DEBATE: black history month vs. year-round unified history?

First, I suggest that you read this article, which encapsulates the pending debate.

The question that I am posing for discussion/debate, both on this blog and in your conversations with others is: "Should we abandon black history month in favor of actively incorporating black history into history courses year-round."

Now, a few ground rules are necessary to limit the scope. The first rule is: don't question whether the incorporation will actually happen; presume that if black history month is terminated, that black history will be incorporated into history classes every day, all year long.

Second rule: don't start a second debate about whether there is a need for "women's history" month or "white history month," etc.; this is a debate regarding, essentially, whether there should be one month set aside per year to study the history of one specific people group or whether there be a unified study of the history of all people groups, all year long.

Third rule: make logical arguments and points only; it is impossible, after all, to debate emotion or prejudice, which brings us to the last rule...

Fourth rule: do not accuse anyone in the discussion of being a racist or prejudiced, as that will bring a halt to any intelligent discussion; throwing out labels is rarely an effective way to be persuasive.

Consider this a challenge, from me to you.

IMPORTANT NEWS: Obama's agenda filled with social issues and priorities, NOT just economic.

See the full report here, courtesy of the American Family Association, who copied it straight from the White House website. Rather than focusing on the economy, our president's priorities include support of abortion, special treatment for homosexuals, and expanded hate crime legislation. Sure, the economy is in his revised agenda now, but it's a very small part.

What is it about the unborn that our president hates? Why is his first and highest priority in office to target a fetus rather than a terrorist or the national debt? Whatever his politics, is killing the unborn children of this nation really more important than national security or the economy?

Speaking of the economy, how will affording special rights and privileges to homosexuals, at the taxpayer's expense, improve the economy? This hardly seems the time for more government funded programs and legislation. I do not wish to see homosexuals persecuted. I disagree with their beliefs, but they have rights already. They CAN get married and enjoy the same financial benefits the law affords married couples. They have to marry someone of the opposite sex, however, just like the rest of us, as God intended. I don't want them to lose any rights, but the law already affords them the exact same treatment and rights as any heterosexual person. Legislation based on sexual orientation, like legislation based on race, can only serve to afford them greater or lesser rights under the law than heterosexuals. Either result is unacceptable, immoral, and completely wrong.

In this blogger's opinion, hate crime laws are racist by definition, and they discriminate not just against criminal defendants, but against their victims as well by segregating them into two categories: victims of crime and victim's of hate crimes (see a more detailed explanation here). The difference? One person is victimized because the perpetrator is, allegedly, a hateful racist or bigot. The other is victimized because the perpetrator is a hateful selfish person that apparently is neither a racist nor a bigot. So, different victims receive different amounts of "justice" depending on whether a judge/jury feel the perpetrator was hateful. I feel sorry for white victims, because they will never be the victims of "hate crimes." The Reverend Lowery's benediction, approved by our president, clearly shows that it is not racist or hateful to attack whites (see report here).

President Obama must hate whites: he failed to condemn the Rev. Lowery's racist benediction, and now he wants to segregate white victims from minority victims. I respect him as our president, because I believe we Christians must support our leaders (Rom 13:1) and because I believe as Americans we should respect the office of the president. However, I do not feel obligated to respect President Obama's agenda, his decisions, or his politics. I say that, having read his agenda, seen his preliminary decisions, and having heard his politics during the election, I respect none of them.

Mr. President: you claim that you want to reach across party lines like John McCain. Is that true, or is it merely a smokescreen? I cannot see that statement as anything but a bald-faced lie in light of the agenda you have adopted. How is death to the unborn, special treatment for homosexuals, or racist hate crime legislation reaching across the lines to the republicans who are sternly against all three? The answer is that you are either ignorant of what the GOP's positions are on these issue (doubtful), or you have lied to this nation and betrayed our trust after less than a week in office.

It is my prayer that our president decides to stand by his word, reconsider his partisan agenda, and unite this nation by first addressing universal issues like unemployment and the damaged economy. I hope that you will all join me in this praying for President Obama in this way.

Race and Culture in Politics and Religion

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:28-29).

Was there no racism or sexism in the world Paul lived in at the time he wrote the scripture above? Of course there was. If memory serves, and I could be mistaken, then Galatians was written contemporaneously with Caligula's rule of the Roman Empire, which was famous for making slaves of men of all races. Slaves were also forced to risk their lives as both gladiators and prostitutes in Rome to increase the girth of their masters' purses. So what did Paul mean?

"You are all one in Christ Jesus" was a deliberate departure from a world filled with slavery and prejudice. Remember, "The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (Matthew 23:11-12).

So, it is clear from scripture that, insofar as God is concerned, we are all equal. So why, for instance, would wives be called to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22)? Because, being "equal" does not make us the "same." There are obvious and significant differences between men and women, which only begin with anatomy. No one would look at a hammer and a nail and imply any inequality. Certainly, they are not the same thing, but what can one do apart from the other?

I almost hesitate to say it, but there is some truth to that same principle when it comes to races. You know, I have to tan in the sun if I don't want to look sickly, because I am as pale white as they come. Does that mean I am less valuable to the Lord than a latin or black man? Of course not: that would be absurd. Does God love me any less because I can never become pregnant? Does he love my wife less because she can never make herself pregnant?

You see how silly it is to try and sell someone on the argument that we are all the "same" in the eyes of the Lord. Make no mistake, however, because we most certainly are all EQUAL in the eyes of the Lord. We all have an equal inheritance with the Lord, provided we choose to accept it.

I specifically want to discuss racism, which from the passage above is clearly against God's design. Without taking one kernel of truth away from that statement, it is important to remember that differences are also a part of God's design. If we are true to that, then we must accept those differences and realize that they do not make us more or less equal. They are just a part of God's plan.

So why, if we are all equal, do so many people hate others based on their race, culture, or gender? To put it simply, some people are stupid. Notice that I did not say ignorant? I don't buy, in the world we live in, that people cannot figure out that this sort of hatred is wrong. They know it, but they are just too stupid to care. They cannot live with those differences alluded to earlier. Mankind quickly learned from the example of the snake in Genesis, that which is different can kill you quickly, cause you to fall. Still, to assume this is true of everything and everyone different, is stupid.

So how do you confront such stupidity? I do not claim to have the answers, but I can tell you one thing: if you try to blow out a fire, you may just make it worse. Eventually, a fire will burn out on its own, when it has expended all its fuel. If you blow on it, though, you are just providing the oxygen it needs to survive. Better to smother a fire than to blow it out.

Racism is like a fire of hatred that needs desperately to be smothered. Giving attention to a racist is much like blowing on a fire. They thrive on the conflict, and when they see organizations and people fighting so hard against them, then they feel justified in their efforts and beliefs. Racism, and similar forms of hatred are perpetuated in the same way as violence in the middle east. Every attack provokes a reaction, and each reaction makes the opposing side feel that it has struck a chord, landed a major blow, and gained publicity for its cause. Similarly, fighting the racist does nothing to change matters. If you cannot change the heart, then the racist will forever remain a racist. It is engrained deeply in his faulty world view. You cannot convince a man to abandon his hatred through reason. Rather, you have to find a way to introduce love to counter the hatred.

People in this world who cling to and spread hate want a public forum. I believe they want publicity, even if it is bad publicity, so that they can spread their hate-mongering to others. This is true: hate, like fire, spreads fast. As those living in California realize, it's often hard to find enough water fast enough to stop a spreading fire in the forest. Similarly, it is difficult to find enough love fast enough to stop the spread of hatred.

I have learned that there are substantial differences between human races, but we are all still human, are we not? Often, those differences are sensitive topics, and so they are ignored. Other times, those differences are given more attentiaion than they deserve. Personally, I find the notion of hate crime legislation, for instance, to be particularly ludicrous. After all, a crime against a person is a crime. To commit that crime, a person was motivated by hate or, at a minimum, indifference. Whether that hate/indifference was motivated by racism makes little difference. In the end, the result is the same: a perpetrator and a victim.

To segregate perpetrators (treat them separately, differently from other perpetrators) based upon their racial motivations, inevitably ends up segregating the victims too: if Joe attacks Alice for being black and Sue, who is Asian, for no reason, and if Joe then receives a greater punishment for attacking Alice, then Sue has been treated differently because of her race. See how it spreads so easily? What did Sue do to deserve this forced segregation? She was, after all, just as much a victim as Alice, was she not?

By treating our hypothetical perpetrators and victims differently, we have forcibly segregated them all. In doing so, we have stooped to the level of our hypothetical perpetrator Joe: treating people differently based upon the colour of their skin.

The solution to racism, sexism, prejudice, and other hatred is beyond my ability to craft. Thankfully, it is not beyond God's. What I can tell you is this: adopting the methodology of the haters is not the solution. We, as Christians, cannot afford to support legislation and public policies that elevate one type of human being over another. That is simply wrong.

I have not forgotten my earlier point: there are differences between people who are, nevertheless, equal in the eyes of the Lord our God. So, why do these differences not require different treatment in laws and policies? Because that would deprive them of their right to equal treatment under the law.

Whether it is affirmative action legislation that affords minorities increased access to jobs over other races, or whether its segregation laws that send a minority race to the back of the bus, different restaraunts, and different stores, we cannot afford to start commanding different treatment of races by law. Ex-Prime Minister of England, Tony Blair, once commented that statistical research showed most violent knife crimes in London were being committed by black youths. Should a law have been passed, then, to impose a curfew on black youths only?

Certainly not. It does not matter whether this method would be effective either: the objection is that we Christians have a duty to fight against inequality. Christ encouraged his disciples to accept the Gentiles in addition to the Jews and to afford them the same rights. I disagree with any legislation targeting a specific race to exact a cost or to confer a benefit. The ends never justify the means.

Rather, the Church needs to lobby for a government that supports equal rights (that's right - I am implying tha the Church should get involved in politics - another blog, another day folks). The differences between race and gender are not something that can be micro-managed by the government. The government should make rules that all must abide by.

The first amendment ensures freedom of religion and expression for a reason: government is not able to play "morality police." Sure, sometimes it tries, but the government cannot fix social issues such like racism with the stroke of a pen. Society, and the Church in particular, must accept responsibility and attend to them. Dealing with differences between race, gender, and culture is something that people must sort out for themselves. The government's duty is to achieve a safe enviornment for human beings, as a people, to interact and work through their differences. Elected officials cannot legislative love and acceptance.

The Church, however, can preach it, teach it, and live by it. We believers can spread love and equality by sharing the gospel. The truth is, no born again believer can legitimately read the Bible to promote racism. As the gospel spreads, and as believers embrace the truth of which Christ testified, hatred must die. No person can both truly accept Christ and also hate men because of their race. That would be an untenable contradiction.

So, it is time to stop introducing race into politics and government, where there is no hope of victory/success. Rather, it must be attacked at its source: hatred. You cannot change the mind of a racist by arguing with him that he is wrong. Instead, show him the Word of God. Share with him the love of Christ, and that CAN transform him.

More than once I have wandered into the "wrong" part of town. Men with dark faces stare at me, on a public street, as though I were a trespasser. The white colour of my skin makes me unwelcome in certain places. Those same people who stare at me with hatred, however, will likely find that the colour of their skin makes them unwelcome in places where mine is accepted.

Would it solve this problem to pass a law that says all races may use any public street in any neighborhood? Newsflash: the law already says that. So how do we fix it? Well, I don't believe I have ever been stared down by someone of another race, out of hatred, in church on Sunday morning. The reason? It does not synch with true Christian beliefs.

So, obviously, we need to get those beliefs out of the church building into the world where all this hate lives and breathes. Talking about racism does nothing to solve it. Talking about hate does nothing to solve it. Walking in love, sharing the gospel, and reaching out to lost souls, however, does.