The term race, as it is commonly used in reference to the ancestry of a particular ethnic group, is a loaded word. The early uses of this term, as it related humans, were confined to biology, where it was meant to describe what were thought to be the various human subspecies. In modern science, the notion that there are subspecies of Homo sapiens has long since been debunked. Nevertheless, somehow the term stuck and is commonly used today outside of scientific thought to describe ethnicity.
Racism is simply the belief in the superiority of one ethnic group over another, and carries with it the idea that a person’s potential as a human being is predominately determined by his ethnicity or “race”; therefore racist theology is any religious study that incorporates racist ideals.
Brazenly Conspicuous
Certain forms of racist theology are clearly evident. Most Americans, in light of what might be recalled from the recent collective memory, may automatically think of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Black Liberation Theology. Or perhaps they will think of the Christian Identity Movement. These are two of the most obvious and egregious examples of racist theology masking as Christianity, but what about the subtler and more widely accepted teachings – not only those associated with Christendom, but also other religions?
The Curse of Ham
The racist doctrine of the curse of Ham teaches that Ham and/or his son Canaan, grandson of Noah, were cursed by God (or Noah, depending on the variation of the teaching) because his father Ham uncovered the nakedness of his father, Noah. The result of this curse is that Canaan’s descendants became black and taken into slavery. Some actually believe that Ham himself was turned black for this sin. As is the case with most racist theology there are elements of truth mixed in, such that the waters are muddied enough so that the teaching becomes believable to the unlearned. In order to sort truth from fiction, let us examine the account given to us in Genesis 9.
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father’s nakedness.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”26 He also said,
“Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.27 May God extend the territory of Japheth;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his slave.”
First of all, I want to point out that God did not curse anyone here. In fact, after blessing Noah and his sons, the Bible records that God said in verse 8 of this chapter, “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you.” The curse was Noah’s doing, and there is no indication anywhere that either Ham or Canaan was turned black. Also, there is no mention of Canaan’s descendants in the curse. Noah said that Canaan would be the slave of Shem, not that Canaan’s black descendants would be slaves to white people.
Whether to justify slavery or to explain the alleged inferiority of blacks to other ethnic groups, this teaching has been prevalent among Christians, Jews, and Mormons. Islamic teaching, however, does view the curse of Ham in racial terms. The teaching has largely been abandoned as something that is commonly taught among mainstream adherents of Christianity, Judaism, and Mormonism, yet remnants of this teaching still persist, and the use of a version of it once held by Mormons was recently brought up in connection to the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney.
In addition to the account of what has been construed as the curse of Ham found in Genesis 9, other religious texts besides the biblical one have expounded on the teaching. Early Christian theologian and scholar Origen Adamantius wrote in Homilies on Genesis:
For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race.
One particularly extra-biblical and bizarre Judaic teaching about the curse of Ham found in the Babylonian Talmud states:
Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates [his seed into his mate's mouth], and Ham was smitten in his skin (Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 108b).
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints once held that blacks were banned from the priesthood based on Brigham Young’s interpretation of a passage in the first chapter of the Book of Abraham:
1:24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land. 1:25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. 1:26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
Arabs and the Curse of Ishmael?
It is widely assumed among Christian Zionists, and perhaps others who prefer not to assume that title, that Ishmael, the first son of Abraham, was cursed because God’s blessing came upon Isaac. They believe that the root of the turmoil in the Middle East is the fault of the descendants of the “illegitimate” son of Abraham. Let’s look at what the Bible actually says in Genesis 17:
3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you…15 God also said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.” 17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, “Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!” 19 Then God said, “Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.
First we should notice that Ishmael was not cursed; actually he, not unlike Isaac, was blessed. The main difference was that God’s covenant was to Abraham was to be through Isaac and not Ishmael. Isaac was God’s idea, and Ishmael was Sarah’s idea. Because God initiated a covenant with Abraham on His own terms, of course the full blessing of the covenant would naturally be on the son God promised to Abraham. However, there was no curse involved with the other son. It also must be noted that Christ is the seed of Abraham and all men, regardless of ancestry, through Him partake of the blessing of Abraham that was to be made available to all nations of the earth.
