New Party in Town
"The Working Families Party endorsed actor Cynthia Nixon over two-term Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Saturday, fueling Nixon’s left-flank challenge and deepening a split among New York Democrats." That's how the story reads. Cynthia Nixon is an actress, most famous for her part in Sex and the City. She spoke of "the progressive New York that we want to create" and "has promised to legalize and tax marijuana, end cash bail, push for single-payer health care and increase funding to public schools — raising taxes if necessary."
I guess I get it. A "progressive New York" is one that relies on government, not people, indulges drugs, compromises income for a "single-payer health care" system, and trusts, from all appearances, the wisdom of Hollywood. By the way, Working Families Party, I hope you have good jobs. This is really going to cost you. (In California they estimated $400 billion a year. They estimated a 15% payroll tax just for the "free" health care.)
Shooting the Deceived
Perhaps you've heard of, maybe even read, The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven. It was written as a true story about a boy unfortunately named Alex Malarkey, who was in a 2004 car crash and purportedly died, visited heaven, and came back. The book was written by his father, Kevin Malarkey. It was released in 2010 to much acclaim in certain sectors and followed by a movie of the same name. Subsequently, in 2015 Alex released an open letter that denied the accuracy of the book or the reality of its claims. "People have profited from lies, and continue to," he said. "They should read the Bible, which is enough." Well, now, in order to finish the story, 20-year-old Malarkey is now suing Tyndale for making him famous for it even though Tyndale pulled the book from print when they found out it was a lie. Malarkey wants them to disassociate his name from the book. You know, the book that they pulled, the book that is no longer available, the book that it took young Malarkey years to disavow himself. What his father did in fabricating the lie was reprehensible. Don't take it out on those who were deceived.
Exclusive Inclusivity
The Free Pride Glascow parade considers itself a "more open-minded alternative" to the traditional Glasgow LGBT pride events, so, in order to be more more open-minded, they are banning drag queens from the parade because it might offend "non-binary people". That is, if a guy thinks he's a girl, he's in, but if a guy thinks he's a guy but likes to walk around dressed as a flamboyant girl, he's definitely out. We'll have none of that kind of inclusivity here.
The Natives are Restless
So, apparently not all Californians are on board with California law, especially when it, you know, violates federal law. Another California city has voted to opt out of the sanctuary state law, ironically called the "California Values Act." Two municipalities now have voted to declare, "Those are your values, not ours."
Not the Same
On Tuesday Barbara Bush died at the age of 92. She had been sick for some time battling congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. She was a true matriarch, married to George Bush senior, our 41st president, for 73 years, the mother of our 43rd president and Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida and presidential candidate in 2016. In her dying days she wasn't worrying about herself "thanks to her abiding faith." The nation will mourn her passing.
In like fashion, Queen Elizabeth "lost the last of her beloved corgi dogs this weekend." It marks "the first time Her Majesty hasn't had a corgi in her household since World War II." Now, if this is the same kind of news item, we, indeed, live in a fallen and sick world.
Unnecessary News
The Public Religion Research Institute, PRRI, has released a report that "White evangelical support for Trump at record high."
Maybe.
I think it's odd that the chart shows that in January of 2017 only 68% had a favorable view of Trump. But wait! Didn't they tell us that 81% voted for him? I think it's questionable, given the vague definition of "evangelical", that this actually reflects the ideas of actual Evangelicals. And I find it offensive that the race card gets played again and again. What does "white" have to do with "Evangelicals"? Why is that a factor? Why are they even asking the race question? I have all sorts of problems with this kind of reporting.
(One more point. The thinking/intent here is clear. "We don't like Trump. Whatever Trump does is wrong. Anyone who associates in any way with Trump is evil. White evangelicals associate in some way with Trump. Therefore, white evangelicals are evil." This is a classic logical fallacy known as "guilt by association". Don't buy it. The correct approach is to 1) find out if the person in question is Evangelical, then 2) find out what they really think, then 3) evaluate their position, not what you think of Trump, the poll, or the term "white evangelical".)
15 comments:
Why is it odd to you? White evangelicals voted much differently than black evangelicals. They are a distinct voting bloc, so for accuracy's sake, it's recorded separately. What perplexes you about that?
Did the PRRI group report on black evangelical support? If they did, how much different was it? If it was different, why and/or how? The answers to any of these could be perplexing one way or the other.
I've never understood how those polls can be even remotely accurate. You ask, what 10% of the population and extrapolate that to 100%? I don't recall ever being asked to take part in a gallop poll. And I imagine if I were, I'd decline. The mindset of people willing to take polls and those not are going to be different, just based on that one factor. And race only matters when you're white and doing something "wrong". It's sad that in a culture that celebrates "born that way" (on an unprovable status) it is a cardinal sin to be born a certain way.
