settle for less, but prefer the man who can provide more. This, incidentally, is why my pursuit of the impossibly failed, as she put, “You’re thirty years old living in Milton.” Or, in other words, I lacked the size of ambition and type of social status she was into. And, shallow as it sounds, this is just the honest truth. Men marry youth and beauty, women marry size, strength and status.
Potential Drives Attraction
Young women marry the poor young man’s potential, but all want financial security and physical protection. While men, no matter how old or pious, appreciate women who of fertile age. Men marry her potential to bear children. This is reproductive instinct. Even if both parties in a sexual relationship are not consciously interested in offspring—this is what drives their behavior.
He provides, she nurtures.
While the Belichick and Hudson pairing did raise my eyebrows and likely would not be possible if he wasn’t worth 70 million. I’m also guessing they do have a few points of compatibility. It is possible, you perverts, that they really do enjoy logic that much and have stimulating intellectual intercourse. In the end, it doesn’t matter if your ideal says otherwise, you’ll always need to give something in order to get—nobody is going to fall in love with you for simply existing.
Whether it is paid in cash up front or in IOUs of our future potential, we all must pay the bride’s dowry or move on. If you’re old or ugly it is going to take a lot of money for her (and her family) to make her interested. Only the young men can win by promising her the moon. Of a certain age and you will need to deliver those goods up front.
Hide this reality under layers of your storybook romantic fantasies and feelings of meant to be—love is transactional.
Identity is fluid, a physical characteristic is not. I had identified as being “Mennonite” for many years of my life. It was not much of a choice for me. Raised in a Mennonite home, participated in a Mennonite church, and had internalized the values, the belief system, etc. Mennonite was simply what I was and it still remains by ethnic/cultural background. Leaving the community does not mean I’ll escape the genetic realities of my birth tribe.
Is an identity surface level or deeper?
There was many of these labels that have to do with our social status, some we pick and others are picked for us. In school if you’re into sports, hang out with other athletes, it is going to get you a “jock” designation and likely also stereotype applied with that. Likewise, if were to wear a particular wardrobe to conform with a group of self-described non-conformists then you’re Goth or Emo. People tend to coagulate into identity group—they find others who are like them and also become more like those whom they identify with.
But there’s a huge difference between these identities built around how we dress or who we associate with and those like eye color, bone structure or genitalia. Sure, someone can dye their hair purple and claim that they are an astronaut, but that does not change what they were born with nor does it make them qualified to fly a space shuttle. There are those ‘assigned’ categories that need to be objective facts rather than some kind of self-identity or cosplay act. Science needs to have clear definitions or the endeavor is impossible. And society simply can’t let you be a medical doctor because you feel like you should be a Porsche owner while you’re stuck driving a Kia.
Anyhow, getting to the point, a big problem with these conversations is that people are using the same words to mean something different. For example, Rachel Dolezal, the woman who identified as ‘black’ despite her being born a daughter of European parents and having their biological characteristics, yet she could be ‘black’ for many years. In my mind she can be both black or not black depending on what the term is describing—is it the genetic inheritance or the adopted culture?
I mean, think of Eminem’s lyrics: “I am the worst thing since Elvis Presley, to do Black music so selfishly and use it to get myself wealthy.”
Technically, if it is a ‘white’ artist doing the writing and performing, what is so ‘black’ about it? He’s performing in English. He’s doing naval gazing more common with the self-loathing European culture and his lyrics were about being some weird trailer trash hybrid rather than the themes common with the gangsta rap I knew growing up where it was at least presented as being something to take seriously. How is a genre of music a skin color? Asians are quite good at playing instruments and music first developed by the West—is that appropriation?
In many cases ‘black’ is not referring to something truly immutable. No, rather it is about a lifestyle, a set of values, a certain way of behaving and, by this definition, it is perfectly legitimate for someone to identify as black without African genetics. In other words, it is more like belonging to political party or religion than something someone is born. And this is how suddenly the far left can claim work ethic or nuclear families are ‘white’ despite the Africans I know being as hard working and loyal to their spouses as any other person.
It is grotesque, horrendously racist, when a political candidate tells a whole segment of the population that if they don’t vote for him then, “You ain’t black.“
Of course that was to intentionally confuse actual skin color and everything associated with it, with a ideology and perspective. It is to rob the targets (black people who think differently than him) of their identity and is a form of gaslighting. An outsider doesn’t get to decide what people should or should not belong. It is inappropriate and bullying behavior, this truly is the worst kind of manipulation, it reinforces stereotypes and denies the true diversity within a category of color.
So identity is fluid. We can change our own idea of what we are. Still, there are also the fixed points determined by birth, a physical characteristic, that even if the surface level manifestations are surgically changed and hormones artificially employed, cannot be chosen or changed. A man can behave in a feminine way, a woman in a masculine way, yet he doesn’t lose a Y chromosome simply for declaring himself a woman. Sure, he can have his male anatomy reconstructed to resemble the female sex. But there is more to being a woman.
