People should protest the showing of the movie "The Campaign" by
staying away from the theater complexes that show it. Promos
indicate the movie contains a totally unacceptable scene in which a man
apparently hits a baby.
In the scene one man is shown starting to punch another man. The
second man ducks resulting in the first man apparently hitting a baby
in the face. The movie is being promoted as a comedy but there is
no way an adult hitting a baby can be considered funny by
any normal person. The movie doesn't show the punch actually
hitting the baby. but the implication is that the baby was hit.
A man apparently hitting a baby isn't funny. When an adult hits a
baby in the head sometimes the baby dies.
The standard comedy routine of a person being hit by mistake is for the
person being hit to be a tough guy such as Sylvester Stallone.
Having an adult hit a baby instead is sick, not funny. Only
bullies hit those who are unable to protect themselves. Bullies
are the ones most likely to be drawn to theaters to see an adult hit a
baby.
The best way to protest this objectionable film would be to boycott the
entire theater complex that is showing the movie rather than just
boycotting the movie. Boycotting all movies at the complex will
provide a greater incentive for the owner to replace the offensive film
with another. If people only boycott the offensive film the owner only
faces a loss on that film. If all films are boycotted he can't
make up the loss with the other films.
At mall theaters, boycotters should consider staying away from the mall
while the film is being shown.
Child abuse is a major national problem. The news media
regularly carry stories about babies who have been beaten or shaken to
death. Movie makers should not try to make the subject seem
less serious by presenting child abuse as something to laugh at.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
VIRUS ALERT
VIRUS ALERT
I recently received two suspicious emails that used my sister's email address but weren't typical of her emails. They urged me to click on a site something like finance15cinews. Two sites in a Google search indicate a possible "phish" type virus. DO NOT click on the link
.
I recently received two suspicious emails that used my sister's email address but weren't typical of her emails. They urged me to click on a site something like finance15cinews. Two sites in a Google search indicate a possible "phish" type virus. DO NOT click on the link
.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Same Sex "Marriage" Is Biologically Impossible
Marriage is a biological function, not something created by government
to discriminate against homosexuals.
Regardless of how government may artificially define marriage in legal terms, marriage is really the union of the two different types of human beings -- males and females. Two members of the same sex cannot have a marriage relationship regardless of what ignorant politicians like President Barack Obama say.
Marriage unites members of the different sexes to form a unit that has all the human characteristics. Two men or two women cannot form such a unit. They are like two left shoes or two right shoes. A man and a woman fit together like two puzzle pieces. Two people of the same sex are just mirror images.
Males and females not only have anatomical differences, they have different biochemistries, including different skin PH. Men's and women's brains function differently.
Males produce chemicals called pheromones that are beneficial to females. The research on how males might benefit from pheromones women produce is less clear because most research on female pheromones deals with how they attract men. Research does indicate that men benefit from marriage and the benefits may involve biochemistry.
The fact that men's and women's brains function differently complicates relationships, but provides the couple with the benefit of viewing the problems faced from two different perspectives. This difference stimulates the relationship and makes the opposite sex more intriguing. A member of the opposite sex is more likely to respond "unexpectedly" to a situation than a member of one's own sex.
The brain differences can potentially allow an opposite sex partner to provide a type of support that someone with the same type of brain cannot. However, some people may be psychologically unable to provide or accept support from others.
Having sex with a member of the opposite sex allows an individual to experience the physical sexuality of the opposite sex. Having sex with a member of one's own sex provides no such benefit.
To women, men are strength. To men, women are energy.
In many cultures a man will refer to his wife as his "better half". A woman may call her husband her "other half". A husband or a wife is half of a unit. Both together are a complete unit.
When a man calls his partner a wife he is indicating she is his female half. For a woman, a husband is her male half.
A woman who calls her partner a "wife" is implying the partner, rather than her, is the female part of the unit making her the "male". A woman who calls her partner a "wife" and expects her partner to have any children is acting like a man and is very likely a transsexual rather than a homosexual. She may call herself a lesbian because she fails to understand that she is attracted to other women because she has the brain of a man.
Some male homosexuals claim that they look at other men the same way men look at women. However, scientific research by Dr. Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicates that in their brains, homosexual men "look at" other men the way women look at men. This tendency could indicate that these homosexual men have female brains and are thus transsexuals. They call their partners "husbands" because subconsciously they think of themselves as women.
A study by of lesbians by Dr. Savic indicates their brains responded to certain chemicals that might be pheromones in the same way as the brains of heterosexual men rather than in the way that heterosexual women's brains responded.
Homosexuals don't understand that the characteristics of the human body only determine how the body can engage in sexual activity. Human sexuality is determined by the sexual identity of the brain. A female brain is attracted to a male body. A male brain is attracted to a female body. A person attracted to someone with the same type of body most likely has a brain of the other sex.