Mathematically, David, they've discovered that polling X people will produce the same results as 100% of the people. Not sure how thoroughly accurate it is, but it is fairly accurate. More troubling are the wording of questions, the methods of selection, and the bias injected.
PRRI doesn't offer the survey data. Their link goes to a completely different story. Their summary doesn't tell us where black evangelical protestants, hispanic catholics, or asian methodists fall in this study. They don't tell you the questions, the answers, or much actual data at all. There is one and only one point in mind -- "White evangelical Protestant" vs "All Americans". In another study about the changing religious affiliations in America they list "White evangelical Protestant", "White mainline Protestant", and "White Catholic" along with "Black Protestant", "Hispanic Protestant", "Other nonwhite Protestant", "Hispanic Catholic", and "Other nonwhite Catholic". Now, wait a minute! Are there no "Black Evangelicals"? They don't list them. They don't list black Catholics, either. The claim that "Black evangelical Protestants" voted differently or think differently may or may not be true; no one is offering supporting data.
Dan, please, stop. I have never offered support for Trump. You even agreed with one of my blogs before the election where I warned that Trump was dangerous. I didn't vote for him or recommend him. If you paid attention to your own writing, you'd know that. Questioning the validity of a (very vague) survey is not the same as supporting Trump, and it is simply undeniable that 1) there is a prevailing sense among many loud people in this country that "Trump is evil, if he does it it's wrong, and anyone who is connected to him is equally wrong", and 2) the media in general is intentionally aiming at "white evangelicals". If it can do it by associating them with Trump ("guilt by association" fallacy), they will.
Sorry, once again, to learn about your reading disability, Dan. "Please stop" shouldn't be read to understand as "Please keep it up." Especially when you can't understand what I'm writing anyway. I think there are places you go that can help you with reading comprehension. I'm not sure there are places you can go that can help you read without overt bias what people you disagree with from the start are actually saying. But because it is as constant complaint of yours against others, you might want to try.
As with many things, I’d be interested to see how they define evangelical.
That's my question much of the time. Also "Christian", for that matter. The way these surveys define it (and you can't really blame them -- they're just taking a survey) is "Whatever I say it is." That is, "Check the box you think most describes you" and "evangelical" is on that list. The word has lost all meaning in the last 5 years, so ...?
Clearly the term “Christian”, means anyone who wants to appropriate the term and identifies as one. I suspect that both terms are defined in the way that allows the maximum number of people to be included regardless of what they actually believe. I also suspect that it’s probably defined in such as way as to maximize the aspects that the definers consider to be negative.
I've about reached my limits on the phrase, "identifies as one." Last week at work the janitorial staff was at work cleaning the men's room on our floor. The sign outside said, "Women's bathroom closed for cleaning." Apparently our men's room identifies as a woman. Sigh.
On a more serious note, I remember a conversation years ago where a friend of mine told a woman, "I AM a Christian, you know." She answered, "Well, aren't we all?" When America clearly has no grasp on what "Christian" means at all, I cannot imagine why they try to use the term willy-nilly and think they're making sense of it.
I think that despite all the effort to marginalize and demonize Christians, I think there is something in people who don’t believe that want to appropriate some of the credibility that Christianity stands for. I hear some of these people and I wonder, “Why not just be something else? Why not let Christians have Christianity and y’all just have your own thing?”. I’ve thought for a while that many progressive christians are much closer to JW’s or Mormons than to christians. They use the same terms (including Christian), but redefine them to mean something else.
It’s not like practitioners of Voodoo, who can practice Christianity while adding the Voodoo on top of it, it’s like people have appropriated the term Christian but stripped any connection with its meaning away.
I've thought the same thing often. "You don't like it; don't use it. Choose something else."
It seems contradictory that people who are so negative towards biblical, historical Christianity are so desperate to cling to the term Christian.
In a similar vein, I asked someone who was vehemently opposed to virtually every doctrine that defined Presbyterian theology, but who demanded that the PCUSA change to accommodate his theology rather than the other way around. When I asked him why he was so desperate for than rather than to simply move to a denomination that agreed with him, all he could say was that he didn’t want to abandon the denomination he was raised with. He was ok with redefining it, and ultimately signing its death warrant, but not with leaving.
Strange bunch, these progressives.
Craig points out that some meld voodoo with Christianity, and it reminds me of a TV documentary I saw last night. They said "Ghana is the most Christian nation in the world," but went on to interviews of citizens there explaining that marital infidelity is so common it is pretty much expected.
That's the biblical problem, isn't it? They say, IO'm a Christian if I say I am." Jesus said, "Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness; I never knew you." They say, "Christianity is whatever I say it is." Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." They say, "Christianity isn't as narrow as you make it out to be." John wrote, "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Not the same thing. Christians sin, but Christians who embrace sin as normal and acceptable are Christians in name only.
Post a Comment