The Donald Sterling Light

Donald-SterlingDonald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, was banned from participation in NBA events and fined two and a half million dollars. What did he do? According to CNN,

The inflammatory sentiments Silver referred to came packaged in a 10-minute recording that TMZ said occurred during an April 9 conversation between Sterling and girlfriend V. Stiviano … On the recording, a man and woman argue about photos posted to Instagram in which she appears with African-Americans. The man says he doesn’t want the woman bringing any black people to games with her.

Mr. Sterling said, in a private conversation made public, that he did not want the woman with black men while at Clipper games. For that statement and the ideas behind it, Sterling has been blacklisted and socially shunned.

Here are some observations:

  • Sterling’s statements may be rude and impolite, but they are his thoughts and opinions. He did not murder anyone, rape women, or embezzle people’s salaries.
  • Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, stated “I hope that every bigot in this country sees what happened to Mr. Sterling and recognizes that if he can fall, so can you.” This blanket threat sets a precedent for punishing people based purely on their beliefs and opinions.
  • The left have long decried being forced to conform their thoughts and opinions to the conservative culture and have sited Joseph McCarthy as the highest symbol of being persecuted. Now they seem quite comfortable with forcing others to conform thoughts and opinions to their culture.
  • Racism is included with sexism and heterosexism, in the progressive culture, meaning that everyone in the conservative culture in America is fair game for being ostracized and punished for not conforming to minority rights, feminism, and gay rights.
  • Sterling is on the same list as Cliven Bundy.
  • Spying on “bigots” and exposing them for punishment is an acceptable tactic.
  • The Christian axiom of “judge not” so often used against conservatives will now fall on deaf ears.

Understand, Sterling was not merely criticized for his remarks and looked down on. He was banned from an entire organization and fined. This incident shines light on the fact that the Progressive culture is waking up to the very reality they thought they were escaping. If they want their ideal culture to be free from the big “-isms”, “racism,” “sexism,” and “heterosexism,” they are going to have limit free speech and punish those who will not conform.

The new world still looks like the real world. Citizens should be careful what they say and believe and not assume they have freedom of speech and thought.

Hollywood, Feminism, And Some Thoughts On Female Emotion

Hollywood does it again ...
Hollywood does it again …

I recently had some fun watching Captain America: Winter Soldier. While I did not have hard and high expectations of greatness of the special effects extravaganza, overall I was not disappointed. However, I noticed something strange about the film’s fictional world.

Two of the major characters were capable of super-human feats due to their scientific augmentations. A third character also seemed capable of similar feats, though without the same augmentation (or any that was mentioned in the film). The two augmented characters were men and the third character was a woman.

What I took away from the film was that men are weak and need technology to function with any courage or strength in the world whereas women are naturally courageous and strong. It seems that Hollywood just cannot help itself. Captain America may be a super hero, but he is a man and men are inferior next to the greatness of women.

Sigh.

Frankly, I find male super-heroes to be limited in their ability to be interesting and female bad asses I find utterly boring.

On another note, based on what I have observed over the past few years, I theorize that men are natural isolationists whereas women thrive on emotional connection. Women are driven by their emotions, to varying degrees, and when their hunger for deep emotional connection consumes them they will fight viciously for that connection. If it takes intense anger and tears between two people, then they will act with chaotic disruption to cause that anger and those tears in order to have that deep, emotional common ground. It drives men to hunger for isolation intensely and they become detached and distant.

This is why women should not drive relationships.

The Cliven Bundy Syndrome

Cliven Bundy, the famous (or infamous depending on one’s sensitivities) Nevada rancher who defended his claim to land against the government’s claim to the same land, has been branded a racist for remarks he made about African-Americans (or blacks or colored people or whatever the trendy term is). In a sidebar commentary a short time after the standoff, he commented on some of the things he had witnessed.

Here is a video of the comments that have earned him enemies and cost him friends:

Yet, what he says has less to do with his beliefs on race and more to do with his opinion of government-subsidized living:

I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro. When I go through Las Vegas, north Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses. And in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids and there was always half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do, and because they were basically on government subsidies. So now what do they do? They abort their young children. They put their young men in jail because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they better off as slaves picking cotton, having a family life, and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidies … They got less freedom, have less family life … you could see in their faces they weren’t happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk.

Cliven Bundy’s social stumble was the use of the words “Negro,” “cotton,” and “slavery,” yet what he said was not a racial slur against African-Americans, but against the government programs that are supposed to alleviate poverty among African-Americans. His complaint is that even under slavery there was labor and family and activity while under government guaranteed subsidies, there is apathy, abortion, and crime. He even states that African-Americans are less free and less happy under modern conditions than previous generations. He argues that the young men never learned how to work and produce (pick cotton) and there is a lack of coherent families (abortion and jail). All of which has been thoroughly documented and debated by conservatives over the past few decades. Though his language is a bit antiquated (though not as offensive as every claims it to be), he is actually showing a bit wisdom and sympathy toward “Negros.” It bothers him that they are idle, lack family life, and are unhappy.

The fact that someone has to explain this shows just how sensational and shallow news has becomes and how little critical thinking people are expected to do.

While the headlines blacklist (no pun intended) Bundy as a racists, the true barb is that he stated the government has done more harm than good and that is a taboo for the establishment.

[Update: The Spearhead has an article saying what I wanted to say far better than I actually said it.]

The Fatal Flaw Of Secular Democracy

Christ's ThroneThe great experiments in Democracy, liberty for people, has been a success by most accounts. Authority from monarchs has been neutralized and the will of the people has become the deciding factor in the direction Western nations take. However, the secularization of Western democracies has a fatal flaw that will ultimately spell its doom.

Human civilizations have lived under some state of monarchy for much of history. Be it kings of the primordial world, the kings of Israel, the king of Babylon, Grecian thrones, the Caesars of Rome, and the kings and queens of England, monarchy has been a long established pattern of human government. Democracy is the attempt to eliminate that pattern for a new pattern, one where the many rule themselves instead of the many ruled by one. The secularization of democracy solidifies this into a movement of complete human autonomy.

A secular arrangement requires a worldview that is either deist or atheist in its concept. The existence of a transcendent God presents a problem if that God is moral and carries out judgment on humans who violate that His morality. Mankind’s independence requires that God not exist or that God not be involved in man’s affairs.

A third concept holds that God does exist and God is involved in the affairs of man, but He is permanently and perpetually benevolent, never negative in his morality (prohibition through law) and never passing judgment (punishment). It is man who then becomes moral in the negative and judgmental and being so makes him inferior to God, who is not. In such a state, God is ultimately nothing more than high idealism or emotional comfort since it is man who must do the dirty work of tackling his own problems. Given that God is either unwilling or incapable, God becomes irrelevant and man is left to himself to rule himself in autonomy.

The one problem man is then left to do without God is face the problem of evil. He must not only decide for himself what is good and what is evil, but must decide what to do about evil. God remains a high idea and a great comfort in man’s efforts to be like God, to be perpetually good and never evil, but it is the hands of man and not God that get dirty. The fundamental pride in humanist autonomy is that man is both capable of identifying evil and dealing with it, without need for God.

Declaring that man and God are partners working together in relationship for the same goal, the promotion of good, solves nothing. If God will not prohibit behavior (law) and judge violators (punishment), then it falls on man to do so. The presence of God is irrelevant based simply on the fact that He is impotent.

Given that man did not create himself, his existence is entirely because of the will of his creator, God. Thus, man is both dependent on and answerable to the One who created him. This removes any possibility of man ruling himself.

Modern democratic movements operate on the concept of man living without any ruling authority, either in this universe or outside this universe. The masses of people are heralded as heroes whenever they rebel against any authority that might affect their lives. For the past one hundred years, the secular democratic movement has allowed citizens to defy their families, churches, and governments, any symbol of authority, for the sake of individual liberty.

Christianity holds there is one God, manifested in the man Jesus Christ, who is now sitting in a position of monarchical authority over the material universe. The affairs of man are under the whim and will of His throne. Christ is not the babe swaddled in a manager, but a man sitting on a throne given to him by God, the only monarch by divine right to have ever existed.

Under this absolute rule, men build democracies, seeking to grant liberty and justice for all. There is no shame in such efforts and it could easily be argued that God promotes such efforts today as He did in the past. Yet, as they grow confident in the works of their hands, they are forgetting the God who made man’s minds, hearts, and hands. They are forgetting that they are clay in the hands of the Grand Potter. It would do political leaders well to visit tombs and graves and see the final end of all men, small and great.

Western democracy has been a great comfort and achievement for fallen man, but if he should forget to fear the wrath of God and fear the judgment of His Christ, then he all that he has built will be taken from him.

The only rational way to have a successful democracy is to have it dominated by Christianity, a moral religion that points toward a divine monarch, whose authority makes null and void any and all other claims of greatness. Secularization and the cultural neutralizing of Christianity by other religions reflects the great temptation of Eden. Man seeks to be like God, knowing good and evil for himself, autonomous and justified in his own magnificence.

This may lead to the final end of the democratic effort and its ultimate downfall. Man simply was not made to rule himself. Instead of fighting wars to spread secular democracy around the world, perhaps the goals of “Christian” nations should be to promote acknowledgement of the throne of Christ.

Why Creationism Remains a Superior Answer

Evolution has become the dominant answer for the question of man’s origins, at least among the more intellectual and educated. The wealth of data supporting it as well as its sheer popularity has proven a compelling force for many.

Yet, the creationist movement remains strong and vibrant. Supporters begin with the belief that the Protestant cannon, the 66 books that make up the Holy Bible, come from God and that the history presented in the first couple chapters of Genesis, the opening books of the Bible, is historically accurate, being divinely originated. If it says that God created the world in six literal days, then the world was created in six literal days.

Now, those who challenge a literal six-day creation for an evolutionary history will bring up the idea that the Genesis account does not propose a scientific answer to the origins of man. The intent of Genesis, it is said, is to provide a history for Israel. Or for some other intent. This argument of intent is right. Genesis is not a scientific book and does not provide a purely scientific answer to the beginnings of man and his purpose on earth and it is not meant to.

The question then is whether or not man should live by purely scientific means. The great weakness of science is that it is incapable of providing morality for man, the guidelines that determine what actions a man should and should not take.

Take rape for instance. Science can provide incredible amounts of information about what happened, and it can even offer a psychological motivation, but it cannot answer the most important question. Is rape morally wrong?

This is the great advantage that the biblical account of creation has over the scientific answer of evolution. It provides a moral answer where evolution offers only scientific information. Science can only say that man evolved from previous stages of life and that at one point there were males and females who mated and produced offspring. What it cannot give is a moral basis for determining whether or not man should or should not kill his fellow-man or whether or not a male should force himself sexually on a female. Stating that God made man in His image and then gave him woman and marriage, as the Bible does, provides a clear basis for moral answers to such questions.

Science is a great gift to man, but it cannot be the basis for his existence. A creation account does not have to be scientifically accurate to be right because it is more interested in a moral answer. Man needs a moral foundation to life, not a scientific foundation. Creationism, having life founded on the biblical account of a six-day creation, even if it is mythical, provides the moral foundation man needs to live. Because of that, evolution will remain an untenable answer for man’s existence here on earth.