A study of brain structure by Dr. Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, of the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicates that homosexual men and heterosexual women have similar brains and that homosexual women and heterosexual men have similar brains.
Heterosexuals desire a marriage relationship to gain a feeling of completeness by being part of a unit that contains a member of each sex. Homosexuals cannot become complete by having a relationship with a member of their own sex, even though they may think that calling a relationship a marriage gives them what heterosexuals have in a marriage. Homosexuals who want to call their relationship a "marriage" are implying they are dissatisfied with being homosexuals and want what they believe heterosexuals have by being married.
Homosexuals don't understand sex. They don't understand marriage. They don't understand their own medical condition.
Regardless of how government may artificially define marriage in legal terms, marriage is really the union of the two different types of human beings -- males and females. Two members of the same sex cannot have a marriage relationship regardless of what ignorant politicians like President Barack Obama say.
Marriage unites members of the different sexes to form a unit that has all the human characteristics. Two men or two women cannot form such a unit. They are like two left shoes or two right shoes. A man and a woman fit together like two puzzle pieces. Two people of the same sex are just mirror images.
Males and females not only have anatomical differences, they have different biochemistries, including different skin PH. Men's and women's brains function differently.
Males produce chemicals called pheromones that are beneficial to females. The research on how males might benefit from pheromones women produce is less clear because most research on female pheromones deals with how they attract men. Research does indicate that men benefit from marriage and the benefits may involve biochemistry.
The fact that men's and women's brains function differently complicates relationships, but provides the couple with the benefit of viewing the problems faced from two different perspectives. This difference stimulates the relationship and makes the opposite sex more intriguing. A member of the opposite sex is more likely to respond "unexpectedly" to a situation than a member of one's own sex.
The brain differences can potentially allow an opposite sex partner to provide a type of support that someone with the same type of brain cannot. However, some people may be psychologically unable to provide or accept support from others.
Having sex with a member of the opposite sex allows an individual to experience the physical sexuality of the opposite sex. Having sex with a member of one's own sex provides no such benefit.
To women, men are strength. To men, women are energy.
In many cultures a man will refer to his wife as his "better half". A woman may call her husband her "other half". A husband or a wife is half of a unit. Both together are a complete unit.
When a man calls his partner a wife he is indicating she is his female half. For a woman, a husband is her male half.
A woman who calls her partner a "wife" is implying the partner, rather than her, is the female part of the unit making her the "male". A woman who calls her partner a "wife" and expects her partner to have any children is acting like a man and is very likely a transsexual rather than a homosexual. She may call herself a lesbian because she fails to understand that she is attracted to other women because she has the brain of a man.
Some male homosexuals claim that they look at other men the same way men look at women. However, scientific research by Dr. Ivanka Savic of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicates that in their brains, homosexual men "look at" other men the way women look at men. This tendency could indicate that these homosexual men have female brains and are thus transsexuals. They call their partners "husbands" because subconsciously they think of themselves as women.
A study by of lesbians by Dr. Savic indicates their brains responded to certain chemicals that might be pheromones in the same way as the brains of heterosexual men rather than in the way that heterosexual women's brains responded.
Homosexuals don't understand that the characteristics of the human body only determine how the body can engage in sexual activity. Human sexuality is determined by the sexual identity of the brain. A female brain is attracted to a male body. A male brain is attracted to a female body. A person attracted to someone with the same type of body most likely has a brain of the other sex.
A study of brain structure by Dr. Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström, of the Department of Clinical Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, indicates that homosexual men and heterosexual women have similar brains and that homosexual women and heterosexual men have similar brains.
Heterosexuals desire a marriage relationship to gain a feeling of completeness by being part of a unit that contains a member of each sex. Homosexuals cannot become complete by having a relationship with a member of their own sex, even though they may think that calling a relationship a marriage gives them what heterosexuals have in a marriage. Homosexuals who want to call their relationship a "marriage" are implying they are dissatisfied with being homosexuals and want what they believe heterosexuals have by being married.
Homosexuals don't understand sex. They don't understand marriage. They don't understand their own medical condition.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Will Obama Abandon Eastern Europe?
President Barack Obama's recent statement to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, for incoming President Vladimir Putin, that he would be more willing to give into Russian demands after the election indicates re-election of Obama could be a disaster for the United States. Obama's statement is particularly disturbing because it comes on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred because Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev thought President John Kennedy's mishandling of the Bay of Pigs and weak response to the Berlin Crisis of 1961 indicated Kennedy was indecisive and weak. Khrushchev thought the Soviet Union could take advantage of that perceived weakness to place nuclear missiles in Cuba.