Due to chromosomal abnormalities, there may not be a binary of male and female, but there most certainly is between female and not female. It is one thing for the man once known as Bruce Jenner to reject the typical male role and change his name. But that does not change the fact that he fathered his children and lacks the real hardware to be a woman. Again, Rachel Dolezal can act in a manner that is associated with those of African origins, even fool the NAACP with her outward appearance, but she is not truly African American.
We do not need to recognize every claim as being valid. I can’t just thrash around in the pool, march up to the podium and demand to be recognized as the winner of a swim meet without the necessary qualifications or actual achievement. Why then is it ever okay for someone with male genitals and body to dominate in a female category for simply changing his name and having the powers that be join him in his psychosis?
Changing your name and official category doesn’t change the physical reality.
It is a serious threat to civilization to attack the common language in this manner and it cannot be taken lightly. One person with a delusion is not a problem. However, when it is a significant portion of society going off the rails together then very quickly becomes dangerous. Matters of our preference and culture are subjective, what is feminine or masculine is not set in stone, but science and reason must be built on something that is objective. There must be a wall between identity that is merely social construct and that which is grounded in substance.
My wife asked me if it is normal in America to call someone “Hey!” Her coworker had used this exclamation rather than her first name. “My name is not Hey,” she thought, not verbalizing the protest. In her Filipino culture this casualness is considered to be impolite bordering on an insult.
It has been a big adjustment, coming here, to see how little respect there is for others, especially the elderly and the pregnant. For her, from her perspective, I should not use my elder neighbor’s first name. He should be “uncle Steve” instead, to denote his age rank in comparison to us. Likewise, she was shocked how expecting mothers are not given lighter duty, as they would be in Asian countries. However, tough as she is, she vowed that if an American woman can do it then she can.
But it really does say something about us that we can’t be bothered to recognize the status of others. Most people in the world, including our own past generations, realize that we come into the world and leave the same way. The deference shown to elderly is paying it forward, a recognition that we too will become old and increasingly frail, that we will need help. The use of honoring language is part of that care or setting them apart from those youthful and able.
We have sought absurd equality in the US, where people are all interchangeable, the incel ‘conservative’ says it is unfair for him to have to pay women for maternity leave and ‘progressives’ think biological men can be women with some nipping tucking and a change of wardrobe. Feminists, ironically, strip motherhood and natural feminity of its glory to prioritize the tasks that any human can do. Egalitarian aims are good so far as equal protection under the law, but when it becomes erasure of all human difference it isn’t so much anymore.
Concepts of social rank, codified in religious law like, “Honor your father and mother,” are a part of natural order. Social animals have hierarchies, a pecking order or status that is earned through age or abilities. This can be abused and yet the alternative of disorder is not an improvement. Why be honorable, for example, in a world where accomplishment or reputation is no longer recognized? This may be why we’re so afraid to age—we only lose abilities and gain nothing in return for the experiences we’ve had.
My wife also observed how her American boss doesn’t want to be referred to using a title of respect. It is as if men are afraid of rank, would rather just be one of the boys, and therefore are uncomfortable when the language of their status is used. This, of course, doesn’t change the authority that is wielded by a manager. No, all it does is hide this under a layer of obscurity and makes me wonder why we have become so afraid or ashamed of status.
This all adds to the comedy when Taylor Swift screams “F*ck the patriarchy” to her stadium full of adoring fans. A billionaire who got her start with the help of her rich Daddy pretending to be some poor little powerless girl, a victim of oppression, in a society where nobody wants to be called “sir” or “ma’am” (maybe due to ageism?) and attractive women have all the power—both feminine wiles and all of the opportunity for worldly wealth possible. Total buffoonery on the part of the pop icon.
Still, part of the deal with titles of respect and social rank is living up to your honored name. I’ve blogged against patriarchalism, that is the spirit of entitlement some men have and believe that those who want to be addressed in a dignifying proper way must be dignified. There is also a little bit of self-respect required. My wife is also aghast at how her female coworkers will playfully call each other “whores” and I start to wonder why we must be so degrading?
We all know a story about a little girl going to her grandma’s house and is confronted by a talking wolf who convinces her to go astray. But this written account is predated by tales with similar characters, and yet not exactly the same. In the end, no matter the version, we read it as being a fairytale and understand that it should not be taken as being a historically accurate record of an event. Why? Well, animals don’t talk and we were told it is an old fable.
I had to think of this while seeing so many fundamentalist friends share a false claim that Travis Kelce threatened to quit the Kansas City Chiefs if they did not cut the currently embattled franchise kicker. This part of the hysteria (both in response and in reaction to the response) over the conservative kicker’s commencement address that promotes traditional Catholicism. Normally it would be customary for these Protestant friends to bash those who believe in Jesus in the same manner as Harrison Butker. But, in politics, I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend—suddenly those who give special honor to Mary are now acceptable?
The problem with this Kelce claim is that it is as fictional as Little Red Riding Hood and being spread as fact. I mean, I would think that credibility is important to Evangelicals, being that their mission in life is to convince others a man literally walked on water and then rose from the dead because they read about it in a book. But nope, they share the most urban legends of any demographic on my friends list. For those who say that they know the Truth, personally, this should be a huge embarrassment—except it never is.
Those who have no ability to detect fakes or frauds, who spread blatant lies, really aren’t in a place to preach their values.
As much as I support Butker’s freedom of speech and think the cancel culture outrage over his comments is ridiculous, I really do not find a home amongst those who accept any claim that confirms their ‘Biblical’ views on social media. All it takes is a satire site say that there has been evidence of the Red Sea crossing has been found or that a solar eclipse is passing over seven towns in the US named Nineveh and they will spread these blatant falsehoods to the ends of the Earth because they can’t be bothered to verify the claim before posting it.
If the religious adherents truly occupied the high ground of truth why would they dare to risk their credibility?
Whether it is fake news or just exaggerated tales, that believers are gullible or in people in denial in the manner of a sports fan who can only see what promotes their team as good, the cost is credibility. A consensus of idiots is meaningless. I have no reason to think that prior generations were any better at sorting out the facts from the fictional BS. It is just disheartening, for someone who had hope of a marked difference between the faithful and the frauds.
The truth is that Travis Kelce (and his brother Jason) have come out in support of Butker. So maybe it is time for some professing ‘Christians’ caught spreading this malicious gossip to do what their religion requires, humble themselves, and repent?
Wolves will likely talk before these reactionaries reconsider anything…
The nurse pronounced baby as “BEE-bee” in our prenatal class and it got me thinking of how language develops. Words will shift to reflect their usage. The meaning eventually match with the reality when we attempt to disguise unpleasantness in flowery speech or try moral inversion. Cultural values will shine through and snap understanding back where it was prior to the manipulation.
How did “bAy-bee” become “BEE-bee”?
The latter evolution in pronunciation is cuter and therefore a better representation of the subject matter. The word never will change the thing it describes. Yes, words influence our perception, they also change to reflect a new understanding of the things that we are describing. For example, the word “baby” only changed in pronunciation for me when considering the little human now within my wife’s belly. It was no longer an abstraction or vague category, but a tiny vulnerable ball of loveable life.
When we experience something firsthand it is harder to deny what it is. We can use the terms detached and technical to distance ourselves from the emotional content. Say that a baby is just a clump of cells or some kind of parasite—up until the moment when we finally hold it in our hands. To keep up the charade after this would be delusional or psychopathic. It is not human to see an infant as anything other than precious. The political lexicon becomes irrelevant.
A Tangled Ball Of Words
Words trigger emotions. I was thinking of this as a tear formed while the instructor in a prenatal class described the ideal of “skin to skin” and a soothing environment. Some of this reaction may be feeling the weight of my wife’s pregnancy. But it also has a lot to do with my own identity as the “premie” and “fighter” who struggled for life. Discussion of baby care today compared to what it was for me. The thing is, while my experience certainly impacted my development, I don’t have memories of the trauma. It probably only looms large as a part of my personal identity because my mom told me what I went through and reinforced it. The I gave further shape and form to it by attributing many of my struggles to the events of my birth—everything from my delayed growth to difficulties with focus in school.
However, it is impossible to know, outside of creating a genetic clone, if I would have been much better off with a normal birth or with more human touch rather than being in a plastic box with ‘stimulating’ music. This had some impact, no doubt, and yet there is the bigger psychological complex I’ve built on top of this named thing. Like an irritant in an oyster, it provided a nucleus to attach all of my insecurities to and blame for my failures and shortcomings. With a normal birth would I have been more like my more accomplished siblings and less a mess?
However, it is very easy to reverse cause and effect to give ourselves an excuse for our being lazy and taking of exceptions. We become the label that we apply to ourselves as much as it truly describes us. We act the part. Things of identity, like race, sexuality, religion, are as much a construct or fantasy as they are facts. We live up to our name to an extent. My mom would often tell me that my name meant “strong-willed” and it might be one of those self- fulfilling prophecies. If we tilt confirmation bias in a direction it isn’t a big surprise if our character develops that direction. It is like strapping a young tree to influence where it grows.
In a sense, nobody is truly “born this way,” it is a statement discredits conditioning and culture too much. But the environment itself doesn’t make us where we are as much as those descriptive words that reverberate in our heads. A child that is called “stupid” by a parent or teacher may spend many years trying to sort through their doubts. My dad letting me look over his blue prints and then giving some affirmation when spotted an error made by the engineers is likely what led to my being confident in my abilities and a career in design. Our reality is influenced by use of language.
These are just personal observations, but it is also backed up by other sources that put it more succinctly:
Language is not just a medium of communication; it’s a lens through which we view the world and a mold that shapes our identity. From shaping cultural perceptions to influencing personal identities, language’s role is pivotal in constructing our social and personal realities.
Language is more than a mere tool for communication.
It’s a portal through which we perceive and interpret the world.
Imagine how our understanding of colors evolves when we learn names for shades we previously couldn’t distinguish.
With each new word we acquire, a facet of reality emerges from obscurity, offering us a richer tapestry of experiences.
The Dynamic Relationship Between Language and Reality
Neither of those sources are academic or truly authoritative, but do say what I’m saying in a different way and thus useful so far as my goal here which is to provoke thought. New use of language reframes the world. It can amplify our efforts and transform society as more people begin to see the world through the lens we provided. Memes do this, as do pounding of propaganda headlines, it is why “fact-checkers” exist—all to reinforce a particular narrative.
With so much power in our words there is plenty of reason for cunning and conniving people to exercise this for their own selfish ends.
They take advantage of insecurities and level accusations to shame or confuse the innocent.
Wordsmiths, they could turn a baby into a villain and murderer into a saint—beware.
His talk is smooth as butter, yet war is in his heart; his words are more soothing than oil, yet they are drawn swords.
(Psalms 55:21 NIV)
There are some use the guise of compassion to gain control. Their promises are about attaining power. They seek only to bind us and yet many people are blinded to these motives because their identity has been hijacked by these nefarious actors.
Categories Are Social Constructs
The structures and constructs of language are entirely fabricated. There is no person who is “black” or “white” by birth, no, rather these are categories we create, clans that we join, and always artificial divisions. We are often grouped by others using various label words and internalize the divisions as being inseparable from our own experience, in that we identify with other “rednecks” or “blue-collar” types as those ‘like us’ and yet also *become* like that. Nothing requires a rural person to use country slang or go buy a massive diesel pick-up truck, some of the markers of this lifestyle (chewing tobacco or dress) can impact opportunities. This is about politics, not genetics. It is about the strength of an identity group that helps us gain power for ourselves. Being a victim of an “ism” is a lever, a social tool or means to build a coalition against others.
The individual without these groups, that is denied the right to put their fist in the air in solidarity with others ‘like them’ is weakest and most disadvantaged in this game. That is the irony of the “systems of oppression” language. Those who describe this kind of problem are actually creating it more than they are simply observing. In the same way that observation in quantum mechanics is an influence of reality (collapses the wave function), the ‘study’ of human interaction is an interaction and is a product of our bias as much as it has basis in reality. Those who are concerned with the existing ideas (of racism, sexism, or heterosexism) steal attention (and thus disenfranchise) victims of systemic heightism and those who lack privileges in ways not discussed, defined or even recognized. The individual is the most vulnerable, a minority of one, and frequently abused by recognized groups. Bullies travel in big groups—victims are often alone.
1) “Language both mirrors reality and helps to structure it” (2). Explain and give an example.
2)Racism, sexism, heterosexism, and class privilege are all interlocking systems of oppression that ensure advantages for some and diminish opportunities for others, with their own history and logic and self-perpetuating relations of domination and subordination (3). Explain what this means. Do you agree/disagree? Why?
3)What are the economic impacts of constructing race, class, and gender?
Sandwiched between the lines of this effort to build awareness (indoctrinate) are a pile of assumptions that, in the end, only serve to darken these artificial dividing lines.
It is rewarmed class warfare rhetoric, Marxism, and is basically designed to feed envy or feelings of being an other and disenfranchised. No, this is not to say that prejudice or abuse is entirely a social construct. What it is to say, rather, is that their worldview, segregated by these simple binaries, is too compartmentalized and minimizing of other factors.
There isn’t one group of oppressor and one group of oppressed.
There is no hierarchy of victimhood.
Everything depends on the context or situation. A Jewish student that is harassed on a college campus because of the IDF dropping bombs on Gaza is not privileged in this moment even if they are ‘white’ and rich. Nor is it anti-Semitic to characterize the decades long campaign against the Palestinian people as an ethnic cleansing. Labeling terms like “terrorist” or “occupier,” while useful to an extent, rarely explain accurately and are dehumanizing ends of conversation.
The whole point of claiming the existence of “interlocking systems of oppression” is to make anyone who dares to question their narrow perspective a part of a monolithic enemy rather than an individual with life experience to be respected. It is truly the educated left’s own version of a conspiracy theory where anything they don’t like is part of some invisible system that can teased out of the statistical categories they created to emphasize identities based on color and physical features. If some in one of these groups lag behind then some other group must be at fault.
Building humanity requires the de-emphasis of meaningless boundaries and formation of bonds based on behavior. Skin color is not synonymous with culture or the choices one makes that shape their outcomes. Yes, we must identify mistreatment of people on the basis of appearance, but this isn’t black and white, nor is it oppression to apply the same standard to all. Indeed, some people are treated unfairly, but many end up being marginalized for antisocial behavior and yet claim to be victims of oppression when the chickens come home to roost.
Call A Turd a Baby…
Bringing this full circle, the word “baby” is cute (and the pronunciation of the word is becoming cuter) because babies are cute. The language of description is merging more and more with the reality adorableness that we perceive in a human child by our instincts. Using the word “baby” to describe an adult does not make them cute. Albeit pet names, used to convey fondness, do imdue the quality a bit or at least will hijack some of the sentiment that associated with babies. However, this is something that can only be stretched so far before the absurdity is too obvious.
In this regard language that is used in an attempt to counter popular perspective, or overrule accurate description, will eventually take on the meaning that it was supposed to erase. The language police can only temporarily remove a stigma (albeit never long enough to make the effort worthwhile) and it is because the unpleasant reality will always bubble to the surface again. In fact, “special needs” today probably carries more negative baggage than the use of the words slow or retarded in the past.
Likewise when a person is accepted at the university or get your job simply as a result of the particular identity group they belong to rather than only on the basis of equal qualifications this leads to an asterisk with the accomplishment—even when equally earned. New terms like “diversity hire” will spontaneously and organically come into existence as a result of need to delineate between identity and merit based. These, sadly, are far more damaging stereotypes applied to minorities who are outstanding by their own right.
Just as one cannot relabel a turd as a baby and expect people to cradle it once the truth is revealed, one can’t just apply credentials or distinguished titles to someone thinking this will change a lack of qualifications. It will only degrade the meaning of words and in the long-term will do nothing to solve the socio-economic divide.
Calling someone a fisherman and giving them a pile of fish is not the same thing as teaching them how to fish. You can’t simply declare reality as the left believes they can. Turds are only cute when the term is used ironically to describe something truly cute.
My son complains that he doesn’t get paid enough for household chores. He feels he is somehow entitled to everything that we’re giving him and more. It is a struggle trying to explain why we won’t simply hand him all that he wants. We have plenty, in his eyes, and can just share our wealth with him. But the reason we hold back isn’t our greed or that we don’t want him to have the best life has to offer. No, quite the contrary, in fact, it is because we want him to do well life that we resist the urge to coddle him.
What is coddling?
On the surface it is being overprotective and indulgent. It stems from distrust of another other person’s ability to deal with normal life situations and emotions on their own. And, while it may appear to be motivated by love or compassion, it only ever empowers those who keep the other confined to the bubble wrapped world. It is the devouring mother, the one who uses their nurture as a tool of control. They only care about the target of their efforts so far as it feeds their ego or feelings of self-importance. It is a virtue signal and degrades those coddled.
Bigotry of Low-expectations
Along with thoughts about parenting and the goal, some of the inspiration for writing this came from the governor of the state of New York, Kathleen Hochul, who declared:
Young black kids growing up in the Bronx, who don’t even know what the word a computer is, they don’t know. They don’t know these things. And I want the world open up to all of them, because when you have their diverse voices, innovating solutions through technology, then you’re really addressing societies broader challenges.
Other than to call this statement what it is: Bigotry (or racism) of low expectations and patronization. I’ll not pile on.
Many, like Hochul, are isolated. They have not spent much time in urban communities nor met the people who live there. From my own first hand experience her claim (which she now claims was misspoken) is absurd, none of the black I met were unfamiliar with or incapable of using computers. Many of my acquaintances there could afford to go to college and more credentialed than I am, so where does this notion come from that they’re hapless ignorant people in desperate need of government assistance?
The answer, in this case at least, is that it is hard to maintain a bloated state budget (let alone greedily expand it) without somehow justifying it and what better way to do that convince people that they need you to get somewhere in life?
Condescending political elites are not moral paradigms and minority voters are not stupid. I believe those pandered to know it is insincere and coming from someone who sees them as dumb. But they also understand it works to their advantage and don’t say no to it. We naturally take the path of least resistance and rationalize why we are deserving of the help. By playing up the consequences of slavery and impacts of racial prejudice, a little wealth redistribution (looting or theft) can be redeemed as social justice.
Unfortunately, low expectations produces what it is supposed to remedy, it gives an excuse to wait around for a handout and kills initiative. This contributes to racism in that it creates the impression that the only way some can compete is by lowering the bar or a double standard. It diminishes the accomplishments of those who knew what a computer is without the help of those in the the benevolent class. Now, because of politicians meddling, there is the question, did they earn it by being the best candidate or are they a diversity hire?
Woke is Weak
My conservative friends wouldn’t likely see the link between Christianity and wokism, but it is definitely there. The woke glorify the victim and reframe accomplishment as unearned privilege. For those who started a business, “You didn’t build that” they reason, and nullify the hard work and the sacrifice of those who followed the entrepreneurial spirit to success. Likewise, in church we’re encouraged to tithe generously and be charitable since it is giving back a portion of all that is given to us by God. The difference being that the woke want us to give to the government, the religious their own organizations.
And there’s nothing wrong with our helping those in need. I provide for my son and my wife as well. However, when I give I give to empower rather make them dependent and weaker. My hope is for my son to grow his strength and ability so that in time he does not need me to survive. And the same thing is true of my wife, she is my partner not my patron, we both contribute different things to the whole and neither of us is entitled to what the other gives to the relationship. It is how a real community works, we give and take as necessary, and we do it for the good of the common project.
Wokism, by contrast, is motivated by envy and pity, it encourages fragility by marking off space spaces and enforcement of strict language codes. Again, this strict regulation has a parallel in religious fundamentalism. Home schooling parents are terrified of the influence of the ‘world’ on their children. They, like the woke, overemphasize the role of the environment in the formation of the individual. The one exempts swaths of the population from the normal civil expectation (while increasing the burden on others) and the other thinks salvation of poor little Johnny depends on them. Bad behavior always blamed on an external influence rather than a lack of will to do better on the part of their designated eternal victims.
This is what Friedrich Nietzsche critiqued as being a hatred for life. When we remove temptation rather than ever teach children to resist it—when we are constantly vilifying strength rather than encourage it—when we follow after reasoning or rationality instead of developing our instincts, we are promoting the weakness of our society and degeneration.
Woke is weak. It attempts to foster spirits of ressentiment and forms an identity around a person’s fear of being disenfranchised for things completely out of their control. And in the end it destroys the incentive to find a way to overcome by our own means.
The Meek Shall Inherit
Neitzsche could be accused of painting with too broad a brush for the dismissal of the Christian ethic as slave morality and an opposition to the powerful.
The message of Jesus and his Apostles was, in part, freedom from those human laws of “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” (Colossians 2:21) and very nearly could be the “will to power” that the German philosopher championed once unpacked. Hedonism wasn’t the goal of the departure from “slave-morality,” the aim was instead for people to exercise will-power and resolve. In the same manner Jesus and St Paul preached freedom from the law that brought only bondage and death:
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
(Romans 7:6 NIV)
This is not to suggest that there is any kind of compatibility between the Spirit-led and the Übermensch. Nevertheless, both would have us abandon a lower morality based on restrictions for a pursuit of our own ultimate form. To St. Paul the Gospel means we are free from “the flesh” or the unbridled urges, while Nietzsche thinks we’re instinctively at our best, and both men are not opposed to impulse control. The big difference is that the Apostle’s answer is spiritual whereas the philosopher says that additional layer is not needed and morality a hindrance. Both would disagree devaluing the attitudes and culture that lead to success. Being master of ourselves requires strength and never allows for excuses.
Furthermore, the Jesus of the Bible wasn’t weak, he spoke with authority and we are told that he had power over all things, but he chose a meek posture rather than wield this power destructively. Now it is a matter of faith if you accept this or not. I could say that I could strangle Mike Tyson yet choose not to. Talk is cheap. But meekness is the ability to restrain ourselves. Having the power to impose our will is always desirable, nobody wants to be at the mercy of the elements or other people. However, sacrifice for sake of the next generation is better, to parent is to live beyond ourselves, that is why this is an instinct for those who have children, and it is the role of the Father.
When I wrestle with my son I don’t use all of my strength. I would hurt him if I employed full power. My goal is not to destroy him, he is not my enemy or threat to obliterate, but it is to train and strengthen him. I restrain to protect him currently and also challenge to protect him in the future. That is the real Biblical kind of meekness, it submission to the greater role we can serve as protectors and builders of civilization. It is the having all things in balance, which Nietzsche might agree, and using our strength to take on the burden of creating the future. We do not retreat from life. Faith requires the we go headlong into the fight rather than hide or be ruled by resentment.
Late-stage Protestantism
I can understand the campaign Nietzsche waged against morality in light of wokeism and virtue signaling nonsense. Apparently he was very well-versed in theology and did not find answers there. Which is correct, it is not intellect that brings us life, study for sake of study is vanity, and truth is more in the practical telos than in some theoretical construct. Nietzsche attacks rationality and reason as an end and those things do implode upon themselves when no longer grounded in a higher life-serving purpose.
The current ideological push for wokeism, and the mindless promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion at the expense of standards, merit or competency, is simply another step down the path of trying to eliminate all suffering and in the process destroying excellence. I want my son to face some hardship, even if it is only artificial, because his striving will build strength. It is the thought behind Proverbs 13:24:
Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.
Or, as Nietzsche postulates in Beyond Good and Evil:
The discipline of suffering, of great suffering – do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?
In the same vein, in The Will to Power, he wrote:
To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities – I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not – that one endures.
No, I don’t want my son to be last picked for his dark skin. And yet I also don’t want him to live in a world so sanitized that he’ll need to invent offenses (in the same way that an autoimmune disorder is the body attacking itself) then expects me to always step in on his behalf rather than face it. Success in life requires some voluntary submission or suffering for sake of our goals. Coddling and bigotry of low expectations does not serve the long-term benefit of children or civilization.
We need to discard this ugly paradigm of late-stage Protestantism. There are great men, powerful and worthy of our respect, then there are those in desperate need of improvement. We don’t help the latter by going soft and changing the requirements to make everything easier. There is nothing radical or reforming about the direction the church in the West has gone. This “have it our way” drive has led to a fracturing of the church, a consumerist mentality in worship and a new religion without obligation to the fathers or their commands.
Woke is simply the latest development in the direction. It is the child with imperfect parents now thinking they know better and don’t need the silly disciplines of their parents to thrive. Whether Anglican or Anabaptist, it is always about rejection of authority and the hierarchies established by the early church and originating with Christ. We think we can do better, that the home is better if there is equal with no patenting or need for development of conscience. In the end we get the complete agnosticism which goes further and to destroy everything the generations of faithful built for our good.
Attainment and success doesn’t need to be made more accessible. My son may think he deserves everything without effort, that we’re hoarding a kind of wealth just given to us and undeserved. But that’s his ignorance. There are no shortcuts to heaven and you can only keep the benefits of civilization if you continue to maintain the very foundation it is built upon. We think that we will be saved by technology and the vague notions of progress of those who think power comes from the stroke of a pen—but that’s not how we got here nor is it a path to a better future.
One of those fun things to do after church, as a child, when the adults had left the auditorium, was to go up and play preacher. We could mimic the motions of our elders in a convincing enough way to be funny and yet really had no idea what we were doing. And this reality would be quite obvious the moment we were asked a serious question.
Part of becoming an adult is the realization that many don’t really know what they are doing. Sure, some might enthusiastically perform their roles, and they have the necessary qualifications, but they either lack practical experience or simple aptitude. Not every doctor or engineer is equal, for example, some are more competent, and others—not so much. But none of these ‘professionals’ have an authority that should be unchallenged.
Reflecting on the priorities, and performative religion, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that some are really only concerned about looking the part and lack any real spiritual substance. It is disheartening when getting customs right is of greater importance than welcoming children. When leaders can answer on matters of trivia but are unable to offer any real wisdom or direction when it comes to the practical application of the clichés they preach, they’re phonies.
I’ve concluded that many participate in church as a sort of social club. And it goes all the way to the top. They have clout in the organization. They can wear the costumes and get the recognition that they so desperately need. But, in the end, they are empty vessels, a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. It would be better to be a child going through the motions, in play, than to take yourself seriously and offend the little ones in the faith. Jesus wasn’t talking about pedophiles in Matthew 18:6.
I ran across two stories the other day, one of them about a mixed race man who looks like a female and another about a child with ‘werewolf syndrome’ who looks like the missing link—in both cases I thought about the negative attention this brings. In the later case, given the current awareness push, a young man who looks very feminine faces presumptuous comments about his ‘transitioning’ and I wondered at what age this happy kid would realize that he was a genetic freak? School children don’t need to be taught cruelty.
While I’m certainly not on board with the current “I identify as” phase, I also am not for alienating or adding to pain others have from being odd. What I’m talking about is the exceptions who are the exceptions by no fault of their own. Starting with those who are visibly different, dwarfs, albinos, Down Syndrome, conjoined twins, chimeras, Klinefelter syndrome (boys and men with extra X chromosomes), intersex people (born with ambiguous genitalia) or Turner syndrome. There are many chromosomal abnormalities and many issues that do put some in a “none of the above” category that is apart from what is most common.
We accept that physical abnormalities exist, it is pretty much impossible to deny, but the controversy begins when someone who has all of the physical characteristics of a man demands that other people use a female pronoun to describe them or competes as a woman. Genitals don’t tell me what goes on in someone’s head. My wife says that I’m “like a woman” in how I am expressive and emotional. My little sister was a “tomboy” growing up. I suppose today that would be proof that we deserve special protection or rights? How far can we tolerate people who do not meet expectations for their gender?
You don’t need a biologist to tell you that men tend to have a very distinct advantage over women in strength and size. It is not fair or safe for women to be in competition with those born with an XY chromosome no matter how they identify. I mean, isn’t that why women’s sports were created in the first place?
And, contrary to what the “Muh rights! You can’t make me wear a stupid mask in your private establishment.” people think, it is perfectly okay for groups to exclude those who have willfully refused to conform to the established standards. Try to walk into any church naked. They probably won’t even let you get to your explanation about material making you itchy or how Biblical prophets ran around butt naked. We set rules. We define categories. We decide if those with Swyer Syndrome are men or women. Click the link and give me your own answer in the comments.
Include or exclude?
It is our cultural bent to be more inclusive of the exceptions. We are taught that we must show empathy and understanding for those who are “born eunuchs” as part of Christian love. Then again, the Gospels are a sort of square peg being fit in the round hole of Scripture and it is easy to comprehend why the ‘chosen people’ rejected Jesus given how he mingled with the impure.
Biblical Exclusion
One reason why to be sympathetic towards those Jews who rejected the message of a teacher who ate with sinners is the Biblical tradition itself and the system it established to exclude those deemed defective:
The Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the Lord. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord, who makes them holy.’ ”
(Leviticus 21:16-23 NIV)
And repeated:
No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord. No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.
(Deuteronomy 23:1-3 NIV)
Discrimination against the abnormal wasn’t only suggested or caught in a round about way be misinterpretation, but a command from God. Talk about a kick in the nuts (or lack thereof) for those already suffering an undesirable condition. Be born the ‘wrong’ ethnicity or suffer an unfortunate accident and you’re out. Not much of this is actually explained, giving opportunity for apologists to explain around it, but Christian religion (along with modern science) has certainly taken things in a very different direction.
If a woman is ‘barren’ nowadays we try to treat the condition rather than assume it is a curse from God. I mean, yes, the woman in the Philippines who had the hair covered son with ‘werewolf syndrome’ may believe that it had something to do with eating a cat during pregnancy, the popular notion of “you are what you eat” manifesting, but we’re not as likely to see it as punishment from God—we do not tend to attribute things blindness or misfortune to sin. It is harder to exclude those who are imperfect when you realize it could’ve been you.
Any more than I need to know why Islam is different from Christianity, where someone was clearly copying some else’s notes, I’m not going to attempt to theologically explain the transition from Old to New Covenant. It is clear enough that those who had lawfully been excluded, the leprose, lame and blind, Jesus healed. The result of his ministry two millennia ago was a wave of tolerance that started with his Jewish converts. Peter had his pigs in a blanket vision (while hungry out on the road) and now we eat bacon despite Biblical command:
About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
(Acts 10:9-16 NIV)
This, along with the Jerusalem Council, is a huge departure from Jewish Biblical religion and, again, it is no big surprise this new cult was rejected by the faithful. Even today some observant Jews continue the tradition, like that Orthodox chaplain who declared loudly as he took a seat (next to me) on a crowded airliner with mixed races, “I’m a racist and don’t care what you think!” My own cringe at this statement is born of an indoctrinated sensitivity, years of Christian influence, and not values arising naturally from thin air. Or, rather at least not without a sheet to carry it down from heaven.
Bacon To Bisexuals
The other day I saw a post, from a Muslim friend, and it listed the problems with eating pork meat, their unique parasites, what pigs eat, etc. Of course the winning comment was “but fried bacon is so delicious” and it basically for this reason why no Baptist will ever depart from pork consumption. If it is pleasurable to us, we do it. However, don’t dare use that reasoning with these same Biblical fundamentalists when it comes to things they’ve not be acculturated to. And not at all to say that bisexuality is now in that big blanket of tolerance coming down.
No, it is just interesting to me how Biblical law is largely ignored except where it makes sense to us. Don’t like tattoos? Well then it is okay to misapply those laws that pertain to specific ancient pagan practices. But if you like shellfish, then “freedom in Christ” exempts you from having to obey these outdated and irrelevant laws. The energy in the room is completely different when it comes to the violations of Scripture we’re unaccustomed to or don’t apply to our own circumstances. Sexual deviation is a whole can of worms that I’ll avoid until or at least until a good explanation of Swyer Syndrome is given to me.
One eyebrow raising moment, during a Bible study, while being brought into Orthodoxy, was when the topic of veiling (1 Corinthians 11) came up for discussion and how the old ethnic Russian priest dismissed it as being custom or cultural. I never had the chance to ask him about the explicit quotes of Saint John Chrysostom on the topic. But, like all things, what is important is a matter of our perspective. The cradle Orthodox follow after the mainstream of Protestantism as much as anyone else, whereas the converts from Protestantism are more strict about preserving Orthodox tradition. It’s amazing how culture influences our applications of Scripture.
All this to say that I don’t know where the precise dividing line is between pure and impure, acceptable or unacceptable. But believe there is much more value in being merciful as our Father is merciful. That is to apply the Golden Rule to those who struggle in ways that we can’t fathom or begin to understand. Where it was once okay to stigmatize and treat left-handed people as second-class or evil we now accept them and think it is strange it was a problem for past generations. There are many things that aren’t an identity we choose or a matter of “feel this way” (like a man who claims to be transracial) that require that us to show some grace.
“Ew, Brother Ew”
You’ve probably seen the meme. A Muslim preacher lamenting those who abandon the Islamic practices of eating on the floor and growing a beard. His comical expression of their disgust gets to the heart of what most of these religious do and don’t rules come from. There is a continuum when it comes to gender and normalcy, taboos change, as do ideas of what real men do. It’s funny to see how these standards have evolved over time. From the time pulpits had spittoons to the current time of rainbow flags, we are not the same as our ancestors.
There are natural aversions. We’re naturally disgusted by bodily fluids and it is for good reason. Disease travels in blood, saliva and waste. We are also attracted to beauty, the healthy form or good hygiene, this is about instinct and survival. Sexual promiscuity is also risk as well. So being grossed out can be beneficial if it protects us from negative outcomes. However, this can malfunction, sort of like an autoimmune disorder, where we can overreact and exclude on the basis of things that aren’t a danger to us. Bigotry and prejudice, like middle school fears of cooties, are often as sign of immaturity or lack of self-awareness. Attributing every unfortunate condition to a moral failure is not sound judgment.
Just because something is strange or ugly to us is not a reason to recoil. If a person is not trying to draw attention to themselves it is important to acknowledge their humanity rather than their odd appearance. We didn’t choose to be ‘normal’ anymore than it was a decision they made to be different. We do not need to pretend everyone is beautiful or affirm every exception as glorious. There is healthy, there is deformity and disorder, we can love the person who overcomes or does not give up for their character. It is possible for inner beauty to shine when we truly get to know the person rather than only see the outward appearance.
Irregular Ideation 