US murders concentrated in 5% of counties. Highest legal gun ownership = lowest murder rate. Uh oh…..

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) said in a new report that there is a “geographical concentration” of murders, with 68 percent of killings occurring in just 5 percent of the nation’s counties. The homicides also tend to be concentrated to relatively small pockets of those counties, the report said.

“It is stunning how concentrated murders are in the U.S.,” John Lott, president of the CPRC said to Fox News. “And we show that even within these counties, with all these high rates, murders are very concentrated.” These high [rate] counties have very large areas where there are no murders.”

Looking at the historical data, the CPRC said that murders were even more geographically concentrated in decades past. On average, 73 percent of counties in any given year had zero murders from 1977 to 2000. Take for example Los Angeles County, which had 526 murders in 2014 — the most of any other county in the U.S. But parts of L.A. County, including Beverly Hills, Hawthorne and Van Nuys, had virtually no murders that year.Indianapolis, Indiana had 135 murders but only four occurred outside of the 465 highway loop that encircles the downtown area. Washington, D.C. has large swaths without a single recorded murder. The study found that murders were overwhelmingly limited to the eastern half of Washington, D.C.

 

One of the most interesting findings in the report is that areas with the highest gun ownership rates have low murder rates.

There, I got through an entire blog post without making my own comments, until this sentence, since it’s interesting stuff on it’s own though except for the previous sentence it’s hard to conclude what it all means (though it is probably no surprise where most murders are concentrated).

ISIS magazine has advice for the bored suburban terrorist wannabe.

Variations of this article appeared in International Business Times, the Daily Mail (U.K.), and other publications. I am both quoting and paraphrasing.

The magazine is called Rumiyah, and is published in 10 languages, making it an equal opportunity shithead attractor. In addition to tutorials on vehicle, knife and arson attacks, they get really creative about how to find victims, urging ISIS followers to use sales websites like Craigslist and eBay to lure unsuspecting victims to their homes before taking them hostage and killing them. The magazine offers a guide on how to select a target and, “lure him to an appropriate location before attacking, subduing, binding and then slaughtering them”.

“The terrorists say their operatives should use: ‘The language of force, the language of killing, stabbing and slitting throats, chopping off heads, flattening them under trucks, and burning them alive, until they give the jizyah [tax] while they are in a state of humiliation.’ The magazine suggests potential targets where hostages could be taken including malls, movie theatres, night clubs, ice-skating rinks, restaurants and college campuses.

“The article continues: ‘It is essential to have a suitable weapon for one’s operation, i.e. a strong, sharp knife, and possibly a bat or a small club that one may use to subdue the victim by striking them over the head before slaugh­tering them.’

“Islamic State has urged lone jihadists to arm themselves with weapons to carry out a ‘campaign of knife attacks’ in quiet neighbourhoods. In the propaganda magazine, ISIS urged would-be jihadists to ‘overcome their squeamishness’ which it said was ‘never an excuse for abandoning jihad’. The terror group made the call in the second edition of magazine Rumiyah, meaning Rome, which was issued by the organisation’s Al-Hayat Media Centre.

According to PJ Media, the article urges would-be jihadists to launch their assaults at night time on random victims in alleys, beaches, forests, and ‘quiet neighbourhoods’, and aim for a ‘reasonable kill count’.”

As much as I like to air my opinions, I will sit this one out. What could I say to condemn this vermin more than their own words? However, the New York Post has one example of a family that took the message of ISIS to heart. In a May 7, 2017 story, they give these idiots their 15 minutes of infamy.

“A British punk rocker-turned-jihadi bride is quickly moving up the charts — of the Pentagon’s terrorist kill list, according to a report. Sally Jones has recently become a ‘high priority’ on the ‘kill list’ of wanted terrorists, the Sunday Times of London reported. Jones, 49, has been implicated in two horrific, but foiled, plots to spill the blood of innocent Americans.

“The first was an attempt to livestream the murder of a US veteran; the second was a plotted mass shooting at a North Carolina concert, the British newspaper reported. Jones also is believed to have joined in a failed plot targeting Queen Elizabeth in 2015, during V-J Day celebrations in London.

“Now Jones, originally from Kent in southeast England, is believed to be in Iraq or Syria, where she hopes to avoid the fate of her late ISIS hubby. The husband, Junaid Hussain, a computer hacker from Birmingham, England, was killed by a US drone in the then-ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, Syria, in 2015. Jones and Hussain were celebrities in the ISIS world, with her recruiting women and him ranking high in the caliphate’s technology operations through CyberCalipha.