Thinking about the Cuban Missile Crisis reminds me that I got a haircut on Friday, October 26, 1962. As I rode my bicycle home from Buff's Barber Shop late that afternoon I wondered if my school would still be there on Monday morning or if I would still be alive.
Russia's attitude to the missile defense system the U.S. has placed in Eastern Europe to protect against missiles from Iran implies Russia, or at least Putin, isn't convinced the Cold War is completely over. Or, maybe Putin wants the appearance of a conflict with the U.S. so he can use the threat of a foreign enemy to suppress freedom of speech in Russia.
The mistake many Americans made after World War II was in thinking that "communism" was the enemy instead of Russia. The Soviet Union was never anything more than a fancy name for the Russian Empire. To rephrase Marx, in Russia "socialism[communism] was the opiate of the people."
Many believe that Putin is not really confortable with democracy. Many Russians are complaining that he stole the recent election.
Putin probably is smart enough to realize he cannot afford a military invasion of Eastern Europe, but he may want to be able to intimidate East European governments into having closer relations with Russia, particularly in the economic area.
If Putin can get the U.S. to retreat from its promises to protect Eastern Europe from missile attack, he may think he can convince East European governments that America can't be relied on to protect them. He might then attempt to intimidate them into abandoning ties with the west in favor of a close relationship with Russia.
Such a threat could produce a major crisis that Obama would be incapable of handling because he isn't a leader.
Nikita Khrushchev decided to place missiles in Cuba because he misinterpreted President John Kennedy's inexperienced handling of the Bay of Pigs and the Berlin Crisis as weakness. Will Putin decide Obama is weak after Obama in effect has said that appeasing Putin is more important to Obama than doing what the American people want?
In the second presidential debate in 1976 President Gerald Ford in a slip of the tongue said, "there is no Soviet domination of eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration." He later said he meant to say that he wouldn't recognize such domination.
Obama cannot claim that his statement to Medvedev was a slip of the tongue without appearing incompetent.
In October, 1944, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill meet with Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin in Moscow and discussed the percentages agreement that accepted Soviet spheres of influence in southeastern Europe. After World War II ended Stalin expanded Soviet control well beyond the percentages suggested by Churchill by sending in groups to establish Soviet style dictatorships.
Churchill and American President Franklin Roosevelt had to give concessions to Stalin because they still needed Soviet help to defeat Germany. They believed they would need Soviet help to defeat Japan.
Obama has no such need for Russian support against foreign enemies. He has no need to appease Russia in eastern Europe.
Would Putin interpret an Obama "retreat" from eastern Europe as an opening to try to help Russia friendly groups in eastern Europe replace their governments with governments friendly to Russia, possibly by using questionable tactics? If that happened would some American politicians respond by trying to start a new McCarthy type era?
Former President Bill Clinton needs to remind Obama that reelection doesn't insure a full term of office. Clinton was impeached after being reelected and barely escaped removal from office. President Richard Nixon was forced to resign after a landslide victory because his supporters used questionable campaign tactics.
If Obama gives in to Putin and Putin takes advantage of him to create a major crisis, Obama could face impeachment. The charge wouldn't be corruption as was the case with Clinton and Nixon. The charge would be "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" (i.e., treason).
The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred because Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev thought President John Kennedy's mishandling of the Bay of Pigs and weak response to the Berlin Crisis of 1961 indicated Kennedy was indecisive and weak. Khrushchev thought the Soviet Union could take advantage of that perceived weakness to place nuclear missiles in Cuba.
Thinking about the Cuban Missile Crisis reminds me that I got a haircut on Friday, October 26, 1962. As I rode my bicycle home from Buff's Barber Shop late that afternoon I wondered if my school would still be there on Monday morning or if I would still be alive.
Russia's attitude to the missile defense system the U.S. has placed in Eastern Europe to protect against missiles from Iran implies Russia, or at least Putin, isn't convinced the Cold War is completely over. Or, maybe Putin wants the appearance of a conflict with the U.S. so he can use the threat of a foreign enemy to suppress freedom of speech in Russia.
The mistake many Americans made after World War II was in thinking that "communism" was the enemy instead of Russia. The Soviet Union was never anything more than a fancy name for the Russian Empire. To rephrase Marx, in Russia "socialism[communism] was the opiate of the people."
Many believe that Putin is not really confortable with democracy. Many Russians are complaining that he stole the recent election.
Putin probably is smart enough to realize he cannot afford a military invasion of Eastern Europe, but he may want to be able to intimidate East European governments into having closer relations with Russia, particularly in the economic area.
If Putin can get the U.S. to retreat from its promises to protect Eastern Europe from missile attack, he may think he can convince East European governments that America can't be relied on to protect them. He might then attempt to intimidate them into abandoning ties with the west in favor of a close relationship with Russia.
Such a threat could produce a major crisis that Obama would be incapable of handling because he isn't a leader.
