quote:

---

Q3. Do you believe that the fact that almost everyone in the most powerful positions in business and government are white men? Is this because we are most qualified?

and

Q2. It sounds like you oppose affirmative action. Is it because you don't think the system favors white males?

---

I think the obvious needs to be asked here.

Are you saying that all these men who are in these positions are racist? Do you think that they got there because someone was racist and put them in that position knowingly (and they, the appointed ones, therefore contributed to the racism/discrimination) or unbeknownst to them? If this were indeed the case, then I would have to ask that you show me the evidence for such an extravagant claim. Simply asserting that the majority of white men in high levels of government and major corporations equal racism does not make it so without some joiner in between. It seems to me to beg the question.

Here is part of the problem I have with this assertion.

Suppose racism and discrimination exists to the degree that you contend. Do we really need unjust quota laws to justify halting this cancer? For the moment, I’m assuming that they are unjust (and rightfully so) because that is what I intend to show.

You guys have laws upon laws, upon laws, upon laws forbidding discrimination in employment and promotion, in housing, in voting in access to places of public accommodation, in lending and much more. They’re coming out of the Wazoo! You have the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, 1964 (that was a good year, ), 1968 and 1991. You also have the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, 1975 and 1982. Then you also have agency upon agency boldly going where no man has gone before devoted to seeking out and destroying discrimination. You have the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Office, civil rights sections in various government agencies, as well as state and municipal laws and enforcement agencies. Then there are also thousands of such agencies and more than 100,000 government lawyers, investigators and agents who spend hundreds of millions of dollars enforcing the laws and regulations. If that is not enough, there are laws providing for private law suits and an army of private attorneys bringing discrimination claims.

What this all means is that,

IF DISCRIMINATION IS PROVABLE, YOU HAVE FAR MORE ADEQUATE MEANS OF DEALING WITH IT

More so than other countries. And in ultra sensitive America, nobody likes to be accused of racism. As some legal scholars have pointed out, what this means is that affirmative action is generally applied to a pool of minorities who have suffered no discernible discrimination. More on this below.

But to give an example, of where I’m going with this…I believe you mentioned, lending or securing a loan as evidence that discrimination is prevalent in America. More blacks than whites are turned down for loans, therefore, this is discrimination and hence the conclusion: racism. Again, you miss the joiner in between. Here is the problem.

The assertion is baseless by the fact that the default rates of the two races were the same. Had blacks been rejected who had financial qualifications equal to accepted white borrowers, so that blacks had to be more qualified to get loans, the default rates for whites would have been higher than those for blacks because whites wouldn’t be as qualified. The business of mortgage lenders is not race. It’s economics. This is what is generally true elsewhere. Ultimately it doesn’t make any economic sense for discrimination to exist in business where rivalry exists. The employer who hires the best people, regardless of skin colour or sex, will have a significant competitive advantage over any rival who discriminates. Hence, discrimination is likely only where rivalry is muted or non-existent. Again, it is not uniformly race, but socio-economic reasons that generally play into the situation as Terry points out.

Two other reasons I have problems with quotas is:

1. They simply do not work
2. It turns out as “preferential treatment” for certain groups and always against white-males, it turns out as reverse racism. Which is clearly an injustice as white to black racism or white to Asian, etc, is.

These two are going to tie together and was what I wanted to mention above.

Say for example, you have a group of one hundred Hispanic men, ten of whom are admitted to Stanford under a policy of preference. In order to imagine that discrimination is being cured it is necessary to suppose that, preference is given to an individual who has actually suffered discrimination but cannot prove it or may not even suspect it. If there are any victims of undetected discrimination in the pool of one hundred- suppose there are ten the likelihood is that none or perhaps one or two of them will receive preferential admission.

Statistically, any person who has been the victim of unprovable discrimination will usually go without a remedy, while a person who has not been discriminated against will be given an undeserved benefit. It is difficult to see how a windfall for one cures an unsuspected injustice to the other. Affirmative action is simply irrelevant to discrimination.

