Trump's Gaza Plan Indicates What Has Become of Israel And The United States

It wasn't bad enough that Trump suggested that Gaza be emptied of its Palestinian residents and have them moved to Egypt and Jordan. But since both of those nations refused to receive those Gazans, he now  wants to move them to places in Africa where there is poverty and, in some locations, violence (click here). Netanyahu agrees with Trump's plans. All of that is despite the fact that Arab states have offered to foot the bill to rebuild Gaza.

This forced removal of a people from their land has precedents in American history. And so what we are seeing is that Trump is leading Israel to repeat some of the worst parts of American history. In particular, Trump wants Israel to repeat how Americans treated Indians. Those of us Americans who are living now and who are not immediately repulsed by Trump's suggestions show that we neither have personally come to grips with all of American history nor that we have any commitment to principles outside of holding to self-interest. The same could be said of those conservatives who complain that they have heard enough, if not too much, of America's past treatment of Blacks. Those conservatives say that it is now time to move on. But shouldn't the  bare minimum.of us moving on include admitting, rather than repeating, past atrocities?

On the other hand, there is some continuity between Trump's plan and Israel's Occupation practices in the West Bank. That is because the goal of both is the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from the lands that Israel covets. The difference between Trump's proposal and Israel's occupation is in speed. Whereas the Occupation is facilitating a slow ethnic cleansing, Trump's plan would result in a relatively quick one. An additional absence of humanity in the removal of Gazans from Gaza is that it would all but cut off any contact that Gazans would have with friends and family from the West Bank.

Trump's plan refuses to fully recognize the humanity of the Gazan people. The same could be said of Israel's Occupation of those living in the Palestinian Territories. Both are imitations of how America, for almost its full history, has refused to fully recognize the humanity of non-whites, especially Native Americans and Blacks, within its borders. And Israel's imitation should not surprise us considering all of the ties that have bound America and Israel together. That includes the fact that Netanyahu was educated in America for a significant amount of  of his life. And another factor includes the authoritarian leadership styles that both Trump and Netanyahu exhibit.

So if there are ties between the current leaders of the U.S. and Israel in how they lead lead their nations in their treatment of the Palestinians , we have to face the fact that there are possible ties between the oppressed people in America and the Palestinians. Those ties are more comparable with Native Americans from the past, but they also exist  with many Blacks as well. In either case, what we see in both Israel and the U.S. is that there are a certain groups of people who claim to have rights that they deny to others from having. That changes their rights into privileges because the claiming of rights for one group but not others implies that one is at least partially denying the citizenship and humanity of another group. 

At the same time, fairness demands that the accusations made against the Occupation and Trump's plan must also be made against all Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. That each Palestinian attack on Israeli civilians must be counted as a denial of the full humanity of all Israelis. There is no justification for those attacks. And we cannot afford to minimize in any way the atrocities committed by groups like Hamas. Those attacks, the Occupation, and Trump's plan must all be vehemently condemned. And though Israel had a right to respond to Hamas's October 7th atrocities, not every possible response is a moral one. And so condemnation of Palestinian terrorism, the Occupation, and Trump's plan must also include an acknowledgement and understanding of the context for both the Occupation and Palestinian terrorism. And that leaves us with one complicated mess where, all too many times, it seems like there are no adults in the room who would restore some resemblance of order.

Recently, a French politician demanded that the U.S. return the Statue of Liberty because Trump's current policies show that America now despises that statue and what it stands for. Though it doesn't appear that that politician had Trump's plans for Gaza in mind, those plans fit neatly into that politician's complaint. And one has to admit that that politician has a point unless, of course, one has fallen prey to the tractor beam of needing to be flattered to feel significant.

The Desire To Hate Is Not The Problem With Dr Walker-Barnes's Prayer

Part of the religiously conservative white Christian world is a buzz about a particular prayer that was published in a book compiled by Sarah Betsy called A Rhythm Of Prayer.  The prayer in question was written by Dr. Chanequa Walker-Barnes (click here for a bio). In her contribution to the book, Dr. Walker-Barnes prayed to God for the ability to hate white people (click here for the prayer). And for many people, effective reading of Walker-Barnes's contribution to the book ended there.

One could tell that, for many people, the jury was sent into delibertion after reading that one line when those who reacted negatively to it asked no clarifying questions. Nor did they seek to read anything else that Dr. Walker-Barnes wrote about the prayer or race. BTW, Dr. Walker-Barnes wrote a blog article that discussed the immediate context of her prayer (click here for that article). 

Nor did they ask any probing questions such as, would the ability to hate white people be an end or a means to an end. If it were the latter, then that would even more require one to search for the context of the prayer. And if they searched the context for the prayer, they would find admissions of love by Dr. Walker-Barnes for the people whom she prays to be able to hate. 

Nor did some critics point out that Dr. Walker-Barnes was not praying to hate all white people. She was only praying to hate 2 specific groups of white people. She prayed to hate the conservative colorblind crowd who believed that their approach protected them from being racists. She also prayed to hate those progressives who believed that they too had avoided being racists, but their racism eventually comes out in what they say. But again, some religiously conservative Christian critics didn't read that far (click here and there with reports of some criticisms).

One critic of her prayer blamed it on Critical Race Theory (CRT). And one only needs to check with Jemar Tisby about the war that some religiously conservative Christians have waged against CRT. Here we should note that many critics of CRT fail to ask if CRT describes the kind of racism that many, but not all, black Americans face right now. For religiously conservative Christian critics of CRT either try to totally discredit it by mentioning  CRT's ties to Marxism--here, Marxism is used more as a pejorative rather than anything else. In addition, some religiously conservative Christian critics claim that CRT can't be right because it promotes racism and a hatred for America. While CRT is trying to point out the systemic racism that still exists, rejecting it because it promotes a hatred of America is a Post Modern admission of guilt. It is Post Modern because Post Modernism employs an outcome-based approach to truth. That is that a belief, theory, or practice cannot be regarded as true or valid if it has been thought to contribute to an unwanted result. And it is an admission to guilt because if CRT is correct in its analysis of racism today, then it is understandable for blacks to hate America.

But like the white moderates about whom Martin Luther King Jr. complained, who were more interested in order than the conditions that caused people like King to protest and practice civil disobedience, critics of Walker-Barnes's prayer are more offended by her understandable prayer to hate than in the conditions that caused her to write that prayer.

Finally, is being able to hate some whites and end in itself, or is it a means to an end for Dr. Walker-Barnes? Perhaps, taking a literalist approach to a couple of direct quotes from the prayer would answer that question.  Note that she wrote the following:

Free me from this burden of calling them to confession and repentance...

 

And you have not allowed me to languish alone

With her previous admission that she loves the same whites whom she prays to hate, her request to be able to hate means that she looks at hatred as a liberator from the distress she feels when whites, both progressives and colorblind conservatives, seem to pretend to be against racism and thus disillusion hits her time and time again. Here we should remember what King attributed to the white moderates of his day. According to King, white moderates were the biggest obstacles to blacks gaining freedom in this country (click here for the source). Dr. Walker-Barnes's love for those whom she desires to hate has caused her to be overly optimistic about them just as King had been overly optimistic about the white moderates of his day. So part of Dr. Walker-Barnes's burden and anguish is the consistent disappointment and disillusionment that comes when the racism from those conservative and progressive whites comes to the surface. And her own family history and the racism she sees around her amplifies her distress that comes from her disillusionment and disappointment.

And so is Dr Walker-Barnes praying to hate some whites or is she really just praying to be relieved from a burden that often seems too heavy to bear?

I don't see her prayer to hate some whites to be the flaw in her prayer. Rather,  if we note that her prayer consists of self-affirmation and judgement on some others, her prayer starts to become too similar to the prayer of the Pharisee from the parable of the two men praying (click here for the parable). And what is also useful here is James 2 , especially the latter part of it (click here for James 2). That is because of our own lawbreaking, we should prefer to show mercy over judgment. And we will receive what we give out whether it is mercy or judgment.

For the source of Christian love for all people, especially our enemies, isn't found in and of ourselves or in emulating our heroes. Rather, it is found in our showing the love that God has shown us. And what is this love that God has shown us? Isn't it the forgiveness of sins because, in Jesus's name we approached God for forgiveness as the Tax Collector begged for mercy in the previously mentioned parable of the two men praying? And so Dr. Walker-Barnes has escaped the sin of racism. According to the latter part of James 2, when we violate a different commandment than than the one we are judging people for violating, we put ourselves into the same boat as those whom we judged because breaking one part of God's law makes us into lawbreakers just as the people we judge are lawbreakers.