“Before devoting herself to dark, bloodthirsty ISIS masters, Jones was a guitarist in an all-girl rock band, Krunch. The mother of two might have already poisoned the minds of her two children with sick hatred. Shocking video emerged in August last year of children executing captured Kurds. One of the pint-size terrorists was a young light-skinned boy, who British anti-terrorism cops believe is Jones’ 11-year-old son, who now goes by the name Umm Hussain Britaniyah. Jones now goes by the name of Sakinah Hussain.”

Well, off I go, it’s almost time for lunch. I worked up an appetite thinking about Mr. Husain enjoying the hospitality of Satan. May his bride join him soon!

Willful ignorance: Does the Bible justify violence against women, or does it honor women more than an other scripture?

I think it’s time for me to start living up to the name of my blog. Up until now I have been rather polite for a Curmudgeon, choosing to be amused and rational about the foolishness and ignorance of the apologists for various radical theories and the abominable behavior of their minions. But reading a commentary on a retiring female judge in Great Britain, and especially the interpretation of the judge’s reasonable remarks as a cover for attacking the Bible, has me fed up. I am going to introduce this controversy, and then criticize the motives of this Bible “distorter”!

This headline was in a BBC news item: Retiring judge Lindsey Kushner issues drunk women rape warning. “Lindsey Kushner QC said women were entitled to ‘drink themselves into the ground’ but their ‘disinhibited behaviour’ could put them in danger. Judge Kushner made the courtroom plea as she jailed a man for six years who raped a girl he met in a Burger King in Manchester city centre last year. But, Rape Crisis slammed her comments as ‘outrageous’ and ‘misguided’. Yvonne Traynor, chief executive of Rape Crisis South East, said: ‘As a judge and a woman she should know better. The only person who is responsible for rape, is the rapist. Women are yet again being blamed for rape.’ The judge spoke out as she retired from the criminal bench.” A statistic from the national Institute on Alcohol and Alcohol Abuse bears out the judge’s opinion. “Conservative estimates of sexual assault prevalence suggest that 25 percent of American women have experienced sexual assault, including rape. Approximately one-half of those cases involve alcohol consumption by the perpetrator, victim, or both. Alcohol contributes to sexual assault through multiple pathways, often exacerbating existing risk factors. Beliefs about alcohol’s effects on sexual and aggressive behavior, stereotypes about drinking women, and alcohol’s effects on cognitive and motor skills contribute to alcohol-involved sexual assault.

“Judge Kushner, 64, said ‘as a woman judge’ it would ‘be remiss’ if she did not beg women to protect themselves from predatory men who ”gravitate’ towards drunken females. But she said she does not ‘think it’s wrong for a judge to beg woman to take actions to protect themselves’.”

For those of us not pursuing a radical feminist and anti-biblical agenda, the judge’s remarks would be considered quite reasonable. She is not blaming women for rape, but is stating truths that there are predatory men, and that they know that women who are drunk are more vulnerable to rape than women who are sober. Women know this, rapists know this. How this could be twisted to mean that she blames women for rape is beyond me. Well, maybe it isn’t, since the real agenda behind most distortions of truth is to undermine the influence of the Bible, in this case by shifting blame for rape onto the scriptures that honor women above all other religions.

The hypocrisy of blaming the Bible, or trying to have it both ways (minimizing the positive influence and attributing a negative influence that is a lie):

Katie Edwards, director of SIIBS (Sheffield Institute for Interdisciplinary Biblical Studies) at University of Sheffield, describes her position: “My research focuses on the function, impact and influence of the Bible in contemporary culture. I am especially concerned with intersections of gender, race and class in popular cultural reappropriations of biblical characters/narratives.” Sounds like “intersectionality”, the subject of my April 27 post.

Here are some of HER misappropriations of what the Bible teaches: “As a deeply influential cultural document, the Bible has a lot to say when it comes to attitudes around sex, shame and gender identity. Rape is endemic in the Bible (both literally and metaphorically) and, more often than not, functions as a conduit for male competition and a tool to uphold patriarchy.” The first sentence of this screed is an example her hypocrisy. She calls the Bible “a deeply influential cultural document.” The Bible is not merely a cultural document, but by calling it that she can discredit it’s eternal truths (since culture is man made and evolves), while calling it influential in this context allows her to assign it enough power to blame it for misogynistic attitudes. Why is rape (along with every other sin of fallen man) endemic in the Bible (the examples she cites are Old Testament)? Because most of the Bible (especially the OT) is, and was intended to be, the story of how human pride and rebellion has corrupted every good gift from God! There is no greater catalog of sins, including rape, than in the Book of Judges. “And in Judges 21, the Benjaminites are ‘saved from extinction’ through the mass rape of women from Jabesh-gilead and Shiloh.” True, but why? The last sentence of the Book of Judges 21:25 says “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.judges 

Just like you Katie, they did what was right in their own eyes. By saying that rape is a “tool to uphold patriarchy” you reveal your hatred and ignorance of men in general. Rape is the action of sick and perverted men who are aberrations of what most men are in Christianized cultures. I have lived for 70 years and haven’t known a single man attracted to women who has raped or even talks about rape fantasies. That’s not to say there aren’t any, or that I knew what every friend of mine was thinking, but for a general principle it’s more accurate to say that men prefer to treat women well than to abuse them. If you don’t believe that, that says more about you and the men in your life than it does about Men!

Would you also give the Bible credit for the positive cultural influences it has had? What influences? First see the book that follows Judges, the Book of Ruth. It is the opposite of Judges–a study of righteousness. Hey Katie, why don’t you also tell the story of Boaz and Ruth??? ruth Could it be that it doesn’t fit your little theories of perverse Biblical influence? Go and study history, especially back to the Roman Empire, when patriarchy really did rule the world. Both women and children were little more than chattel for men to use and dispose of if they so desired. The Bible and those who truly lived by it introduced the ideas and practices of honoring women and caring for children that we take for granted today in the western world.

Then she goes on to cite lots of other misogyny. “For  example, David’s rape of Bathsheba is echoed in his son Amnon’s rape of half-sister Tamar, and his son Absalom’s rape of David’s ten concubines.” David further compounded his sin by arranging to have Bathsheba’s husband Uriah killed, after she was pregnant. Does the Bible give any tacit blessing to his sins? What happened to David’s family as a result of his sin? In 2 Samuel 12:9, David is confronted by the prophet Nathan: “Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife. Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.  For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’” (this is the incident that Katie calls Absalom raping David’s concubines). 

How did David the king respond to this frightening prophecy? He said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Check out psalm 51. psalm 51 Remorse, repentance and redemption, that’s how a man who loves God deals with his sin. But that’s a topic for another day.

Now Katie boldly states her “truth”. “A common thread in the biblical text is that women are responsible for maintaining their sexual ‘purity’. This is not in the interests of their own well-being, but to ensure that as male property, women remain ‘undamaged’. This seems to be a no-win situation. The consequence for Dinah, who transgresses social boundaries by going ‘out to meet the women of the land’, is rape.” Katie is leaving out the consequences of rape. Genesis 34: “two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers, took their swords and came against the city while it felt secure and killed all the males. They killed Hamor and his son Shechem with the sword and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house and went away.  The sons of Jacob came upon the slain and plundered the city, because they had defiled their sister.  They took their flocks and their herds, their donkeys, and whatever was in the city and in the field.  All their wealth, all their little ones and their wives, all that was in the houses, they captured and plundered.” It reads to me like her brothers valued her sexual purity pretty highly!

 “Women who do fulfil feminine ideals, such as Bathsheba, who is described as ‘very beautiful’, tend to attract negative, often violent, male sexual attention. In other words, one way or another, women are constantly implicitly blamed, both in the Bible and in contemporary culture, for their rape.” Is there no end to the willful blindness of the truth? Sexual purity is exactly to a woman’s well-being, as well as a man’s. Male property? Who drives most purchasing decisions? To whom is most advertising directed? Beautiful women tend to attract violent male sexual attention? In what culture? Men are, or at least were (before the hook-up culture), more likely to “bow and scrape” before beautiful women than to rape them. Katie, you are to be pitied. What an ugly fantasy world you and your cohorts inhabit!

Katie then uses certain passages that appear in Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Old Testament bibles but omitted in most Protestant OT bible translations because they are considered apocryphal (hidden). However, they are just more of the same kind of distortions. “In the biblical text, Susanna’s beauty is to blame for attracting the attentions of the elders. In a plotline that’s echoed in today’s court rooms, Susanna’s testimony isn’t believed and her sexual conduct is brought into question. It takes a man, Daniel, to advocate for her and to rescue her from execution after she refuses the elders’ offer. In his successful defence of her and condemnation of the elders, Daniel says: “Beauty has beguiled you and lust has perverted your heart.” Here, as so often in contemporary society, rape and sexual assault are linked to the attractiveness of women rather than a violent crime of power and control. Even in art, Susanna is implicitly blamed for being targeted.”

Daniel is condemning the elders NOT the woman. These so-called elders and their pride and evil were a big reason why the Israelites were taken captive to Babylon and their nation destroyed. Daniel was the very epitome of righteousness in the OT. Katie implies that only a man could save the woman and compares the courtroom of the Babylonian captivity to modern courtrooms. Here is what the passage says: “That year two elders from the people were appointed as judges. Concerning them the Lord had said: Wickedness came forth from Babylon, from elders who were judges, who were supposed to govern the people..….When the people left at noon, Susanna would go into her husband’s garden to walk. Every day the two elders used to see her, going in and walking about, and they began to lust for her. They suppressed their consciences and turned away their eyes from looking to Heaven or remembering their duty to administer justice. Both were overwhelmed with passion for her, but they did not tell each other of their distress, for they were ashamed to disclose their lustful desire to seduce her.” How does Katie twist the obvious and use these words to advance her dubious theories?

Okay Katie, enough of your un-well-intentioned distortions. The Bible now has words for you, who embody the “Jezebel spirit”. What does the Bible say about Jezebel? In 1 Kings 21 she plotted to have a good man killed with lies. jezebel and nabothSo she wrote letters in Ahab’s name and sealed them with his seal, and she sent the letters to the elders and the leaders who lived with Naboth in his city. And she wrote in the letters, ‘Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth at the head of the people.  And set two worthless men opposite him, and let them bring a charge against him, saying, ‘You have cursed God and the king.’ Then take him out and stone him to death.’ And the men of his city, the elders and the leaders who lived in his city, did as Jezebel had sent word to them. As it was written in the letters that she had sent to them, they proclaimed a fast and set Naboth at the head of the people. And the two worthless men came in and sat opposite him. And the worthless men brought a charge against Naboth in the presence of the people, saying, ‘Naboth cursed God and the king.’ So they took him outside the city and stoned him to death with stones. Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, ‘Naboth has been stoned; he is dead’.”

What did God say about Jezebel’s sin? Through the prophet Elijah, “Thus says the Lord: ‘In the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick your own blood’.” The Bible minces no words when it comes to the influence of women over men. Ahab was the most evil and abominable king of Israel–and that’s saying something! But his wife, Jezebel, was worse.jezebel and ahab 1 Kings 25: “There was none who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the Lord like Ahab, whom Jezebel his wife incited.” But when confronted by Elijah about his wickedness, “And when Ahab heard those words, he tore his clothes and put sackcloth on his flesh and fasted and lay in sackcloth and went about dejectedly. And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,  ‘Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the disaster in his days; but in his son’s days I will bring the disaster upon his house’.” Most of the time women have a positive influence on men, and the evil of Jezebel is more the exception than the rule, BUT the issue is one of influence. Women can and do exert influence on men, but in Katie’s world the only influence is inciting their lust, so she and her cohorts can justify their worldview (women as victims of men and patriarchy; men as tyrants and dominators).

No matter what kind of evil a person has done or said, repentance can lead to redemption. In Revelation, via John, God seals the fate of another Jezebel:God’s word about Jezebel Use the link if you want to read it, it is too frightening for me to print.

My final word to Katie and other willfully ignorant distortioners of the Bible are from Jesus himself, Matthew 18:7. “Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!” Radical liars are merely fulfilling their job descriptions, but believers who meekly accept the distortions and lies about our Lord and his Word allow lies to flourish! I say enough! “The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Mark 14

 

 

A moral conundrum, or a motherly duty?

I just watched the latest episode of Chicago Med, one of my favorite shows. There were, as usual, a number of different cases going on, but the most poignant was that of a family with two young children and a pregnant mother whose heart was too weak to function for two. The older of the two children, a daughter about 11, was slowly losing her battle with leukemia. The unborn child was a perfect match as a blood marrow donor for the daughter with leukemia.

The conundrum was that the mother would not survive very long with her bad heart, and needed open heart surgery, but the anticoagulants that would make the bypass procedure feasible would damage and perhaps kill the baby. There were two other alternatives: heart surgery without bypass, which was much riskier than surgery with it, or intubation of the mother to keep her breathing after her heart gave out, which would result in her being in a “persistent vegetative state”.

The mother, over the objections of her husband and children, chose the intubation because at least it would keep her alive long enough to deliver the child who could save her daughter. Finally, after abject pleading by her children, she allowed the surgeon to do the heart procedure without bypass. She survived, but her child did not. Her daughter with the leukemia wanted her mother more than her own survival, and her mother was willing to sacrifice her life and her “quality of life” to save  her daughter.

I am writing this the day after my post about Anna March and her “intersection” argument to preserve abortion on demand. A couple of thoughts: the doctors informed the mother multiple times that because her heart was pumping blood for two people, it was too weak to do the job. The mother was willing to radically sacrifice her autonomy–including even the ability to breathe on her own–to protect her children. How you view those facts (yeah, I know it was a TV show, so consider this a thought exercise) says a lot about you.

Someone who believes as Anna March does would promote quality of life (primarily that of the mother) as the most important consideration, so allowing the mother to be intubated would be out of the question. The problem and solution would be simple: since the unborn baby was overtaxing the mother’s heart, abort him. Problem solved, but the parents wouldn’t consider that since it would probably condemn the sick daughter unless they could find another perfect blood marrow match and get on the list before the daughter died. They could also argue that the mother wasn’t trying to save her baby’s life primarily, but the life of her born daughter, which did appear to be the case.

However, the family in the show was functioning as a unit. The daughter said she didn’t want her life to be the focal point of the family. She lamented all the attention she was getting to the detriment of her little brother, and would rather have her mother alive than save herself. The father was not willing to have his wife become a vegetable no matter what. The little brother was too young to understand much of this except that he was about to lose his mother and he begged her to live. Let’s not ignore the burden to be placed on the son who was about to be born, saving his sister’s life.

Now in your thought exercise, compare the worldviews. One says nothing is more important than the autonomy of a woman. But what if that woman is part of a family? Is her autonomy really a standalone issue? The other worldview says that we are all part of a larger web of relationships, and one person’s decision usually affects others. I am reminded of a proverb that had a profound affect on me. “I slept and dreamed that life was pleasure; I awoke and found that life was duty; I acted and found that duty was pleasure.” True freedom isn’t the right to do whatever you want for you, it is the ability to know and pursue your duty to others. I wonder if Ms. March and her constituency would say that your duty is just to yourself?

 

Intersectionality: The radical theory of relating the unrelated.

According to Anna March, writing in Salon, Bernie Sanders is no longer a “progressive.” Here is part of her argument, which is mostly a defense of “intersectionality”, an ultra-lib theory of……well, read it, see if you can figure it out.

“Economic populism and what are commonly erroneously and dismissively referred to as ‘social issues’ — such as reproductive rights, immigration reform and civil rights for people of color, those who have disabilities, people of all faiths, LGBT people and women — are indivisible. Sanders routinely demonstrates his own lack of progressive values by dividing them.

“There is no economic populism without abortion rights and civil rights. No one can have economic justice if he or she doesn’t have fundamental rights. Yet Sanders has made it plain that abortion rights are negotiable and brushes off ‘identity politics.’ He consistently argues that his values — and his alone — should define what it is to be progressive. (Which can’t help but remind one of Donald Trump’s unilateral defining of terms.)

“Further, Sanders routinely divides matters of race and gender and class — which, again, cannot be untwined — by discussing the ‘pain’ and needs of working-class voters….. Being pro-choice is not an optional part of being a progressive. Full stop. There is no justice for women, there is no economic justice for women, without the right to control their reproductive lives. The right to have an abortion is not a ‘social issue.’ It is an issue of fundamental rights; it is a matter of economic rights. One is not a progressive if not pro-choice. One hundred percent pro-choice is the only pro-choice position. One hundred percent pro-choice is the only pro-choice position. That is, abortions should be safe, legal, accessible, funded and available on demand — for all.”

The reason I put that last sentence in bold is because her entire screed comes down to a defense of the idea that every woman should be able to abort her baby for any reason whenever she wants with taxpayers paying for it. Given that is the primary revenue stream of planned parenthood, the name of which I consider the primary euphemism of our age (the “final solution” for the not yet born), she could be on their payroll or their board. What I am most incredulous about is that otherwise intelligent people could accept such statements as true. Let’s dissect some of these tortured propositions:

1. Since abortion is not a noun but an act, and since the fetus will become a human being if not destroyed, what she is saying is the right to kill her baby in the womb is a precursor to economic justice–whatever that is. If that were true, wouldn’t every woman (she didn’t say they had to be unmarried) with children be impoverished?

2. The right for any woman to kill her child is “a fundamental right”? Rights come from where? The Declaration of Independence states that rights come from the Creator. The Constitution of the United States assumes that source of rights and establishes the system for their protection. The preamble says “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.” That hardly presumes that killing our posterity is a fundamental right.

3. “Race, gender and class cannot be untwined”? That presupposes that they are even related to begin with. By whom? Obviously, by her philosophical cohorts. But race and gender are determined by God, or if you don’t believe in the Creator, then they are accidental and random, but in no sense are they related to class.

Then again, I am out of step with the philosophy that insists that such human characteristics are related by oppression and victimhood. Simply put, she makes no sense but her constituency will believe it uncritically. Sigh.

 

Sez who?

Last night I watched “Free speech apocalypse“–or as much of it as I could stomach–on Amazon. It’s Doug Wilsondougwils attempting to speak at U. of Indiana, while most of the “students” tried to drown him out. I have never been more convicted of the futility of starting a discussion/debate/argument with opinions. The starting point of fruitful debate is the unmasking of the authority behind the opinions. Once that is explicit, it can become the authority of the Bible vs. your leftist professor, Rolling Stone and MTV. Now, THAT’S A DEBATE!

Instead, viewers are treated to the spectacle of costumed hecklers yelling unintelligible insults, shaking their fists, waving little rainbow flags, draped in bunting that says “the queer will inherit the earth” (from whom? I ask, and how will you do that when you can’t reproduce your own kind?) and chanting alternately “we support free speech” then “this is hate speech.” I guess it’s difficult to justify supporting free speech while threatening and heckling and shouting down the one speaking. I can live with all that–that’s merely young, naive bubbleheads performing their job description. What I can’t live with is this faculty member, described as the protector of lesbian, bisexual, gay, transwhatever students (whose position is paid for by taxpayers on one of the most conservative states in the U.S.), proudly holding up the t-shirt he intends to wear at Pastor Wilson’s talk. It says “Jesus loves drag” and he further insults the Lord of Life by saying He would be on the side of the hecklers. Isn’t that even greater hate speech?

One of the primary justifications the hecklers gave for labeling Biblical wisdom as hate speech is that is that it encourages and justifies violence against LGBT people. I have 5 questions about that assertion:

1. Who actually does more violence, church-going Christians against homosexuals, or homosexuals against churches?

2. What does Jesus say about using violence against people for their beliefs and practices?

3. To label anything “hate speech” assumes you can read the mind of the speaker and know they intend to harm with their words. Since the labeler is claiming knowledge of the internal state of the speaker, what is their evidence for this power?

4. If your position is so righteous and correct, why do you fear and avoid dialogue, instead substituting name calling and ad hominem attacks?

5. The most important question is, “what is the authority for your position?” If you disagree with what the Bible says, what authority can you cite that has a greater track record of truth? Kinsey studies? Newspaper editorials? TV shows?

 

“Virtue signaling” and tweeting, a really modern way to get into college?

I know you can’t wait to find out what “virtue signaling” is. Stanford University accepted Ziad Ahmed after he wrote “#Black Lives Matter” 100 times across his personal application statement to the university. As if that were not enough for him, he also tweeted a picture of his statement and received immediate “applause” (I don’t know what that is, since I don’t tweet–my wisdom is too profound to be encapsulated in 140 characters don’t you know–but from the context of the article about this it sounds like something other denizens of Twitter do to show their approval). He was also accepted by Yale and Princeton.

Admirers called him “bold”, but others complained that his statement was “an insufficient defense of the movement” and an example of……wait for it….”virtue signaling!” My good friend and mentor Gene jokes that satirists are running out of material, then this item comes along. I can’t type fast enough to keep up with all the material to satirize! To be fair, Mr. Ahmed is more than just his statement. Here is a link to his website.the activist

If you don’t have the patience to wade through all his prose about himself, what he stands for is the third sentence of his self-description, “Ziad has resolved to work towards a world safe for all and accepting of everyone.” Sigh. Sure sounds great. However, the universities he is choosing among are not exactly safe for those who express opinions contrary to the current orthodoxy nor are they accepting of diversity of thought. So what does he really mean? Safe for whom? All? Not hardly. Accepting of whom? Everyone? Really?