Nikita Khrushchev decided to place missiles in Cuba because he misinterpreted President John Kennedy's inexperienced handling of the Bay of Pigs and the Berlin Crisis as weakness. Will Putin decide Obama is weak after Obama in effect has said that appeasing Putin is more important to Obama than doing what the American people want?
In the second presidential debate in 1976 President Gerald Ford in a slip of the tongue said, "there is no Soviet domination of eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration." He later said he meant to say that he wouldn't recognize such domination.
Obama cannot claim that his statement to Medvedev was a slip of the tongue without appearing incompetent.
In October, 1944, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill meet with Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin in Moscow and discussed the percentages agreement that accepted Soviet spheres of influence in southeastern Europe. After World War II ended Stalin expanded Soviet control well beyond the percentages suggested by Churchill by sending in groups to establish Soviet style dictatorships.
Churchill and American President Franklin Roosevelt had to give concessions to Stalin because they still needed Soviet help to defeat Germany. They believed they would need Soviet help to defeat Japan.
Obama has no such need for Russian support against foreign enemies. He has no need to appease Russia in eastern Europe.
Would Putin interpret an Obama "retreat" from eastern Europe as an opening to try to help Russia friendly groups in eastern Europe replace their governments with governments friendly to Russia, possibly by using questionable tactics? If that happened would some American politicians respond by trying to start a new McCarthy type era?
Former President Bill Clinton needs to remind Obama that reelection doesn't insure a full term of office. Clinton was impeached after being reelected and barely escaped removal from office. President Richard Nixon was forced to resign after a landslide victory because his supporters used questionable campaign tactics.
If Obama gives in to Putin and Putin takes advantage of him to create a major crisis, Obama could face impeachment. The charge wouldn't be corruption as was the case with Clinton and Nixon. The charge would be "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" (i.e., treason).
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
"Dodge City" Florida
Those of us who like old tv westerns have watched the scene uncounted times. A gunfighter goads someone into drawing against him and gets away with the subsequent killing by claiming "self defense" because the other guy "drew first".
George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin sounds very similar except for the fact that Martin jumped Zimmerman instead of drawing on him.
Zimmerman has admitted that he essentially was stalking Martin before Martin apparently attempted to hide from Zimmerman. When Zimmerman got out of his vehicle Martin may have felt Zimmerman was going to attack him and decided to act first.
Martin reminds me of the "young cowboy named Billy Joe" that Johnny Cash sang about. Billy Joe was convinced that it would be safe for him to take his guns to town because he could "shoot as quick and straight as anybody". We can't be sure of what Martin was thinking but he apparently thought he could take on anybody even though he didn't have a weapon and had no way of knowing if his stalker was armed.
I don't know if Zimmerman has watched many cop/private detective shows, but if he has he has watched the wrong shows or didn't pay attention. If I had been watching this scenario on tv knowing that Zimmerman was armed and Martin was not, I would have anticipated what happened. Movie and tv characters being followed at least since the days of Humphrey Bogart have been known to step into the shadows to catch stalkers.
If Martin had been a armed criminal instead of an teenager just interested in getting something to eat and drink, Zimmerman would likely have died from a stab wound or bullet. If Martin had been armed he could have used the Stand Your Ground law to justify killing the man who was stalking him.
The media have focused on Martin's skin color because most of those in the media are obsessed with the issue of skin color. However, Martin's age may have been more important in causing Zimmerman to consider him suspicious. Male teenagers commit a disproportionate number of crimes.
There's one critical difference between what happened in Florida and the gunfights in Matt Dillon's Dodge City. In Dodge City a man who shot an unarmed man would be taken to jail by Marshall Dillon or given a permanent home on Boot Hill. On tv westerns ending a fist fight with a gun was considered murder regardless of who started the fight.
George Zimmerman may not have wanted to push Trayvon Martin into a fight, but he did. Zimmerman's reckless behavior resulted in the death of Martin. If Florida's law allows a man to cause a fight with an unarmed man so he can get away with killing, there is something wrong with the law. If Florida fails to prosecute Zimmerman it will be a signal to bullies that they can get away with murder if they can push their victims into throwing the first punch.
Florida's "Stand your ground" law might be a good thing if it applies to those are trying to defend against a threat from someone else. However, if the law protects those who initiate
dangerous situations it may legalize murder.
On the old westerns, when the law was too slow to deal with someone people had decided was guilty, some of them might decide to take the law into their own hands. Some groups are already reportedly threatening some form of vigilante action if Zimmerman isn't prosecuted. In another case, police might be able to wait to see if they could find evidence that would make prosecution easier. They may not have that option in this case. If authorities delay getting the case into the courts too long, they may end up having to prosecute someone else for killing Zimmerman.
George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin sounds very similar except for the fact that Martin jumped Zimmerman instead of drawing on him.
Zimmerman has admitted that he essentially was stalking Martin before Martin apparently attempted to hide from Zimmerman. When Zimmerman got out of his vehicle Martin may have felt Zimmerman was going to attack him and decided to act first.
Martin reminds me of the "young cowboy named Billy Joe" that Johnny Cash sang about. Billy Joe was convinced that it would be safe for him to take his guns to town because he could "shoot as quick and straight as anybody". We can't be sure of what Martin was thinking but he apparently thought he could take on anybody even though he didn't have a weapon and had no way of knowing if his stalker was armed.
I don't know if Zimmerman has watched many cop/private detective shows, but if he has he has watched the wrong shows or didn't pay attention. If I had been watching this scenario on tv knowing that Zimmerman was armed and Martin was not, I would have anticipated what happened. Movie and tv characters being followed at least since the days of Humphrey Bogart have been known to step into the shadows to catch stalkers.
If Martin had been a armed criminal instead of an teenager just interested in getting something to eat and drink, Zimmerman would likely have died from a stab wound or bullet. If Martin had been armed he could have used the Stand Your Ground law to justify killing the man who was stalking him.
The media have focused on Martin's skin color because most of those in the media are obsessed with the issue of skin color. However, Martin's age may have been more important in causing Zimmerman to consider him suspicious. Male teenagers commit a disproportionate number of crimes.
There's one critical difference between what happened in Florida and the gunfights in Matt Dillon's Dodge City. In Dodge City a man who shot an unarmed man would be taken to jail by Marshall Dillon or given a permanent home on Boot Hill. On tv westerns ending a fist fight with a gun was considered murder regardless of who started the fight.
George Zimmerman may not have wanted to push Trayvon Martin into a fight, but he did. Zimmerman's reckless behavior resulted in the death of Martin. If Florida's law allows a man to cause a fight with an unarmed man so he can get away with killing, there is something wrong with the law. If Florida fails to prosecute Zimmerman it will be a signal to bullies that they can get away with murder if they can push their victims into throwing the first punch.
Florida's "Stand your ground" law might be a good thing if it applies to those are trying to defend against a threat from someone else. However, if the law protects those who initiate
dangerous situations it may legalize murder.
On the old westerns, when the law was too slow to deal with someone people had decided was guilty, some of them might decide to take the law into their own hands. Some groups are already reportedly threatening some form of vigilante action if Zimmerman isn't prosecuted. In another case, police might be able to wait to see if they could find evidence that would make prosecution easier. They may not have that option in this case. If authorities delay getting the case into the courts too long, they may end up having to prosecute someone else for killing Zimmerman.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Should Christians Support the Greedy Rich
I recently watched an old episode of my mom's favorite television show, the "Billy Graham Crusades". Dr. Graham surprised me with some of his comments about the Biblical city of Sodom. He said that greed was one of the sins of the people of Sodom. According to Ezekiel 16:49 - "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
Many members of the Republican Party have a problem with this same sin. So why do Christians in the Republican Party encourage this sin by supporting low taxes for those with high incomes? Why do Christians support Republicans who don't believe in helping the poor?
Sodom isn't the only Biblical location whose residents were punished by God for mistreating the poor. The Israeli prophets warned the leaders of Israel about the consequences of mistreating the poor before wealthy Israelites were taken into captivity and the land left to the poor.
Ezekiel 22:12 - "you take interest and make a profit from the poor. You extort unjust gain from your neighbors. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD."
Amos 4:1 - "Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria, you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy and say to your husbands, “Bring us some drinks!”
Amos 5:11 - "You levy a straw tax on the poor and impose a tax on their grain. Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them; though you have planted lush vineyards, you will not drink their wine."
Luke and other gospels carry a statement by Jesus about the problem facing the rich. " Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Luke 18:24-5
Preachers often suggest the camel analogy is about something large going through a tight opening. The analogy is more likely a camel saying like the "straw that broke the camel's back" or what happens if someone lets a camel get its head inside a tent. People of that era likely used the task of getting a camel through the eye of a needle as a way to determine how difficult the task was.
The problem with getting a camel through the eye of a needle is the shape of the animal and its sometimes uncooperative nature. The long neck, legs and hump means the task isn't simple even with a very large needle. Keep in mind that a needle has a long portion connected to the eye.
Christian Republicans need to recognize that abortion and sexual morality aren't the only moral issues in politics. Mistreatment of the poor and how the rich acquire wealth are at least as important. Christians need to move away from the greedy Republicans who believe the rich should escape the taxes needed to fund government.
Many members of the Republican Party have a problem with this same sin. So why do Christians in the Republican Party encourage this sin by supporting low taxes for those with high incomes? Why do Christians support Republicans who don't believe in helping the poor?
Sodom isn't the only Biblical location whose residents were punished by God for mistreating the poor. The Israeli prophets warned the leaders of Israel about the consequences of mistreating the poor before wealthy Israelites were taken into captivity and the land left to the poor.
Ezekiel 22:12 - "you take interest and make a profit from the poor. You extort unjust gain from your neighbors. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD."
Amos 4:1 - "Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria, you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy and say to your husbands, “Bring us some drinks!”
Amos 5:11 - "You levy a straw tax on the poor and impose a tax on their grain. Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them; though you have planted lush vineyards, you will not drink their wine."
Luke and other gospels carry a statement by Jesus about the problem facing the rich. " Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." Luke 18:24-5
Preachers often suggest the camel analogy is about something large going through a tight opening. The analogy is more likely a camel saying like the "straw that broke the camel's back" or what happens if someone lets a camel get its head inside a tent. People of that era likely used the task of getting a camel through the eye of a needle as a way to determine how difficult the task was.
The problem with getting a camel through the eye of a needle is the shape of the animal and its sometimes uncooperative nature. The long neck, legs and hump means the task isn't simple even with a very large needle. Keep in mind that a needle has a long portion connected to the eye.
Christian Republicans need to recognize that abortion and sexual morality aren't the only moral issues in politics. Mistreatment of the poor and how the rich acquire wealth are at least as important. Christians need to move away from the greedy Republicans who believe the rich should escape the taxes needed to fund government.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
African American Is a Segregationist Term
Jesse Washington recently reported that many dark skinned Americans recognize that they are not "African" Americans in spite of what some racists say.
The term "African-American" perpetuates the principle tenet of Southern racism: "part black, all black" under the "one drop rule".
Those who use the term are in effect segregating Americans with dark complexions from the rest of the population they may be related to. Those who use the term believe that those with dark complexions should only be able to claim their African ancestors and should forget about ancestors who came from Europe, North America or Asia even if most of a person's ancestors came from places other than Africa.
The media in particular apply the term indiscriminately to any American with a dark complexion. For example, they call golfer Tiger Woods "African American" even though his ancestry is predominately Asian. His mother is Asian and his father had Asian as well as African and American Indian ancestors.
Dr. Martin Luther King dreamed of a day in which color would not be important. Unfortunately, the media along with many politicians and black leaders are still preoccupied with skin color.
Members of the media still falsely claim that differences in skin color among Americans indicate a racial difference. Perhaps there is an European "race" that is white and an African "race" that is black, but if there is an American race it is red and yellow, black and white. We Americans are a mixture of peoples from all parts of the world.
As the Lakota say, Aho Mitakuye Oyasin (We Are All Related) regardless of the color of our skin.
The fact that a person has dark skin doesn't mean a majority of ancestors came from Africa. Dark skin only means a person received one or more of the half dozen skin color related genes that produce "black" skin from an African ancestor. Some of the genes associated with dark complexion are also present in persons from other parts of the world, especially India and Australia. The versions of the skin color genes that cause dark skin are dominant genes which means if a person has a dark version of the gene, complexion will be dark even if the other gene is associated with light skin. Incidentally, the African gene pool includes the albino gene which means some residents of Africa have pale skin.
Calling black Americans African-Americans denies them the opportunity to claim their European (especially Irish) and North American ancestry. The first Africans in the English colonies worked with the Irish in the fields and occasionally became sexually involved with them. In some cases planters deliberately forced Irish women to have children by African men to produce children of a desired complexion. Later, Irish overseers and plantation owners sometimes offered favors for sex or just raped slaves.
Until the 1960's Southern white men could rape black women without fearing punishment. Some black women voluntarily had sex with white employers or their sons. Former Sen. Strom Thurman fathered a daughter by his parent's 16-year-old housekeeper when he was a young man. Young southern women were told that if their good night kisses were too passionate, their boyfriends might seek sexual satisfaction in the black community.
Some black Americans can trace their ancestry back to President Thomas Jefferson and his virtual wife Sally Hennings. DNA tests confirmed the claim that Sally Hennings descendants were also descendants of Thomas Jefferson. The tests examined the "Y" chromosome which is passed from father to son.
A test of the "Y" chromosome of Martin Luther King III indicates that he and his civil rights leader father Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had a north European male ancestor like about 33% of black American males.
The Spanish who established colonies in South Carolina, Florida and Georgia in the 16th Century using African slaves were less likely than the British to bring wives and instead used their slaves for sexual satisfaction. The French in Louisiana also had a shortage of white women. The French, unlike the English, even used terms indicating the proportion of African and European ancestry.
African slaves of the Spanish started a long association with the original inhabitants of North America that continued in the British colonies. The Africans left behind when Spain withdrew from Florida joined with the Seminoles. In the English colonies the Cherokees and some other tribes socialized with the Africans, gave refuge to runaway slaves or had African slaves of their own.
Many white Americans, including former President Warren G. Harding, have African ancestors. Some believe as many as four other white presidents had African ancestors. After the "Roots Miniseries" many whites who researched their family histories were surprised to find ancestors who served in the military who had a "C" after their names for "colored".
Most whites with African ancestors probably don't even know it because their African ancestors whose skin was light enough to pass for white covered up their past. It would only take a few generations of people with mixed parentage to have descendants with skin light enough to pass for white. If only one gene were involved, the math of inheritance would indicate that if two parents each had one black parent and one white parent approximately 25% of their children would have white skin. The math is more complicated with the involvement of multiple genes, but the probability of some light skinned children increases with each generation.
Racists sometimes suggest that black males have a greater propensity for violence especially against women and falsely ascribe that characteristic to their African ancestors. If some black men actually have a genetic tendency to commit rape and murder it would be far more likely that they inherited the gene from a white male ancestor who raped one of their black female ancestors than that they inherited it from an African male ancestor.
Another popular stereotype is that blacks have "rhythm" which they are supposed to have inherited from their African ancestors. Although the slaves' African heritage would have influenced their music, it seems more likely that the social and biological association with the musically oriented Irish would be more responsible for the black emphasis on music.
The Irish responded to the repressive treatment by the English through musical expression. They would have passed that tradition along to the Africans whom they initially worked with as "indentured servants" and later supervised after black slavery was established. The slaves blended their Irish and African traditions with their own situation. They concentrated on expressing themselves through music because their oppressors didn't allow other ways to "fight" their situation. Watch Irish groups like Riverdance and Celtic Woman and then say that black Americans could only have gotten "rhythm" from African ancestors.
The first African "servants" arrived in Jamestown in 1619 only 14 years after the founding of the settlement. During the two centuries of the Atlantic slave trade only about 500,000 additional Africans were imported into North America. Britain led the way to ending the Atlantic slave trade in 1807 and the United States quickly followed to outlaw the importation of slaves without prohibiting the internal slave trade. Thus, the vast majority of the 4.5 million blacks living in the U.S. in 1860 were born here to parents and grandparents who were born here. A substantial portion had at least some ancestors who were living in North America at the time of the American Revolution.
It's time we recognize that the only African ancestors of the descendants of slaves arrived here centuries ago. We need to recognize that those dark skinned Americans whose ancestors were slaves are just as deserving of being called regular Americans as those of us with light skins without any modifier that segregates them from the rest of us.
Americans with dark skins should be allowed to claim all of their ancestors, not just those who provided the genes responsible for their skin color. Those of us with light skins need to accept the possibility that many of those with dark skins are our distant cousins. Those of us whose ancestors arrived here a couple of centuries ago or came from the British Isles, especially Ireland, likely had relatives who had sexual relations with the descendants of Africans. We could also have ancestors who came from Africa. Those whose ancestors have lived in the south for several generations, especially if they have dark naturally curly hair, could easily have an ancestor who passed for white at some time in the past.
Americans need to recognize that color is only skin deep. It doesn't totally define us.
The term "African-American" perpetuates the principle tenet of Southern racism: "part black, all black" under the "one drop rule".
Those who use the term are in effect segregating Americans with dark complexions from the rest of the population they may be related to. Those who use the term believe that those with dark complexions should only be able to claim their African ancestors and should forget about ancestors who came from Europe, North America or Asia even if most of a person's ancestors came from places other than Africa.
The media in particular apply the term indiscriminately to any American with a dark complexion. For example, they call golfer Tiger Woods "African American" even though his ancestry is predominately Asian. His mother is Asian and his father had Asian as well as African and American Indian ancestors.
Dr. Martin Luther King dreamed of a day in which color would not be important. Unfortunately, the media along with many politicians and black leaders are still preoccupied with skin color.
Members of the media still falsely claim that differences in skin color among Americans indicate a racial difference. Perhaps there is an European "race" that is white and an African "race" that is black, but if there is an American race it is red and yellow, black and white. We Americans are a mixture of peoples from all parts of the world.
As the Lakota say, Aho Mitakuye Oyasin (We Are All Related) regardless of the color of our skin.
The fact that a person has dark skin doesn't mean a majority of ancestors came from Africa. Dark skin only means a person received one or more of the half dozen skin color related genes that produce "black" skin from an African ancestor. Some of the genes associated with dark complexion are also present in persons from other parts of the world, especially India and Australia. The versions of the skin color genes that cause dark skin are dominant genes which means if a person has a dark version of the gene, complexion will be dark even if the other gene is associated with light skin. Incidentally, the African gene pool includes the albino gene which means some residents of Africa have pale skin.
Calling black Americans African-Americans denies them the opportunity to claim their European (especially Irish) and North American ancestry. The first Africans in the English colonies worked with the Irish in the fields and occasionally became sexually involved with them. In some cases planters deliberately forced Irish women to have children by African men to produce children of a desired complexion. Later, Irish overseers and plantation owners sometimes offered favors for sex or just raped slaves.
Until the 1960's Southern white men could rape black women without fearing punishment. Some black women voluntarily had sex with white employers or their sons. Former Sen. Strom Thurman fathered a daughter by his parent's 16-year-old housekeeper when he was a young man. Young southern women were told that if their good night kisses were too passionate, their boyfriends might seek sexual satisfaction in the black community.
Some black Americans can trace their ancestry back to President Thomas Jefferson and his virtual wife Sally Hennings. DNA tests confirmed the claim that Sally Hennings descendants were also descendants of Thomas Jefferson. The tests examined the "Y" chromosome which is passed from father to son.
A test of the "Y" chromosome of Martin Luther King III indicates that he and his civil rights leader father Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had a north European male ancestor like about 33% of black American males.
The Spanish who established colonies in South Carolina, Florida and Georgia in the 16th Century using African slaves were less likely than the British to bring wives and instead used their slaves for sexual satisfaction. The French in Louisiana also had a shortage of white women. The French, unlike the English, even used terms indicating the proportion of African and European ancestry.
African slaves of the Spanish started a long association with the original inhabitants of North America that continued in the British colonies. The Africans left behind when Spain withdrew from Florida joined with the Seminoles. In the English colonies the Cherokees and some other tribes socialized with the Africans, gave refuge to runaway slaves or had African slaves of their own.
Many white Americans, including former President Warren G. Harding, have African ancestors. Some believe as many as four other white presidents had African ancestors. After the "Roots Miniseries" many whites who researched their family histories were surprised to find ancestors who served in the military who had a "C" after their names for "colored".
Most whites with African ancestors probably don't even know it because their African ancestors whose skin was light enough to pass for white covered up their past. It would only take a few generations of people with mixed parentage to have descendants with skin light enough to pass for white. If only one gene were involved, the math of inheritance would indicate that if two parents each had one black parent and one white parent approximately 25% of their children would have white skin. The math is more complicated with the involvement of multiple genes, but the probability of some light skinned children increases with each generation.
Racists sometimes suggest that black males have a greater propensity for violence especially against women and falsely ascribe that characteristic to their African ancestors. If some black men actually have a genetic tendency to commit rape and murder it would be far more likely that they inherited the gene from a white male ancestor who raped one of their black female ancestors than that they inherited it from an African male ancestor.
Another popular stereotype is that blacks have "rhythm" which they are supposed to have inherited from their African ancestors. Although the slaves' African heritage would have influenced their music, it seems more likely that the social and biological association with the musically oriented Irish would be more responsible for the black emphasis on music.
The Irish responded to the repressive treatment by the English through musical expression. They would have passed that tradition along to the Africans whom they initially worked with as "indentured servants" and later supervised after black slavery was established. The slaves blended their Irish and African traditions with their own situation. They concentrated on expressing themselves through music because their oppressors didn't allow other ways to "fight" their situation. Watch Irish groups like Riverdance and Celtic Woman and then say that black Americans could only have gotten "rhythm" from African ancestors.
The first African "servants" arrived in Jamestown in 1619 only 14 years after the founding of the settlement. During the two centuries of the Atlantic slave trade only about 500,000 additional Africans were imported into North America. Britain led the way to ending the Atlantic slave trade in 1807 and the United States quickly followed to outlaw the importation of slaves without prohibiting the internal slave trade. Thus, the vast majority of the 4.5 million blacks living in the U.S. in 1860 were born here to parents and grandparents who were born here. A substantial portion had at least some ancestors who were living in North America at the time of the American Revolution.
It's time we recognize that the only African ancestors of the descendants of slaves arrived here centuries ago. We need to recognize that those dark skinned Americans whose ancestors were slaves are just as deserving of being called regular Americans as those of us with light skins without any modifier that segregates them from the rest of us.
Americans with dark skins should be allowed to claim all of their ancestors, not just those who provided the genes responsible for their skin color. Those of us with light skins need to accept the possibility that many of those with dark skins are our distant cousins. Those of us whose ancestors arrived here a couple of centuries ago or came from the British Isles, especially Ireland, likely had relatives who had sexual relations with the descendants of Africans. We could also have ancestors who came from Africa. Those whose ancestors have lived in the south for several generations, especially if they have dark naturally curly hair, could easily have an ancestor who passed for white at some time in the past.
Americans need to recognize that color is only skin deep. It doesn't totally define us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