And as for the constant an hurtful disappointment and disillusionment that Dr. Walker-Barnes rightfully feels when those pretending to be allies show their true colors, how Jesus responded to Peter when he asked how many times must I forgive someone who sins against me. Jesus responded with a non literal 7 X 70 (click here for the source). In reality, Jesus went on to give a parable of a man who despite was forgiven and huge debt, he would not forgive a fellow servant whose debt was small in comparison to what he had been forgive (click here for the source).

Though the subject for us may not be race, many of us are in the same boat that Dr. Walker-Barnes has found herself. We struggle with the burden, sometimes an overwhelming burden, of caring for or constantly needing to forgive those who stab us by constantly disappointing or disillusioning us. And our job is not to show how strong or righteous our human spirit is; our job is to constantly forgive these people because of how God constantly forgives us only in Christ. For as James wrote, 'We all stumble in many ways,' (click here for the source).

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For November 2, 2021

 Oct 13

To R. Scott Clark and David Vandrunen for Clark's blogpost citation of a Vandrunen article on racism from a Christian perspective. This appeared in the Heidelblog

Vandrunen's full article can be found at

https://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=874

Most of the points made by Vandrunen in his article, and not just the part that was quoted above,  need some degree of correction and/or modification.

Take his first point, 'Race does not exist, although racism does.' The premise is not true when one considers the dictionary definition of race: 'any one of the groups that humans are often divided into based on physical traits regarded as common among people of shared ancestry' (see  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/race   ). 

I was recently reminded of race during lunch with friends. One was African American and the other was literally from Africa. My friends had obvious differences between each and with me and those physical differences go back to ancestry. Now does that existence of race imply that we have no common ancestor? No. But a lot of "funny" things happened to different races on the way here from the Garden of Eden. 

The recognition of race has often been accompanied by assumptions of superiority and inferiority, and thus entitlement, which accompany the recognition of racial differences.

Thus the call for deracialization must be modified. It must be modified for two reasons: First, there are physical differences that exist between people due to common ancestries; and Second, we can't assume that racism will no longer exists if we were fully implement deracialization.

One of the excellent points made by CRT is what it calls racism, which is the oppression of people based on race, is experienced by many Blacks in more ways than just personal racial prejudice. Racism is experienced by many Blacks by institutional and social powers. Racism is still experienced in encounters with law enforcement and the criminal justice system, in terms of voting and voting rights, and in several ways in the economy. In addition, many Blacks still experience the after effects of past racism. 

We might also want to consider that deracialization forgets the different ways people are perceived because of their race. Because Blacks have been viewed not just as inferior, but they were treated as property for much of US history. Thus, we need to pay special attention to the accomplishments of people of color. These accomplishments help point out our equality and debunk assumptions of inferiority.

What we must be careful of  in critically thinking about racism is to use our theology and our subcultural biases to limit our understanding of how racism could be experienced by Blacks and other minorities. Because the charge of  racism is itself stigmatizing  and indicting, we need to admit that we have an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to acknowledging the full impact of both yesteryear's and today's racism as well as whether we are racist. It's easy for us to see the systemic racism that existed during slavery and Jim Crow. But when many Blacks talk about experiencing systemic racism today, we tend to balk. Such  balking is not a biblical reaction but a subcultural one. 

We cannot afford to use our theology, our ideology, or the image we prefer to have of our nation today or ourselves  to deduce that systemic racism no longer pervasively exists today. In fact, many of criteria that today's CRT proponents use to detect racism were used by Martin Luther King Jr. In particular, we are talking about the equality of results criteria (see  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsbt3a7K-8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xsbt3a7K-8   ). If we are going adequately understand what CRT is saying, then we must actively study it to see the continuities it has with the Civil Rights Movement as well as how it distinguishes itself from Critical Legal Studies and its criticisms of the politically conservative color-blind movement promoted by the Reagan Administration and scholars such as Thomas Sowell. For here we need to remember that many Blacks who agree with CRT are speaking from their experiences. And if we attempt to deduce that what they say they are experiencing is not true, we then show ourselves to be deliberately deaf to their complaints. And such deafness stands as a tremendous stumbling block for many might otherwise listen to the Gospel.

Finally, the Church has no choice but to be political in today's world. But that option for the Church is not to be political as the world is where one chooses to advance one own side's agenda at the expense of honesty and the truth. Rather, the Church must speak prophetically to the individual and corporate sins that each person and political and ideological side promotes and/or commits without commenting on any proposed ideological solution. 

Why is that our only option? It is because politics contain both ambiguous and non ambiguous moral choices. When a particular party advocates actions that suppress freedoms for a given group, the Church needs to speak prophetically to that suppression and the partisanship in which that is taking place. And while the religiously conservative American Christians have no problems with pointing out where they believe that their own rights are being infringed on, they have great difficulty in perceiving and acknowledging when they themselves are infringing on the rights of others. But why do we need to do that? It is for the reputation of the Gospel. That is that once a person or group identifies itself with Christ, everything it does and doesn't do, says and doesn't say is associated with the Gospel and acts to either hurt or enhance the reputation of the Gospel. That truth should give us all, as individuals, reason for pause because of our own sinfulness. But it should also give the Church abundant reasons for speaking prophetically against injustices in the world. That is because most, if not all injustices, violate either literally or in principle the commandments that prohibit murder and/or stealing. And for the past few centuries, through both advocacy and silence, the predominant branches of the Church in many areas in the world has aligned itself with wealth and power. In other words, we have a a lot of damage control and damage repentance to make up for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 15

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that calls the pandemic a 'religious event' and a lot of trust in the science of the vaccines a religion. This appeared in Heidelblog.

According to the logic used in the above article, the following statements must be true:

So the existence of polio and smallpox were religious events and those who flocked to the vaccines were making science their new religion.

We should not trust that the sun is the center of our universe and that gravity exists because Science does not trust, it doubts and tests. Of course, if science is always doubting and testing, then it never arrives at any firm answers.

Do we see the problem with the above logic yet? When religious leaders call solutions to crises a religion, what they are really doing is announcing the existence of a competitor in explaining the world. Calling science a religion because people are using what was learned from science as a help shows more than just a stretching of the word 'religion,' it's a defensive reaction to seeing another source of influence as a competitor to explaining the world around us. 

Who has a better position to to explain the different realities that we see around us? For example, who is in the best position to tell us whether climate change is at least partially but significantly caused by human activity? Are theologians in the best position or are climate scientists in the best position? Who is in the best position to tell us how effective vaccines and mandates are in curbing the current pandemic? Is it theologians or scientists who specialize in the areas of study that are concerned with viruses and how the body reacts to viruses?

Back when Heliocentrism was being floated as an explanation for a part of reality, both Calvin and Luther firmly rejected what Copernicus proposed. They too saw Copernicus's theory as a stepping on their turf. Because the Bible had already told them, however indirectly, the relationship between the sun and the earth, they felt comfortable in not just rejecting heliocentrism, they went on to ridicule anyone who proposed such a theory. Protestants followed Calvin and Luther's lead and the Roman Church then followed their lead. How dare a person use mathematics to contradict what was understood back then what God had to say.

Protestants and those from the Roman Church eventually got it right and the consequences were minimal. Today, not doing something about climate change because there are 'reasonable grounds' to question whether human activity is significantly contributing to it or to resist vaccine mandates because of one doubts the science behind it can have, and in some cases are having, disastrous, harmful effects on people. Never mind the percentage of  climate change scientists who are convinced by the evidence. And, btw, no one is telling dissenters that they cannot question what is being claimed, if all crises become religious events and the proposed solutions become religions themselves, then who can present themselves as being in the best position to people through those events but theologians. And that is what happens when we allow some to so easily expand the definition of religion.

The above article seems to be in denial of what logically follows calling the current pandemic a 'religious event' and the trusting of medical science's response as a religion even though no one is saying that what the medical scientists claim should not be questioned. But the vaccines those scientists have provided have proven to be helpful and even lifesaving. And if more people had followed their lead, we possibly could have avoided the overwhelming of our healthcare resources and prevented many deaths.

The above article seems to be nothing more than an attempt to defend one's turf not realizing that just as we should let vaccines be vaccines and science be science, we should let theologians be theologians and nothing more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 17

To Bradley Birzer and his blog article on how great the American Republic was and how we can make it great again. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog. 

All too often, probably most of the time, our study of history and our learning religion share a common trait. That trait is that what should be a quest for truth has morphed into a search for personal significance. And that significance isn't found in realistic portrayals of our faults and sins, our significance is found in delusions of goodness and honor that we are fond to have dancing in our heads.

In particular, in terms of history we find those delusions when we magnify how we treated those who were like us while we minimize how we treated those who were different. In religion, we focus on how we think that we have been loving of God and people while we overlook our worship of idols and our coldness toward those who are different or toward those whose need would cost us more than we want to part with.

Such is my summary of the above article. The above article follows the road most often traveled.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 20

To R. Scott Clark and Carl Trueman for Clark's blogpost article that consists of quoting the part of Carl Trueman's article that tells us Christians not to imitate the world in how we react to the changing of the moral guard of society where Christianity has been replaced by movements like Post Modernism even though such a change threatens to marginalize us Christians in society. This appears in Heidelblog.

Trueman's article can be found at

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2021/11/the-failure-of-evangelical-elites

A few comments are in order regarding the cited part of Trueman's article. 

First, when Trueman talks about Christianity's place in society coming under threat, what was that place? Was it not one of supremacy over other beliefs, views, and practices so that it exercised various levels of supremacy over society? Should we lament over that lost privileged status?

Second,  when Trueman talks about Christianity being pushed to the margins, we might ask who was pushed to the margins when Christianity had its its day in the sun here? We do know that throughout US history, when Christianity had its privileged place, people of color, women, and the LGBT community were all marginalized to varying degrees. 

Trueman is complaining about how, with Post Modernism, unbelievers are turning the tables by imposing their moral values and thus marginalizing us Christians. At the same time, Trueman rightfully warns us not to conform to the 'spirit of the age.' And yet, with unbelievers turning the tables by imposing their moral standards on us, aren't they the ones who should be warned not to conform to the spirit that Christianity, as represented by many Christians, has been displaying rather than warning us believers not to conform to the spirit of this age?

We need to escape this black-white worldview where we Christians believe that either we must rule over others to some degree or be ruled over by them. We should seek to coexist with other views rather than trying to gain a privileged place over them in society so as to push our moral agenda, in particular our sexual moral agenda, on them. It is this belief that either we rule over them or they will rule over us that creating stumbling blocks to people who would otherwise listen to the Gospel.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 29

Tor R. Scott Clark and his blog article that says that if we only sung what was in God's Word, we could avoid singing songs about the climate change like the one he showed in his article. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The question we have to ask is whether the above hymn is better than the sound of climate change silence from the pulpit.

BTW, I am not a fan singing the above hymn in Church and its words are more focused on God than some worship songs I heard. 

Also, if we only sung from God's Word, then we would miss out on some wonderful hymns. The changing world demands that we stewardship of the world needs to change. So are we afraid to admit that the world is changing because then we must change with it to be good stewards of the world?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sometime in late October

To Bradley Birzer and his blog article on what is the essence of Freedom. This appears in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

The essence of Freedom in society is not necessarily, it is equality. For equality is the first limit on our freedoms and distinguishes what we call freedom from what would rightfully be called privilege. Here we should note that  Freedom - equality = privilege. And privilege is all too often the result of refusing to share power and/or wealth.

When we insist on our freedom at the expense of another person's freedom, we are insisting on being privileged over that other person. Yes, we have duties that puts limits on our freedoms. But the first consideration  of what determines what our duties are in society is equality It is equality. So equality is the essence of Freedom in society.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 30

 To W. Robert Godfrey and his audio presentation about why America is changing in terms of race, sex, and so forth. This appeared on the Abounding Grace Radio website (click here for Abounding Grace Radio's website).

One key question is what constitutes a rejection of the Gospel? Is it a rejection of Jesus as God and how through faith God saves us from God's deserved wrath for our sins or is it a rejection of a Christianity's past privileged place in society expressed in law and culture? 

Another important question is how should we try to change things in our nation in the light of the 1st Amendment? Does seeking a privileged place for Christianity in the state and society lead to violating that Amendment?

Another important question is whether those in privileged groups can recognize problems and hardships that other experience. After all, being privileged can blinds one from seeing the sufferings of those who are not privileged especially those whose suffering is caused by the privileged place one's own group has in society. This is most evident in the wholesale rejection of BLM and CRT. It is most evident in the reaction against the Obergefell decision as well as the recent court decision that applies Civil Rights laws to discrimination against the LGBT community. It is most evident in our ignorance of the plight of Native-Americans. It is most evident in any opposition to increasing the minimum wage or to giving more workplace power to workers.