Some of the racial prejudice against Arabs, who are thought to be the descendants of Ishmael, has its basis in a misinterpretation of Genesis 16, when the angel of the Lord prophesied to Hagar about the nature of her son that was to be born.
11 The angel of the LORD also said to her:
“You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard of your misery.12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers.”
Here again, just as with the curse of Ham doctrine, it is presumed that this statement about Ishmael must also include all his descendants. In this instance, I will say that there may be more justification for such a suggestion because verse 12 says, “He will live in hostility toward all his brothers.” Since we only know for sure of one brother, Isaac, and the text says “all his brothers” that could be taken to mean the descendants of Isaac. Certainly that would describe the long history of contention between Arabs and Jews. However, we must also consider the possibility that the prophecy was specific to Ishmael alone, and that he had other brothers through Hagar.
At any rate, we certainly do not want to be in the position of claiming that because of this prophecy, Arabs are all “wild donkey” people, and that they are a subhuman warlike race genetically predisposed to the destruction of Israel.
You may also be interested in:
Darius, if there is confusion between the population of a nation and military targets, perhaps it may be because the nation itself is at war. Israel needs to declare war on the Lebanese front if it wishes to continue its fighting with the military insurgent parts of Hezbollah there (not to be confused with its brother, the political party of Hezbollah there which has in many ways secularised). However, the Palestinian front is within Israel’s own borders (let’s assume the validity of Israel’s claim to the West Bank) and is “administered” by the Israeli military (and not the civilian government). In my book, that means that the Palestinians are in war for independence with Israel, who sees it as a terrorist uprising. No surprises there, hopefully. It’s not the same situation as there is with Israel on its Northern front, nor should it be treated as such. In my opinion, Hamas is showing signs of splitting the same way that Hezbollah has (a secularised political party and a religious military faction).
“But I think you are using a lot of imagination…”
No more than you when you say that the Jewish lobby comprises one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. You do know that American Jews are largely liberal who support candidates and policies which aren’t particularly favorable to Israel, right? George Soros and Noam Chomsky are two self-hating Jews who attempt to undermine Israel’s sovereignty every chance they get. Playwright David Mamet wrote a book on this very subject called The Wicked Son. Most American Jews have little affinity for Israel, at least, they vote contrary to whatever affinity they would profess to have.
“‘But I think you are using a lot of imagination…’
No more than you when you say that the Jewish lobby comprises one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.”
I didn’t say “Jewish” lobby. I was speaking about the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC specifically. If you don’t think they are one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington, you’re just plain wrong. It’s not a Jewish lobby so much as it is a Zionist lobby. Their original name was actually American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs. Every presidential hopeful has to sell themselves to these guys, including the “liberal” Obama who, as I stated originally, has Rahm Emanuel as his right hand man. Don’t think for a moment that Obama’s not on board with Israel.
Noam Chomsky, who I disagree with on a number of things, is not a self-hating Jew because he is not a Zionist. He speaks out against what he sees as the injustices carried out by the Israeli state. You cannot equate “Jewish” with the current Israeli government and Zionism.
A glimpse at the Israel’s enemies…
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=504_1238691910
No, I’m not trying to guilt trip you into anything, but rather to lovingly point out where you are being ungodly in your personal walk. When it comes to false Biblical teaching, a son should correct the father and a church member should speak to their pastor. Such correction should be done humbly with a mind to improving the body, not proudly with a focus on one’s own ego. I’m not saying that this should be a public admonition, but such correction of other believers IS a Biblical mandate. Our current “tolerance” of un-Scriptural teaching is damaging to our churches.
Note that if you lack the maturity to correct this friend in a humble and honorable way, perhaps you are wise to remain silent. On the one hand it would be silly to correct them over something that was meaningless, but clearly this wrong teaching was a big deal to you or you wouldn’t have remembered it to mention here. Your current refusal to mention it to your friend seems like a selfish desire to avoid confrontation hiding behind a front of humility. Far from treating your friend with respect by discussing this with them personally, you are treating them with deepest disdain as if they are too immature to handle loving correction. Though again, if this friend is indeed immature in their faith, then perhaps it is better to refrain from discussing this with them.
I can only hope to avoid having children or pseudo-friends like you who care so little about truth and that if I make wrong statements as a teacher or preacher that my true friends will quickly and lovingly bring them to my attention rather than selfishly allowing me to compound my error. I would far rather have an enemy than a flattering friend who refused to correct me out of “humility”. Flattery is one of the fastest ways to make me disdain your opinion. “Yes” men disgust me. True friends care about your edification, and will tell you when you are wrong about something. Are you a flatterer or a true friend?
Galatians 2:6-14 (Contemporary English Version)
1 Timothy 5:17-20 (Contemporary English Version)
2 Timothy 2:25 (Contemporary English Version)
2 Timothy 4:1-2 (Contemporary English Version)
Atanamis, it seems that you have gone to great lengths to make these scriptures validate what you say when they obviously do not. Let’s go back to the original original quote that you think warrants correction:
“When I get to heaven I’m going to have a serious talk with Abraham. Because he had an illegitimate son, that’s the reason why we had to pay $4.00 a gallon for gas.”
You have called this heresy, and although I disagree with the statement, it is nothing of the sort. Then in order to “lovingly point out” where I am being “ungodly” in my personal walk, you cite the example of Paul confronting Peter when he was politicking with the pharisees and then two excerpts of Paul’s letters to Timothy, which contextually demonstrate the very father/son relationship in the church I was speaking about. None of these scriptures are even remotely applicable to what I mentioned, at least not in the way you prescribe. This is Paul in his role as apostle, who called Timothy his son in the faith, advising him on his pastoral duties; the correction that is to be done is by Timothy, the pastor of the church – not just anybody who sees fit to a be a judge of his brother. But you have taken these scriptures to try and prove that I should correct one of my spiritual fathers. Either you have failed to recognize the intent of these passages or you have decided that your own point of view supersedes it.
Maybe you should ask yourself why you are on such a crusade to correct everybody else. Really it isn’t correction at all; it’s called fault-finding. If someone says something that you don’t agree with, you resort to calling them an idiot or a pharisee. I ask you, who is the one straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel here?
Atanamis used to argue with his professors in college, during class. He has the kind of personality that can challenge and confront people. That’s a gift, which I think he’s used effectively. I don’t have that ability–most people don’t. I, like you Chris A., would be reluctant to confront a spiritual elder on a matter such as you’ve described. It really wouldn’t accomplish anything. If I were to try, I would come across as arrogant and out of order, because it’s not something I normally do. It would be an extraordinary act, with extraordinary repercussions.
I think if Atanamis were to do the same thing, he could get away with it without coming across that way, because he does that all the time to everybody. It wouldn’t be extraordinarily audacious for him. It would be expected.
I do think that you shouldn’t just agree or go along with something you don’t believe, just to placate someone who is your elder. But nor must you challenge that person. On the other hand, if it’s something that is a detriment to spiritual growth, or if it becomes something that damages the public testimony of the church and of Christianity, then it might be time to say something. In this case, what with Zionist ideas being so prevalent in evangelical circles, I can’t see that confrontation would be appropriate.
Actually, most people consider me to be extraordinarily audacious, arrogant, and out of order. As I mentioned above, I know this has cost me friendships I highly valued, but I firmly feel that false teaching and ungodly living in the church is something that MUST be addressed. Inside or outside the church, friendship means respecting someone enough to tell them when they’re wrong.
I don’t know the details of this situation, and that’s probably true for everyone here but Chris. I’m basing my statements entirely on what Chris stated previously:
“I literally had to restrain myself from laughing out loud from the extreme ignorance of such a statement. He actually believed that! Of course, you wouldn’t know it from the quote I just posted, but he’s always talking about the Arabs in a negative light.”
If Chris believes this is a minor matter of differing opinion, he shouldn’t be snickering at the “extreme ignorance”. Either you are being disrespectful over a minor matter, or you are being a flatterer over a significant one. Either way this isn’t respect for an elder, and this is isn’t friendship. Compliments to someone’s face and insults behind their back just don’t indicate a right attitude toward this friend.
I don’t know, I laugh at a lot of stuff that isn’t a big deal.
Prior to the statement in question, one day my pastor tried to engage me about Islamic fundamentalism and its hostility toward Christianity, I replied that there were elements of hatred toward Christians in Judaism as well. That statement sort of fell flat. He said that he would have to look into that, but I could tell he thought I was wrong about it. At that point, I could tell he wanted to correct me. So what he decided to do was give me a newsletter from a Zionist Bible prophecy guy that always talks about the evils of Islam. And for the next two months following that, he gave me this guy’s newsletter. I actually enjoyed reading it, although there was quite a bit I couldn’t go along with for obvious reasons. But this was his way of gently trying to correct me. I believe he was wrong, but I’m not going to argue about it. In fact, I never intend to mention it to him as long as I live.
I certainly didn’t mean any disrespect by chuckling within (not actually laughing aloud). Its just that what he was saying was ridiculous and I found it to be funny. He’s a good man, and I’ve learned a lot from him, and I will continue to do so.
I think you did the right thing in this situation. You corrected him by pointing out that both modern Judaism and Islam are false faiths that have rejected Christ as Messiah while claiming to worship the God of Abraham, but then let it drop when he wasn’t willing to listen. Pushing further would simply have been a case of casting pearls before swine, and would have accomplished little. Sadly, it sounds like your friend is too self-impressed with his own opinions.
There is a significant difference between faulty opinions and presenting false teachings from the pulpit. An individual who has a faulty understanding of Scripture should be be welcomed into the body and taught. A teacher who presents false teaching while refusing correction though is a problem. I take EXTREMELY seriously my responsibility every time I teach, and desperately hope that my students will call me out on any false statements I might make lest I lead others astray. (In fact, it scares me that I know most of them would not.)
This particular issue might not really be that big a deal. It could drive away people from an Islamic b***ground who need the Lord, but is not a direct assault on the faith of the general congregation. The haughty attitude this teacher displays though is extremely dangerous. All of us are human, and to claim infallibility based on rank or position is wrong. The newsletter thing in particular seems very passive aggressive, throwing someone else’s opinions at you rather than discussing it as brothers. I hope I am wrong though, and that I am just reading too much into what you are writing.
I guess we pretty much agree, then. But I wouldn’t characterize giving my opinion as correction. I was simply letting him know that I wasn’t in agreement, and I really wouldn’t be much of an audience for something like that. And I don’t think he displays a haughty attitude. In fact, I feel open to say just about anything I want to with him without fear of reprisal. If he had asked me to explain further my opinions about anti-Christian sentiment in Judaism and how they compare to those in Islam, I could have done so. But I would only have gone further if he had given me the green light.
There seems to be an anti-intellectual mindset amongst many evangelical Christians, which often makes meaningful discussion around controversial topics taboo. That’s not intended to be an insult toward him in particular; that’s just my general observation. If you hear it in the Christian media or even Fox News, it’s probably safe, but if it’s not you’ll just stir the pot by bringing it up. You know, like there is this sense that you couldn’t criticize George Bush, but you could probably get away with a couple of swipes at Obama (not that you should necessarily do either of those in a church setting). I’m generalizing, but I think you get the picture. My preference is to remain silent when in doubt.
But yeah, the newsletter thing was passive aggressive. He was hoping I would read it and “see the light”. I was open to reading it, but he made it a point to draw particular attention to an article about the dangers of the Islamic anti-Christian worldview, which let me know his motivation for giving it to me. He was sincere enough, but from my perspective he is just wrong. To me, it doesn’t matter really. We have a much more important job of tending to the spiritual needs of the congregation; we can’t get derailed by stuff like this. If that’s the strongest disagreement we have, then we are in good shape.
“There seems to be an anti-intellectual mindset”
And rightly so, if you mean the mindset that is suspect of human “wisdom” or the elitist tendencies that come with it. The greatest evils in the last 100 years have primarily been wrought by the liberal intelligentsia around the world: the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, Communism. All due to the educated elite preaching foolishness to the masses.
I don’t think there is an anti-education or anti-deep thinking mindset in the church.
“‘There seems to be an anti-intellectual mindset’
And rightly so, if you mean the mindset that is suspect of human “wisdom” or the elitist tendencies that come with it.”
Actually, that’s not what I meant at all. In fact, thinking critically can actually prevent atrocities by countering challenging elitist ideals. It may be that all the atrocities you cited are the partial result of “educated elite preaching foolishness to the masses”, but the masses have to be able to discern the intent of elitist rhetoric.
Do you know what the elite are doing right now? They are formulating a world government essentially for and by the central bankers. They use language like “New World Order” and speak of the global financial crisis as an “opportunity” for elites to usurp authority over the sovereignty of nations through international regulation. As our economy and economies around the world implode, elites are literally rejoicing over it. A year ago if I were to say this (and I was) people would have called me a conspiracy theorist. In fact, some folks may call me that still, but you know what that is? It is an anti-intellectual mindset, because all you have to do is pay attention to what’s going on. Disagree if you like, but disagree on the basis of an objective analysis rather than simply being dismissive. A careful examination of the G20 meetings alone would prove most of what I have said. If there is anyone out there who still doesn’t believe what I’m saying, go to news.google.com and type “New World Order” in quotation marks and see how many articles from varied sources there are and actually read some of the contents. And read some of the publications you normally wouldn’t read, like the New York Times perhaps, just to get a handle on the rhetoric.
I don’t disagree that there is a conspiracy toward a one world order. That’s been going on for decades.
“I don’t disagree that there is a conspiracy toward a one world order. That’s been going on for decades.”
I didn’t mean to imply that you disagreed, I was just pointing out the tendency of some to disagree without any consideration of the facts because such discussion is outside the defined parameters of political discourse. You want to talk about liberals and conservatives? Fine. But the moment you peel back the layers and realize that our last three presidents and our current president – regardless of party affiliation or so-called political philosophy – are openly globalist, then you just introduced something into the conversation people are not prepared to discuss. Why? Because you just challenged their perception of duality. And most people are not prepared to go there. It’s too much for them to comprehend. They’re much more comfortable discussing solutions to problems they can blame someone from the other party for, rather than getting to the actual root cause.
Of course, the figurehead always makes a good scapegoat and he does bear some responsibility, but we shouldn’t be so naive as to suggest that George W. Bush was the mastermind of the Iraq War, for instance. Or that President Obama is largely responsible for the bankster bailout and the carbon taxes that will be used to fund the IMF’s super-currency after the dollar is destroyed. No sir. These plans are not hatched in the White House.
I’m referring to an anti-truth mentality that is shameful for believers. I’m referring to the passing on of emails saying Madalyn Murray O’Hair is trying to outlaw Christian broadcasting when she’s been dead 4 years and the bill in question had nothing to do with banning Christian broadcasting. I’m referring to friends of mine who when confronted with hard irrefutable facts that this is a hoax suggest that maybe the name and bill number were wrong, but they were still right to forward the email along. I’m referring to blatantly untrue claims of scientific evidence for the sun having stood still in the Old Testament, or that capital punishment reduces murder rates. The modern Christian simply doesn’t value integrity, and is more than willing to repeat any lie they hear on Christian radio with no verification and worse with no guilt whatsoever when proven wrong.
Do you know why Christians are treated as liars who will make up anything to appear right? It is because many of us are! I’m not asking anyone to become an elitist who looks down their noses at others. I AM asking believers, including you, to recognize that God is truth, and for us to spew lies from our mouths is destroying our integrity and displeasing to God. If you’re going to mention an email forward you received from the pulpit, verify that it is at least somewhat believable first. There is a huge amount of dishonesty out there today in the form of partisan politics, and Christians have entirely adopted this dishonest form of discussion. When confronted on it, they resort to a Dan Rather style “well even if that wasn’t true it was like something that is probably happening”.
So when I say many Christians are anti-intellectual, I mean they are anti-truth and lack personal integrity. Base what you say on what is true, and if it turns out you made a mistake apologize and try to do better.
“If you’re going to mention an email forward you received from the pulpit, verify that it is at least somewhat believable first. There is a huge amount of dishonesty out there today in the form of partisan politics, and Christians have entirely adopted this dishonest form of discussion.”
I actually have witnessed this happen, not in my own church, but in a conference. A minister said something to the effect that during Clinton’s administration more soldiers died than in the Bush II administration. Come to find out, the whole thing originated from an email chain and was thoroughly debunked.
This lack of concern for one’s integrity is terrible in any believer, but potentially very damaging from a pastor. Having personally confronted a number of pastors for clear examples of false statements of this nature, I know that many of those who do this don’t really care whether they are truthful. It is extremely troubling to my heart every time this happens. I don’t share your view that we need to doubt everything we hear, but we can at least not repeat proven lies.
Honestly, this is why I hate things like Santa Claus so much. I am firmly in favor of childhood imagination, but there is no way I will damage my integrity for it. The Bible is very clear that Christians should be honest and truth seeking, and for us to participate blindly in the propagation of lies is terrible. I would LOVE to be able to trust emails I get from members of my church, but instead I have to be on my guard that any of them might be lying to me.
“that capital punishment reduces murder rates.”
Actually, this is blatantly true, as proven by simple efforts in logic (such as van den Haag’s argument). You just don’t have enough integrity to admit it.
Then why does no statistical evidence anywhere support your position? You’re as bad as Chris and his conspiracy theories. Is some mysterious secret society out there falsifying all the studies?
I gave you Singapore and Britain…
The reason that all evidence doesn’t back it up is because there are too many factors to the murder rates. Plus, our society doesn’t practice a consistent system of justice.
Start with the premise that punishment deters some amount of crime. Can’t you agree to that? If you can, then why would the death penalty be the one exception to that rule?
Darius, are you implying that the murder rate in the UK is no different than that in the US? I call BS. Look at all “Western” countries and compare statistics. The US, which is the only one that practices capital punishment, leads the pack by a comfortable margin in homicide rates (5.6 versus Spain’s 3.35 according to this graph). There may be more things that influence the homicide rate, but when comparable nations are compared, it seems to be useful only in developing/undeveloped nations with few exceptions (Japan would be a better example here). However, exceptions don’t disprove a trend. I think the main problem I have with capital punishment is that it views the judicial system as a system of discipline (or, to be more directly Nietzschean, ressentiment and revenge) rather than one of rehabilitation and change. Simple punishment doesn’t change people’s opinion (remember that one kid on the block growing up who was a neighborhood terror precisely because his punishment was a quick, physical one?). If the judicial system is all about punishment, it tends to grow to excess. Sure, there are people who are truly twisted individuals who will never learn, but these should be the exceptions, not the expectation as it has become in the US. What’s more troubling is that the US has over 2 million people sitting in prison, more than nearly every other nation in the world. On top of the, the US suffers from recidivism because there is no rehabilitation in the prison system.
“Honestly, this is why I hate things like Santa Claus so much. I am firmly in favor of childhood imagination, but there is no way I will damage my integrity for it.”
Yeah, I hate Santa Claus too for the exact same reason. When I was a kid I actually convinced myself that Santa Claus was Jesus. Because I reasoned that there was no way one guy could fly all around the world and give kids toys without being God. You know what I tell my daughter? Santa Claus is dead! And even that isn’t completely accurate. Saint Nicholas is dead, but the American Santa Claus is a composite of Saint Nicholas and pagan legend.
“You’re as bad as Chris and his conspiracy theories. Is some mysterious secret society out there falsifying all the studies?”
Ha ha. Very funny. But since we’re talking about integrity, how about all these supposed theories you’ve attributed to me that I never even said? And if you will recall, the societies I have pointed to are not so much secret. Is the International Monetary Fund secret? Is the Council on Foreign Relations secret? Is the Club of Rome secret? The Trilateral Commission? How about Bilderberg? Not any more. There was a time when Bilderberg was largely secret, and anyone who mentioned it was labeled a kook as if it didn’t exist or didn’t have anything to do with making policy decisions, etc. That no longer passes for the truth.
How many Bilderbergers are there in the Obama administration, for instance? Let’s see, there’s Timothy Geithner (Hank Paulson was also there by the way), Kathleen Sebelius (Her job was supposed to go to Tom Daschle before his tax troubles surfaced, who was also in attendance), Richard Holbrooke, and there are others in advisory roles. And do you know how I know they attended Bilderberg? Bilderberg released the names of the attendees last year to downplay the whole secrecy thing, and they actually held their meeting on US soil this time. But that probably won’t matter to you. You’ll just say that I’m going around saying reptoid space aliens control the world through secret portals of consciousness and occupy hidden tunnels under the White House.
Cchrisr, you need to read my other comments on the capital punishment thread. Britain’s murder rate has doubled since it banned the death penalty, and if you take into account the medical advancement, the murder rate has gone up more like 8-10 times what it was previously.
“I think the main problem I have with capital punishment is that it views the judicial system as a system of discipline… rather than one of rehabilitation and change.”
Well, your argument here is primarily with God then, cause that’s how He views it (see the NT for more on this, particularly Romans). Furthermore, rehabilitation is a liberal or secular concept which denies that people are inherently evil. Plus, the only true rehabilitation comes from Christ. Any secular methods are bound to fail (which recent history has proven).
Darius, where do you get those numbers (I’d rather not spend an hour running through 100 comments to find your points/sources). According to the UNODC, there were a total of 466 homicides in 1970 in the UK (it’s their earliest date) with a population of 55,632,000 (source for population). In 2006, there were 887 homicides with a population of 60,587,000. That means the rate per 100k in 1970 was 0.84 and 1.46 in 2006. Yes, that is an increase, but I don’t think it is caused by abolition of capital punishment. Look at countries such as Austria which went from 193/7,491,526 to 61/8,281,948 (UNODC, Statistik Austria). That’s a drop from 2.58 to 0.74. In fact the homicide rate either stays the same or drops in Denmark, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden (which seemed to have had a strange thing going in the 70s where it was 100 total one year, 250 the next, then down to 100 again!). This is decent data to suggest at least initially that abolishing capital punishment–at the worst–does nothing to change the homicide rate and, at best, reduces it.
I want to come back to the original topic.
It’s interesting the article written by ChrisA because help us to clarify our toughts about subtle way of rascism.
I have to confess that many times I believe that animosity between Palestine and Israel found its root in conflict Agar-Ismael-Isaac.
Today I don’t deny that, but I can affirm that.
However I say this:
1) Israel is not the good guy of the current history and Palestine the bad one, but the opposite is not true either.
2) There is (and was) a manipulation of Palestine cause from certain arab countries, such like Egypt (in the past), Irak (in the past when Hussein was there) and Syria et al.
But for example what Jordania did for Palestine?
Many leftish claim to support to Palestinian but did nothing except to blame to Israel.
3) Many people forget that arabs reject the plan of partition from UN in 1947. The first attitude towards Israel was reject it as state. In its beggining PLO wanted to destroy Israel.
4) Israel was the only (please fix me is I am wrong) country in the history that didn’t answer to an external aggression (First Gulf War).
5) In spite of that, I think that Israel after to strengthen itself as regional power have commited excess against palestinian. Is true too, that many jews (and christians) think that the right to own the “land” and that palestinian have not any right to have their state.
Greets
cchrisr, Darius doesn’t believe in facts. His frail human logic has told him what must be true, and any evidence to the contrary is just part of a huge left wing conspiracy.
Chris A, I’m not going to look them up now, but my constant hassling of you as a conspiracy theorist is based on one or two indefensible statements you made and refused to back off of (especially the article where you tried to redefine the term “conspiracy theory”). If it bothers you though, I’ll stop. It was only meant in fun.
Sergio, lots of countries haven’t responded to aggressive actions over the course of history. That said, the rest of your posting is pretty accurate. The source of this conflict does probably go back at least to the time of Abraham, both socially and religiously. I still see no reason to prefer either side based on racial prejudice, but only on the actions they choose to take.
Atanamis, I went back and looked at the comments both of us posted on the article I wrote. And many of your comments seem to be predicated on theories you accuse me of having that I have never espoused. That’s why I never even attempted to refute the “indefensible statements” you claim that I made; it seemed that you imagined quite a bit and attributed it to me without any actual basis. Here is an example:
“This is where your position becomes a conspiracy. You are ignoring the clear evidence of what happened (hijackers crashed planes into the towers causing them to collapse) and choosing without a shred of evidence to make up theories that conflict with the evidence we DO have. It is entirely plausible that our government never actually figured out who hired the hijackers or that they did and haven’t told us, it ISN’T plausible that our local law enforcement agencies and various industrial experts who have analyzed the damage and video are all in collaboration to cover up the event.”
Please note that the article in question did not once mention 9/11, and I had not previously posted comments ignoring the “clear evidence of what happened”. It appears that you just made this up. In fact, I would really like to know when I ever put forth a theory about 9/11 on this blog. Maybe you would be able to locate something I don’t remember, but the comments that I recall making have to do with what I would consider more than “reasonable doubt” that our government has told us the full story; I’m not even convinced those in charge of the 9/11 Commission investigation were very interested in finding out the whole story. Maybe some people are okay with that; I’m not.
Although you made some comments about the article that were logical, there was so much misinformation in the stuff that you said that formulating a response to the legitimate stuff just wasn’t worth it. Here’s another excerpt from you comments:
“You can as legitimately claim that nobody died on 9/11, but that they were all smuggled out through the subway and locked in secret concentration camps. The bodies were from the morgue, and medical records faked to make them match. This is how ridiculous your claim is. You’re claiming that tens of thousands of people secretly participated in a conspiracy to fake what happened. It isn’t possible.”
Once again I never made reference to 9/11 in the article, and I never once made a claim remotely similar to the one you imagined that I had made. I never said that thousands participated in a conspiracy to “fake” anything. In fact, this comment in particular is a prime example of the psychological warfare I mentioned in the article – namely that someone would take a ridiculous scenario and associate it with legitimate comments in order to discredit them.
Now I realize that you could interpret this post as though I am sore at the comments you made against me, but that’s not it at all. I don’t care. At issue is the fact that you could make dishonest claims that are really the most fragile of straw-men, never once retract them when confronted, and then say that it was just a joke when someone calls you on it.
The truth is that I rather enjoy discussing things with you. And in fact, I enjoy opposition; that’s why I like having Darius on here. It helps me to examine my own attitudes and feelings more objectively, because I’m not above changing my mind about things when I’m able to see another side of something. Also, we probably agree as much as we disagree anyway, which also is good.
I apologize for making false claims about your positions. I may have accidentally associated your defense of “conspiracy theories” with posts made somewhere else and falsely accused you of having made them. I will therefore recant of these accusations, which running some searches I cannot now defend. Honestly, I really was mostly trolling you in that thread anyway (yes, I do that sometimes). From now on, I will make an effort to respond only in the context of posts I can actually find rather than those which I vaguely remember in the back of my head but can’t locate using google.
“I apologize for making false claims about your positions…”
Its all good. I’ve probably done this too.
Ham=Blacks
Shem=Arabs
Japeth=Whites