And this becomes a big problem for race relations. What happens are that people who have suffered no discrimination whatsoever are entitled to preferences. For example, the U.S. has heavy immigration that has brought large numbers of Hispanics and Asians who are at once entitled to preferences though they have suffered no wrong at the hands of this society. A wealthy Spanish business man who has just arrived in the U.S. is entitled to preference say in getting a government contract, though a poor Frenchman would be entitled to no advantage whatever. Sixty percent of the U.S. population is entitled to preferential treatment. Only white males are not and only white males may be discriminated against. Also, you wouldn’t believe the fraudulent claims of belonging to the designated beneficiary groups that have been made in the name of quotas.

But this is tribalism. When a white male who has never discriminated against anyone loses out to a black man who has never been discriminated against, despite the former’s superior qualifications, anger will flare up on both sides. The reason for the white’s anger is obvious. The black will be angry because he knows that others know he has succeeded not on his own but because of his skin. He may even feel anger because he is in an environment where he can’t compete equally. Instead of Harvard he should be at the University of Michigan or some place like that.

Now I have a question. As Christians, should not our stance be against oppression no matter what the race? Why are we selective about who the oppressed are and who are not?


Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War


Edited by - BBBCanada on 07/22/2002 7:05:41 PM

quote:

---

However, there are Christians who fall to the left but are not liberal in their ideology. That is, they end up politically on the left, but their philosophy is not grounded in "radical individualism" or other such liberal notions. This is what you mean, am I correct?

---

Terry: Sort of. I think it's very hard in America, Canada, the UK or Australia to avoid being a Liberal in ideology. The thing about ideologies is they give you a terminology to think through and a set of values, but there are multiple ways to play out those influences.
So Lefists are Liberals as are Conservatives.

But I think Christians ought to strive for discernment.

Liberalism does lead to radical individualism and much more. As American society follows this move inward and away from collectivism, American Christians are led to accept socially adaptive values as Christian values. Things that "work" in this society or are valued by this society become the Christian things to do.

Relevant to this board, I think I see this sometimes. So, America has evolved a therapeutic mentality in the last 50 years where the best thing I can achieve is feeling good about myself, and we see Christian admonitions in the last 50 years to "not judge". (It would be interesting to search church history to see how many of the saints interpreted Jesus this way...) I also saw (in Hand-carved's thread about rebuke) a portrayal of the Christian life where the highest ideal is to make people always feel blessed and loved and happy in our presence. In other words, showing love = making others feel good about themselves. I submit that this is patent nonsense.

It is Liberal thought dressed up as Christian values. It will fill your church because people want to be told they are valued, they are loved and not judged. In a society where the baker's son does not become a baker because he family have been bakers for 5 generations, no one knows who they are. Without tightly-knit social groups and widely accepted morals, everyone has a vague dis-ease about their own sin and their own worth. Lo and behold! It is Christian to make people feel valued. In fact, it is the *most* Christian thing we can do. But what about the last three hundred years where the most explosive growth of the Church has been through revival movements and preachers boldly condemning people for their sin? Well, I guess God worked through that even though it wasn't his perfect will.

Moreover, because scripture, like any text, requires human interpretation, we can almost always find biblical justification for our views. I once asked my mom, who is deeply involved in the word-faith movement, why no one before Kenneth Hagin had stumbled upon the "obvious" truths of scripture regarding 'name it and claim it' and '100-fold giving'. Why did it take the advent of a free market, affluent society where amassing huge private wealth was possible before people understood scripture? And were Chinese or Sudanese believers worse Christians because they were persecuted and poor rather than rich? But even with the silence of history and the testimony of most of the countries outside America, she is convinced that the Bible clearly promises us all wealth, health, perfect happiness, perfect marriages, etc., if we have enough faith and say the right confessions.

I'll end with this: the temptation to go down this road might be worse for OV adherents. We have already gone against much of the Christian tradtion (yes there are a few exceptions) and get some of our identity from being 'new thinkers' and 'not tied to tradition'.

Terry
"Be God's"

quote:

---

I've not bowed out, I just am swamped. I printed off this fourth page to review. I may try to get some responses out this evening but things are really cruising in this conversation, as well as others I had been participating in....patience will be appreciated.

---

Hurry up loser.

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

quote:

---

The body is not one member, but many...If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it.

---

quote:

---

I don’t know if this conversation has ended or not. If anyone would like to continue with it they can. In sum, I think some points have been made that still need to come up for rebuttal.

1. Everyone here agrees that there are racists attitudes in America.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

2. Some of us agree that we still have a way to go, that things aren’t perfect, but they are far better than it was as much as 50 years ago.

---

Yes, things are better than the 50’s, but saying they are not perfect is a radical understatement.

quote:

---

3. Some of us agree that “THE SYSTEM” should not be thought of in terms of personal categories.

---

The way I use the term “racism” is not strictly a “personal” condemnation, not even primarily. But rather the recognition that this is a racialized society. One that self sorts according to the color of one’s skin and that that matters significantly in practical ways on a daily basis. The “system” benefits those that established it by force and retain it by force. It also benefits those who are closely associated with those who continue to sustain it.

quote:

---

4. Some of us may agree that there is such a thing as “reverse racism” or “reverse sexism” at least as far as it is reflected in the law (quotas) which is a cause of oppression against white heterosexual males which contributes to keeping the rotating door of racism spinning.

---

This depends completely on how one defines “racism”. I operate with the common understanding that racism is prejudice plus power. This is a highly debated term. I grant that. But I maintain that this is the best definition because it inevitably gets us into the complexities of systemic racism and out of pigeon-holing racism as a personal problem that we need not worry too much about unless someone is brutalizing another cross-culturally. Racism is not primarily about the Klan.

quote:

---

Having stated this, it was really my concern when I started this thread to make the point as I have above that we ought to be against racism/sexism wherever it is found. I had also wondered, if because I am against quotas, would that put me at odds with my black brother or sister in Christ? Do I need to be for quotas to be accepted by my black brother and sister? In other words, do they have the maturity as Christians to not let political issues come between us? Does this sound condescending, asking them for maturity?

---

I think this question is too complicated to give a definitive yes or no answer to. At least it is too complicated for me. If I find out that all my minority friends are voting a certain way, I would try to find out why, and learn about their position on that issue. My personal opinion on quotas is this so far: I think they can be very good when and where they make sense. It doesn’t make sense in completely homogenous areas, for instance. It doesn’t make sense if it means that someone Unqualified is hired. But this should be stated clearly in any Affirmative Action proposal or law. It does make sense in terms of its long term balancing affect. It IS short term “injustice” in the service of longer term justice. But that is just my opinion. Surely Harold will remind me, LOL!

quote:

---

I say this because, I feel that there is “reverse sexism” but this seems to be a non-issue with women. I don’t stand in a pew next to women thinking sexist attitudes of “reverse sexism” against me. Nor do I think they think of me as being against them for holding such political beliefs.

Lastly, I want to say that I think Modes is still a loser ‘cause he hasn’t gotten back to us when he said he would…JUST JOSHING YA!!! Later?

---

In my opinion, the situation between women and men has made much more progress in the last 50 years than the situation between various ethnicities or races or whathaveyou. Having said that, I would continue to maintain that reverse “isms” are only reality when the general balance of power has truly changed hands. Not in isolated incidences of a disempowered person being favored over those in power. So, in my way of thinking, reverse sexism isn’t really a problem. However, violence is always a problem, so if you get beat up by a woman I’d refrain from calling that reverse sexism. If you get beat up by an black woman, I’d refrain from calling that reverse racism. I’d just call it violence. After all, that is what we do when we (white homophobic men ) brutalize others. Right?


"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK