Wednesday, June 22, 2011

The Chinaman is not the issue!

Did you see this story about a man who pranked the Muslim folks by putting ham in their shoes whilst they were praying?

Whether or not his action was good bull or bad bull is not the issue for me, so much as a trend I've noticed.

Those who don't like or don't respect the religious/political ideology of Islam are being labeled as "racist."

The title of the newspaper article is "Racist who filled Muslims' shoes with ham as they prayed in a mosque walks free from court."

Since when was religious persecution "racist"? Last I checked Islam was not a "race" or an ethnicity, but a set of beliefs that impact behavior.

Perhaps I'm just whipped by the overuse of calling someone racist who has a disagreement with a person who's white when the accuser is too lazy to actually interact on an ideological level.

To be fair, someone who hates the religious/political ideology of Islam may be many things, but of necessity one of them is not "racist." And I should know, because I'm not a racist and would resent any such insinuation.

Labels: , ,


At 22 June, 2011 10:01, Blogger Matt said...

I believe the preferred nomenclature is "Asian American"

At 26 June, 2011 16:09, Blogger Oilcan said...

Dude, GREAT and perfect movie quotation title for this post! I'm just lovin' it.

At 19 September, 2011 22:29, Blogger Carlos said...

so apparently it's alright with your "religiously named blog" to alienate potential brothers and sisters whom the Lord may choose to save from the Islamic or Asian communities? Did Paul go around insulting the Greeks in Athens or other missionary cities? No, he preached the gospel and stuck to the cross of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. That was enough to cause him persecution, but it was for Godly activities, not jingoistic, Euro-centric, right wing justification for hatred and racism. And, you are clearly a racist. You believe only the great American white race of so-called Christians and denigrate others who do not fit your mold. You need to change your blog name to 'Semper Fi' or 'Semper GOP' but please, please, leave the 'Reformanda' out of it. You are not exhibiting any grace whatsoever with your politically based, right wing propaganda. Don't embarass the rest of us Christians who are trying to reach "all the world" with the great commission of Jesus Christ.

At 19 September, 2011 23:13, Blogger GUNNY said...

Carlos wrote: "And, you are clearly a racist. You believe only the great American white race of so-called Christians and denigrate others who do not fit your mold."

Carlos, first, I'm gonna need you to retard your intensity and vehemence just a touch.

Second, using "clearly" does not make it so.

Third, for the life of me I can't see how you concluded such from an assertion that it's possible for those who don't like Islam to not like it because of its evil & perverted ideology, not because of any skin color. (Note well, white people can be Muslims too.)

If I'm blind, please help me see it. I disagree strongly with your false accusation of the brethren that I'm a racist or that I'm only approving of white Christianity, etc.

Lastly, please show me how I did indeed alienated "potential brothers and sisters whom the Lord may choose to save from the Islamic or Asian communities," because I can assure you nothing could be further from my aspiration for those in Islamic or Asian communities.

Honestly, if your argument is that anything negative against Islam is by definition "racist," then you're actually the audience I was hoping to persuade to the contrary.

I said all that to say this, I appreciate the opportunity to communicate with you further. Though I have little hope that you actually have my best interest in mind (e.g., my sanctification), I fully anticipate that I can learn & grow through such a conversation, so I welcome it.

At 20 September, 2011 00:35, Blogger Carlos said...

With these words you posted, I rest my case an shake the dust from my allegorical sandals: *brackets are mine.
"Today marks the 150th anniversary of Captain George S. James sending the first mortar round through the air at Fort Sumter (SC). It was April 12, 1861. The Civil War was begun. [by the Southern slave-owning "Rebels" against the established government allowed by our sovereign God!]

Abraham Lincoln was a polarizing figure, to say the least. On his agenda was dealing with a issue for which there really was no satisfactory compromise--slavery. [No satisfactory compromise? How about freeing these human beings like God freed the Israelites from Pharoah?, duh?]

Were black folks afforded the same unalienable rights by the Creator? [Your question seems to imply that God did not! That you agree with the "revered and honorable" founding fathers who designated them as 3/5 human is plainly obvious.]

I wonder how we'd feel about a president who split the nation and effected the death of more than 600,000 Americans if it happened today. What issues are worth that much bloodshed? Was the liberation of the slaves worth the price? [That war was a justifiable war, if there ever was any. The nation was judged by God for its hypocrisy of proclaiming liberty and freedom for all but holding slaves and exploiting them for greed and avarice!] [Abraham Lincoln was a God-fearing man who eventually saw the sin of slavery and decided to end it, regardless of the price the South was willing to shed to defend its system of inhumanity and cruelty.] [He is turning over inhis grave today to see what the "Republican Party" has become.] [I repeat, your words indict you as a racist who longs for the days of slavery and apartheid.] [The USA is still awaiting further judgement for its continued racism, hatred, selfishness and for bringing so much shame on the Name and Gospel of our glorious Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, not America!]

At 20 September, 2011 04:34, Blogger GUNNY said...

Thanks for responding, Carlos.

First, I think you totally missed the whole point of the post you quote. I'm really shocked by that.

The whole point of the post was to draw the parallel between slavery and abortion.

When I say they're issues for which no satisfactory compromise is available, I mean just that. The two sides could not compromise on slavery and the two sides cannot compromise on abortion.

My whole point is that both are evil. The country was willing to go to war for the first one, but the second one is tolerated.

My point about Lincoln being a polarizing figure was just that. As soon as he was elected, the slave holding states set the wheels in motion to leave the union.

That's not a knock on Lincoln. That's just the reality of it. My point is that he was willing to endure that and history 150 years later has treated him kindly.

Look, I was born in Illinois and even I know that Lincoln wasn't a saint in this area. How much have you really studied the Civil War?

Black folks WERE afforded the same rights ... by their Creator, but not by their government. You inferred what I did not imply.

Honestly, you're doing that a lot. I'm hoping it's just with me, but you seem a bit of a contentious man. I'm not angry with you, despite your personal insults and hasty judgments. That's probably because I anticipate you're convinced you're doing the right thing. I can't fault you for that.

But, as an aside, I'd suggest you're not being nearly as persuasive as you might be.

You could have said, "Hey, I'm reading some stuff here that really concerns me about a professing brother in Christ. Is this what you mean by these statements?"

I'd say, "Oh, my, not at all. I'm trying to show a parallel in our day with slavery and show that history may judge us as harshly as we just the generations that tolerated slavery."

We'd have had a much more profitable conversation. Again, I really appreciate your passion and zeal. I just wish you realized we were on the same team.

At 20 September, 2011 04:45, Blogger GUNNY said...

On the 3/5 clause, although I agree with you in spirit, they didn't actually designate them as 3/5 of a human. That's a common misunderstanding.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

For tax purposes, the northern states didn't want the slave population fully counted for determining the number of representatives in government. They would have preferred them not counted. The opposite was true of the south, which wanted them counted fully.

Yet, as you can see in the statute, for representative purposes, the population of those persons is only given 60% population credit.

As a comparison, we wouldn't say they regarded Indians as non-persons, but they were not counted in the assessment of representatives.

But, the irony of it all is that you don't know me well enough to know that I've been openly critical of the founding fathers in this area. I've criticized the verbiage that we were founded as "a Christian nation."

Sheesh, there was only one trinitarian among the writers of the Declaration of Independence,
Roger Sherman.

How were they justified in rebelling against the government God had put in place (i.e., Rom 13) merely because they didn't like taxation without representation? From a Christian standpoint, the Civil War was much more justifiable than the Revolutionary War.

Lastly, there were other options for Lincoln and the nation, without shedding any blood. The United States could have bought and paid for the freedom of all slaves. It would have been costly financially, but it would have been nothing compared to the death and the costs of reconstruction, etc.

If the United States could pay every mom contemplating abortion to bring her baby to term and give it up for adoption, I'd be up for that in a heartbeat.

Just as this nation tolerated the sin of slavery, so it now tolerates the sin of abortion (among others, of course).

At 20 September, 2011 04:46, Blogger GUNNY said...

Carlos, you wrote: "[I repeat, your words indict you as a racist who longs for the days of slavery and apartheid.]"

I hope to convince you that's not true, far from it. The days I long for have yet to occur in this country, but I have hope that someday they will. I share the dream of Martin Luther King that people will be judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

We're still a long way from that, but we're closer than at any time in this nation's young history. Long willing, we'll see greater strides in our lifetime ... and great strides regarding an end to abortion.

Grace and peace,


Post a Comment

<< Home

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting