New Rights
In August, 2012, then President Obama instituted by executive order a program we know as DACA, the "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" program that was intended to provide some relief for children illegally in this country to become legal -- work permit, green card, citizenship ... something. It was not a law; it was an executive order. It was not permanent; it was temporary. And in June, 2017, President Trump ordered it to be rescinded in order to have Congress make it law. As it turns out, President Obama apparently had acquired incredible powers in his presidency, because apparently this temporary program that lasted 5+ years is not a mere executive order; it is a right. At least, that's what Federal Judge John D. Bates appears to believe. I guess 5 years was not sufficient time for the DACA recipients to become legal. Apparently the president does not have the right to rescind an executive order. At the same time, it appears it is not the job of the Congress to make such laws defending such rights. (If it was, wouldn't the judge just order them to?)
I'm sorry; I just don't understand the United States government at all. I guess it's time for someone else to use our Constitution and Declaration of Independence (where rights are conferred by the Creator rather than the Judicial Branch). We don't appear to be using them.
Hate Speech
This week Facebook, YouTube, and iTunes all pulled Alex Jones's InfoWars channel from their pages, citing "hate speech" as the issue. Spotify removed him last week.
I would not even begin to defend Alex Jones against the accusation. I think he is indefensibly hateful. I just need to point out that we've become so vague in our definition of "hate speech" (USLegal.com defines it as "any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.") and what we find offensive while conversely ignoring clear hate speech, for instance, against Christianity that I'm not sure how to proceed on all this "hate speech" stuff. I mean, wouldn't "hate speech" imply ... you know ... hate? But if someone, say, quotes Scripture out of genuine concern and love for others, they can be fined or jailed in Canada for "hate speech" ... without any actual hate involved. I don't think we have any sort of handle on the term even though we're all pretty sure we know what it is.
Hierarchy of Sympathy
Kristi Hanna is a former paramedic who is struggling with lingering effects of sexual abuse. She went to a Toronto shelter for female recovering addicts and was forced to share a small double room with a "pre-operative male-to-female transgender person." She filed a formal complaint. Ontario's Human Rights Legal Support Centre told her that, "by describing her new roommate as a 'man,' Hanna was the one engaged in illegal discrimination." The victim of sexual abuse now becomes the criminal for recognizing that a person with male genitalia is a male. He had facial hair and spoke at their communal dinner about an ex-wife and a pregnant fiancé and about how some woman was "hot," but she's the one practicing illegal discrimination.
Here we see the hierarchy of sympathy. Women are currently high on the list. If the dispute is between a male and a female, the female typically wins in the public view. But transgender is higher. "You were sexually traumatized? Too bad. This guy feels like he's a girl, so get over it."
Signs of the Times
The New York Times reports that the entire top leadership of Willow Creek Church has resigned over the accusations of sexual harassment against Bill Hybels, the church's founding pastor. The leadership includes the lead pastor, Rev. Heather Larson, and the board of elders, including Missy Rasmussen and Pam Orr. They apologized for not listening to the accusers. They did not indicate why it was that the church was putting women in positions Scripture said it shouldn't, but I'm sure aligning with God's Word isn't really the big issue of the day. And the fact that the church applauded when the entire leadership (Their lead teaching pastor resigned on Sunday.) stepped down is disturbing. Signs of the Times.
Truth in Media
In a startling and refreshing moment of honesty, the New York Times is changing its name to The Double Standard amidst the heavy criticism of recent hire Sarah Jeong. They have attacked racism regularly, but now admit that being a racist against those whom they wish to target is perfectly suitable. The name change reflects the principle.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
11 comments:
I've noted since at least my high school years, only whites can be racist and only white males can be sexist. Since then, minority racism/sexism was ignored as not existing and has grown to be applauded and encouraged. A lot of my co-workers listen to rap. In our culture of anti-sexism, how is this music still mainstream? Because they're minorities, and minorities can't be sexist. Double standards abound in our culture, and for some reason, people seems to notice.
Double standards indeed. Thou sayest truly.
I'm sure that it wasn't only one reader that misunderstood my point in the Hate Speech story. I mentioned "clear hate speech ... against Christianity." That was not a complaint. 1) We are promised to be hated (John 15:18). We're told it's a blessing (Matt 5:11). Complaining about a promised blessing is silly. 2) We are supposed to engage in what they call "hate speech," starting with the obvious 1 Cor 6:9-10 kind of passages and on to the Psalms kind (e.g., Psa 26:5; Psa 97:10). Complaining about "hate speech" when we are supposed to use it at times would be pointless.
The point of the story was that "hate speech" is unclear, unevenly applied, and clearly applied with a double standard. The "Christian" comment was about the double standard, not a complaint.
In the hierarchy of sympathy, why do blacks always end up on the bottom? It couldn't be because victim pedalers are racists at heart, could it?
Today on social media I saw a video of black nail salon owners walking into an Asian-run nail salon and handing customers literature on some history Asian mistreatment of blacks. (I don't know any details on what the claims are.) I am pretty sure this is the first time I've seen that particular interracial dynamic.
They don't, Danny. White males, especially middle class or above, and especially Christian are the bottom of the pile.
Apparently it's not new, Anonymous.
Truth is humans are, by nature, generally xenophobic. We are generally most comfortable with what is like us and uncomfortable with what is not. If you're rich, you prefer rich people. If you're poor, you prefer poor people. If you're Race X, you aren't as comfortable with Y or Z. It carries on to religion, employment, positions of authority (or not), just about anything you can think of. We are, on the whole, just not very good with "different".
Interesting, in that last link you posted, whites are still being blamed for the racism of minorities against minorities. As if racism only stems from white racism, and if wasn't for white racism, racism wouldn't exist.
Interesting that DACA stands for “deferred action”, in other words it was never intended to do anything but kick the can down the road. If it was intended to provide a permanent path to legal status, it was incredibly deceptively named.
David, under current definitions, racism is only white, so all racism is white racism. I know, I know, it's not working in any actual dictionary, but it's how they view it today. "You white people are racist ... the rest of us can't be."
My thoughts exactly, Craig. When did "deferred action" meaning "action pending but not yet carried out" become "a permanent right"?
Post a Comment