On Privilege

A black man and  a white man walk into a bar. They take a seat and each ask the bartender for a drink. The bartender asks each man for his story.

The black man thoughtfully responds, "My grandparents were slaves, but I'm thankful of the opportunities I have now."

The bartender looks at the white man who replies, "My family came from Europe, and we were poor farmers until recently. I was the first to go to college and became a successful programmer."

The black man clinks his beer with the white man's and says, "I design aircraft for a living. My folks always told me to work hard and not be entitled to anything."

The bartender asks, "But what about white privilege?" The black man grins, "Sounds like this fellow here," he gestures to the white man, "wasn't too privileged until recently. If I based my actions on the color of his skin, I'd be assuming he was better than me. It's not that I've never had problems because I'm black, that happens, but if I blamed a general population for it, I'd poison my own well."

The white man adds, "It's true. I watched black athletes pass me in high school and college. If I had let myself be angry at them, at any 'privilege' I saw, I'd be making a snap judgment. I'd stymie my own personal growth by basing my success on someone else's actions, especially based on the color of someone's skin."

At this point, the bartender is so confounded that he leans heavily on the bar, "But identity politics is so real, man!"

The black man frowns slightly, "It isn't that differences across race and class don't exist. It's what we do with them and how we respond to adversity in life. We can't just up and get angry at a whole group who has something we don't. It doesn't change anything."

By now, the two men have finished their beers. The white man gets up to leave and adds, "If I let identity politics control me, I'd be blaming Asians for being more successful than me at programming, because my classes were full of them. Sure, they had more money than me, most of them did. But I couldn't base my actions on their Asian-ness or their success. The real question was, 'How do I succeed despite having less money? How do I raise myself up to close the gap, rather than target someone for their identity?' And that's saved me a lot of loathing."

The two men leave. The bartender then realizes not everyone of a certain ethnicity or color has what is stereotypically associated with them. He begins to reflect on the problems of upward mobility in terms of economics, not just problems due to color. Perhaps, he reflects, it is better to know someone's full status before making a judgment. If everyone did that, there would be less snap judgments based on color or ethnicity.

Bakery Run

Introduction

Shoebat has posted a video that consists of 13 hone calls. These phone calls are to pro-gay bakeries. The caller asks for a cake stating that "Gay marriage is wrong." Why is this even a post? Isn't this an open/shut case? No. Not at all.

Because Reasons

The caller is trying to prove a point that I agree with: if an establishment wants to refuse to violate their morals, as long is demonstrable, it should be allowed. Gay, straight, Jewish, Hindu, fill in the blank. Whereas supply and demand function in economics in terms of product and money (to simplify), the ethics of economics are the same. So long as there is a demand for a particular kind of provider, it will exist.

So where does Shoebat go wrong? He trolls. Instead of leaving his point where the bakery refuses to make the cake with his statement, he starts asking "Why is this fair?" and then descends into more trolling. This is bad for various reasons. Besides his point already being made, two points come to mind.

First, what do the employees he called have invested in such cases of Christian bakeries being sued? Assuming that someone is invested like that is assuming. ASS-U-ME. That's a no-no in logic and discourse. If you want to prove a point, don't tick off the opposition just because.

Second, even if the employees admitted that it was wrong for pro-gays to be able to refuse service, but not Christian bakeries, what does that prove? It would prove that they're invested in their beliefs. If I, for whatever reason, was working at a pro-Christian bakery and Shoebat did this, what would the result be? So he's asking just to confirm that I think bakeries should be able to refuse service. I say yes. Result? The obvious! My investment in my belief shows. Nothing else is accomplished, certainly nothing worth noting, unless of course you have a website to get views for. That's why I'm shamelessly using it to gain blog posts.

Conclusion

Be smart. Don't go for the echo chamber, or in this case the inverted echo chamber. Just stick with proving the point and move on. Heck, this goes for anyone of any belief. 

Expanding on the UVa Incident

Introduction

I have many choices when it comes to false rape allegations. There's Lena Dunham and her crap book and claims, which as a side note, Game Informer recommends in its gifts section of issue 260. The urge to burn that magazine aside, there's also the UVa case that I mentioned previously and here in the title. Whichever I choose, I have come to realize that there are no penalties for false claims. Worse, the new definition of rape excludes some cases of men being raped. Due to the nature of this subject, I urge sensitive readers to turn away now. I use explicit language where necessary.
Penalties

It's pretty clear that the grand majority of the human race thinks rape is wrong. Still, here is the obligatory line saying that my intention is not to take away from rape victims, but to increase awareness and expose faults in the system.

As far as I can find, the only penalty for false accusations is for the falsely accused to sue the accuser. This is to say nothing of the stigma that will be attached to the falsely accused, at least until (if) he succeeds in suing the accuser.
Definition


The newest definition of rape is:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

according to justice.gov.

So what's the problem? Well, there's the ambiguous area about consent. If one or two people get drunk and have sex, can the penetrator be accused of rape? Per the definition, yes. The abuse this allows is appalling.

That aside, what about rape that isn't penetrative? For this example, I will be using Francis Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula. Technically the scene is alluded to in the novel, but it demonstrates my point less.

After being warned not to wander around the castle, Jonathan Harker does so anyways. He finds a room with a chest full of vials. While investigating, he hears the voice of a woman. Beckoned, he ends up surrounded by Dracula's three brides.

Once seduced there is obvious allusion to Harker getting an erection and subsequently having his blood drained in a sort of oral sex/vampirism combination. This does not fit the new rape definition, though I'm sure few would argue that it is, aside from assault, fiction as it is. In other words, a guy under the new definition receives oral sex against his will is not raped, even if it is against his consent. This is the same for a man who does not or cannot consent to conventional sex.

My Point

What I think is being overlooked in these situations is that sexual violation, being of sexual origin, is universal and thus requires universal definition. Man or woman, no one should have the law excluding them in these cases. While the cases I've made are few, that does not mean they should not be taken seriously. False allegations should carry a harsh penalty. As I see it, rape claims made on regret/revenge/lack of original self-control are too powerful, no matter their number. By accommodating those mentioned, real victims will not be disenfranchised.

Samuel L. Jackson and Eric Garner

Introduction

This post was originally going to be a short list of what needs to really be talked about in terms of Eric Garner's arrest and death. Before I had completed my first draft, it was brought to my attention that Samuel L. Jackson had made a video on the matter. It can be found on his Facebook page. 

My Gut Reaction

I have a confession to make before I continue. I have little faith in what Mr. Jackson says in racial matters. In 2012 he admitted to voting for President Obama simply because he is black. To be fair, he has replied to comments on his video stating that he's referring to any racist police. This encouraged me so I stepped back for a moment.

Where we this takes us

After talking with one of my friends last night, we came to a conclusion on the matter of cases like Brown and Garner's. First, before we get into claims of race we need to know what we're talking about. We need to look at crimes, who commits them, and against who. Likewise, we should do the same in terms of police action. 

According to census.gov, for 2013, Blacks/African Americans were about 13% of the population. According to fbi.gov, in 2013, states that Blacks/African Americans constituted about 28% of arrests. Whites/Caucasians were about 78% of the population with about 69% of the arrests in 2013. Proportionally, this means that Blacks were arrested about twice as often as Whites. See here for the breakdown of what the arrest was for and ethnicity of each. My point is that with few exceptions, whites were responsible for crime relative to their population. This is not the case for blacks, who remain about twice as likely to commit a crime.

What this doesn't tell us is if the arrest was made due to racism or not, as numbers are impartial. The best number that can be used is the one for violent crime. I say this because if violence is not vague. We're not talking about cases like Garner's. With about 39% of arrests for violent crime being made of blacks, this is means blacks are three times more likely to be arrested for violent crime. Unless there are a large number of arrests for violent crime that end up being false, I will use this rate to make a point. If blacks are three times as likely to commit violent crime, it makes sense that any profiling be done. 

Racism

I am not trying to disprove racism by my last section. What I'm saying is that the overtly racist cases among the police are like the overtly racist cases in any profession. We should not be surprised that they occur. They are outliers. 

What Mr. Jackson does is call out all racist cops. He doesn't disparage all cops, and for this I'm grateful. He doesn't make himself or his ethnicity a victim, something I've seen from the likes of Al Sharpton his sort, the race hustlers.

Where I'm Hesitant

I'm hesitant for one big reason: Eric Garner, regardless of police conduct, could have saved his own life. If he had complied, despite the silly law, he'd be alive. If he had taken responsibility for his actions there would be no outrage. I do not want to put words in the mouth of Mr. Jackson, as in this alternate reality, he may have made a video anyway.

Another point that comes up between me and my friend is, why aren't police equipped for these situations. Chokehold aside, where was a taser? I get that pepper spray was avoided due to the area. I'm not faulting the officers for not having equipment they didn't have. What I'm saying is that if we want to prevent such a scenario from repeating, we need cops equipped for neutralizing non-violent people. Unless we are willing, as a people, to support the police we cannot expect them to suddenly make up for situations they cannot control.

In terms of Mr. Jackson's video, I hesitate to endorse it because I cannot find racism in his arrest. I see a sloppy takedown and a man resisting, but no racism. The context doesn't work for me, but I agree with the message that we should all be against racism.

Conclusion

Even though I disagree with the context of his song, I'm glad that Samuel L. Jackson is speaking up. He skips the blaming and divisive tactics of figures in the media. Also, his message gives me a chance to get my points across, that even though racism still exists we mustn't blame whole groups. As a side point, with a wider range of equipment police will be able to incapacitate suspects that are not dangerous.

Down Time

Brief Introduction, in case you scroll right passed it

Due to the end of the semester and potential health issues, I have been forced to take a hiatus from this blog. Since I do have time now, I'll give my quick thoughts on some recent stories.

Michael Brown

Something Creepy

Introduction

As my profile says, I read up on many different issues related to Christianity. When I'm reading about "gay rights," one of the phrases I see the most is "I liked boys/girls when I was young," in terms of homosexuality. I'm writing today because after reading an exchange in Youtube's comments, the epitome of cheap entertainment, I realized just how creepy it sounds if the words are instead spoken by a heterosexual.

Seriously, Try It

Do it. If you're a heterosexual man, say "I liked girls when I was young." First, many of you will refuse to because it's an outright lie. Girls had cooties. But let's say you were like me, having friends of both sexes. What does it sound like? Now try it for the same sex as yourself. So if you're a heterosexual man, say "I liked boys when I was young."

Let me illustrate further. When I was in first grade, I was good friends with the girl that sat next to me in class. Even 15 years later, I can remember a field trip where I had no lunch to eat and she shared with me. She moved away after that year. The point is, we were close as far as kids go.

Now take "I liked girls when I was young" in the context of determining present sexuality and a heterosexual man. Does it not sound like a guy had sexual inclinations at that age by using that context? Let's remember, this is all in the line of being "born that way." The problem is, it doesn't make sense.

Two Options

This post can only refer to homosexuals using said line in the introduction if I want to be honest. Still, it shows how, aside from the evidence against "gay genetics*," how the reasoning fails. The first option I have already stated. That is, there are people claiming that their sexuality as a kid and at present reflect each other. Excuse me while I vomit for having to type "sexuality as a kid."

The other option is that it is an excuse and there is no link. If there is no link, then the excuse is moot. My ultimate point of this post isn't even about morality. It's about honesty. I highly doubt that homosexuals had strong enough, if any, sexual feelings as kids as to be able to decide on their sexual orientation.

To expand on my earlier point, I thought a teaching assistant I had in second grade was really pretty. So did a lot of girls in the class. None of the girls that I keep in contact with are lesbians. Not exactly scientific, I know. I'm just reinforcing the point that linking childhood attraction to current sexuality is stupid.

Try it Again

Now say "I liked (same sex) when I was young." It either sounds really dirty or mundane. In the general sense, the phrase means what most people think, having had friends of whatever sex in youth. Being around kids of whatever sex that you enjoyed playing with. Say it in terms of present sexuality, and you sound like you were a pervert as a kid. 

Conclusion

This isn't some proof or piece. It's not some treatise either. It's just my thoughts, using a bit of logic, to show how creepy it is when anyone says a certain phrase in a certain context.

*There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetic.

Abortion: Curtain Call

Introduction

As any of my previous readers can attest, I often blog while I’m angry. Usually I take to my blog to vent about a major issue that is important to me. My method is often a mix of logic and politics, and then I show how it connects to the Bible. Well, this post is different. This will be my first post calling someone out. Me, an internet nobody, will be burning someone a the stake to show what's wrong with a movement.


But who could it be? The CEO of Planned Parenthood? An author of a neo-feminist website like Jezebel? I'm out of examples so I'll just tell you: Abby Johnson. If you're not familiar with her, she was an employee of Planned Parenthood, saw the light, repented, and is now a major voice in the Christian pro-life movement.

Lest I sound as if I am referring to my own faith in the third person, I mean this distinction for a reason. The pro-life movement can be classified as religious or secular. The most active voices I hear under the religious banner are Christians, which makes sense due to the prevalence of the faith. In this post, I will be contrasting these two main branches, the Christian vs secular pro-life movements.


The Background

If you're familiar with both secular and Christian pro-life groups, skip to the next section.

The main pro-life message is "Life begins at conception." Indeed, the most heated debates are "What counts as life?" Is conception immediate? After the zygote is implanted on the uterus? The main idea is not to destroy potential life. After all, conception occurs but for some reason pregnancy doesn't occur, then that's that. The pro-choice logic of "Well you don't know," is begging the question. Generally, but not in all cases, this "wait and see" approach means things like Abortion and Plan B are out of the question.

The Christian message is usually "life is sacred, thou shalt not kill, Jesus loves you, please reconsider." Or some such form. When I see Christians back off from all four of these factors (or three if you combine the first two), I get anxious. It's the same feeling I get when Christians say to put aside disagreements on doctrine. After all, if putting aside doctrine was so easy there wouldn't be so many denominations.

Go to Abby Johnson's Facebook page. Scroll down if you're reading this at a later date to posts on 14 November. It's right there. I'll even quote the first sentence "If there was ever a time for ALL people of faith to put down their disagreements on religious doctrine, it is now." This is a problem.

Consider that Johnson is a Catholic. If I remember correctly, this means no contraception. So my issue is, what does putting aside doctrine have to do with anything? Some denominations allow contraception, but none that I am aware of allow abortions or Plan B. Additionally, as far as I remember, all denominations are against premarital sex. Catholic doctrine might have material from Popes and other high ranking members of the church, but the message is still the same across Christianity. This isn't to mention the dangers of ignoring doctrine.

It's always a bad idea to ignore doctrine because "set aside" really means ignore. We can't be ignoring the part about being pro-life by default as Christians, after all. I'm guessing if I went to a Catholic church, they wouldn't just set aside doctrine at my demand as a Protestant. There would be no point in being Catholic, or any denomination, if things could just be set aside.

This is all unless she is referring to other people of faith. Are we talking about the “not-mentioneds” like Muslims and Jews? Does it include pagans? If so, this is even less reason to not put aside doctrine. Unity in the pro-life movement is good, we don’t have to set aside doctrine to do it in any case, whether Christian and Atheist, Christian and Muslim, or any pairing.

The entire quote is either dangerous or vacuous. I'm not the FB status police, but there's more to this.


Problems in Paradise

I have taken the liberty of taking a comment on the thread of the aforementioned status (grammatical mistakes in original):

I think the focus needs to be more on not having a woman get to the point where she feels like she needs an abortion. we have no paid maternity leave. not a lot of single moms have a good support system (including child care and housing options). we shame moms who are young, single by telling them they should have kept their legs closed if they didn't want to get pregnant- saying nothing about the man who impregnated them. we tell our girls to say no, but not how to say yes with using protection, we deny our daughters birth control by insisting they take a purity pledge and when they suddenly end up pregnant- wonder why. we have girls who are in abusive relationships, parents who will disown their daughters over a teen pregnancy. women who are up over their heads in student loans who were raped at a party and can't pay their rent let alone raise a child. doesnt take a genius to figure out that socially we have a lot of work to do. instead of just focus on how to save the babies. save the women who have the babies.

It has some good points. Johnson herself liked the comment and replied that she completely agrees. It's the completely part that sent me into mental convulsions.

Maternal leave and support for mothers in general is a good thing. As a conservative, I want such matters taken care of responsibly by business that hire women, but I can see how the more liberal viewpoint is taken. If a business does give leave, it's usually not much. Method aside, the fact is that it's ridiculous to expect a woman to have a family and work the whole time, even while very pregnant. I have no fancy solution for this; I'm just saying I agree. The same goes for support and quality child care.

As for shaming single mothers, I agree that it isn't a very Christian response, which is implied in the comment. On the other hand, as Christians we're not supposed to have premarital sex. Period. Call it as it is. That doesn't mean you don't love the heck out of the single mother and her child and help if possible, but dammit, don't lie. I do agree that if a woman wants to have sex, she should use protection, though as you know I am against things like Plan B*. So here we are, already ignoring doctrine, as in the Bible, as in regardless of denomination.

This is the part where someone says "But Lu, maybe Abby doesn't agree with that part." To that I say "Great, then she should unlike the comment I reproduced, edit the reply comment to only agree with the relevant parts, and get rid of the doctrine part of the status while she’s there."

Moving on with the comment dissection, abusive relationships, being cast out of a family, and rape are touchy subjects. While I am firmly against all three, they are somewhat red herrings. If a woman is raped (God help the rapist, because I won't), or abused (same comment for rapists), I wouldn't want them to have an abortion. Why do we have to set aside doctrine to help them? And how can the person making this comment say how horrible abuse and abortion are, but say use protection? It’s a big mixed message.

May as well drop the Christian part and join the secular pro-life movement. Following the quotes I’ve used, that’s the bottom line.

Closing

If Abby Johnson means what she says, she should continue being Catholic but drop the Christian label from her work. Doctrine is core to Christianity and cannot just be set aside. If a denomination has to set aside doctrine to do pro-life work, it isn't Christian; the same goes as far as interfaith pro-life work.

Endorsement of the popular "If you're going to do it, use protection" is ludicrous. That's what non-Christians are doing with mixed results. It's a bad idea for a Christian and since methods can fail, it's a bad idea for pregnancy. In fact, proposing help sources for pregnant women and that old tagline about protection are the hallmark of the "They're going to do it anyway" approach. Isn't that what got us here in the first place, Christians or not?

Create the resources, yes, but be consistent. Be Christian, or don’t bother. Endorse opposing ideas (use protection vs don’t do it at all) and modern political correctness (put aside doctrine/our differences when it’s not necessary) and you may as well leave the church.



*The research says it doesn't cause abortions is from places like PP; it's not that I'm giving my view the default win because it says the opposite. It's that I'd rather be cautious about something so absolute.