So it will be interesting to see if Godfrey addresses the above issues in answering the questions he posed in his presentation

Lies, Lies Everywhere With Plenty For One To Use

Justin Giboney (click here for a brief bio) has written an article posted on the Gospel Coalition website about the lies we tell ourselves about racism. In that article, he has two groups he wants to target: those who deny or minimize racism in America's past and/or present and those overstate the case of racism in America as exemplified by theories such as Critical Race Theory (CRT). In particular, the ties that critical theories like Critical Theory and CRT have to Post Modernism and Marxism are highlighted, but perhaps not always as one might expect (Click here to read the article).

What Giboney has in mind is to draw attention to the lies that the above mentioned groups tell themselves and others about racism in America to serve their agenda. For the group that minimizes racism in America's past and/or present, lies include the following:

• Racism is plays a very minimal part in the story of America
• Racism was eradicated with events like the end of slavery or Jim Crow laws or with reconstruction, and I could add the Civil Rights Movement
• That those who bring up racism are Marxists
• That 'Marxist barbarians' are waiting in the wings to bring destruction

The lies that some progressives who are battling racism in America include:

• Whiteness is the cause of all sins and pathologies
• One's class or race can tell us about a given person's character

Though Giboney pays more attention to the lies of those who minimize racism in America, we should note the issue about CRT. It's issue is whether or not it overstates its case against racism in America. And here we should note that CRT's working definition of racism is different than that of most people. For while most people, especially conservatives, think of racism as to be confided to the attitudes and actions of a given individual, CRT says something different. CRT acknowledges that the racial prejudice of an individual is involved in racism; but it adds to that structural and social components to the definition of racism. As a result, racism in America can only be by White against people of color because whites much have more say in determining the structure and cultural aspects of society than any other group does. Thus, though CRT acknowledges that blacks can have personal prejudice against whites, because the structural and social components of society are, for the most part, controlled by and favor whites, there are no structural and social components in society that oppress whites and thus the personal prejudice that any black person might have against whites does not qualify as racism. And thus, in America, CRT states that racism can only be exercised by whites against people of color despite the fact that people of color can have racial prejudice against whites (click here and there).

That point might show the claim that all sin is due to whiteness, a view attributed to some progressives by Giboney, might not be a valid claim. Regardless of the validity of the claim, Giboney failure to draw attention to the different working definition of racism by CRT is a serious flaw in his article.

What we might want to do here is to apply the same test to Giboney as he applies to those who minimize racism in America and those who hold to the critical theories. That is does Giboney hold to lies that bolster his views of the world. And here, we might want to check his view on Marxism because he makes several negative references to it.

Why would lying to himself about Marxism serve his interests? If we look at his associations with the And Campaign (see his bio and click here) and the Gospel Coalition, there seems to be a consistent denouncing of Marxism in the critical theories and an implied warning that one doesn't need to read Marxist materials to learn from them. That is because some from the Gospel Coalition, and possibly the And Campaign, have claimed that any good that Marxism has said social justice has already been said better by certain Christians and so there is no need to read it. 

I would invite people to read what Martin Luther King Jr. said about Marxism to see if it has anything valid for us to learn. Now here we should first note that King merged Marxism with the Communism practiced in the Soviet Union, something that many Marxists or those leaning toward Marx disagree with. Examples of those who disagree with that conflation would include Mikhail Gorbachev would object to regarding Stalin and his successors as socialists and Noam Chomsky would object to regarding Lenin as having ruled as a Marxist. 

Anyway, King regarded Marxism/Communism as evil. And yet, he acknowledged that it attempted to speak for justice. In fact, King believed that truth could not be found in neither Capitalism nor Communism, but that we need the best elements of both ideologies in order to better arrive at truth (click here, King's comments on Marxism begin on pg 92). We don't see Giboney treat Marxism as King did though his treatment of Marxism is certainly not as bad as others have treated it. So perhaps when Giboney describes Marxism as a 'real threat to truth and moral order,' Giboney is holding to at least a partial lie so that he can direct people to read from Christian sources only. Also, Giboney claims that Marxism tells lies to strengthen its position. But what lies is he referring to? 

The final point I would like to make here is that Giboney is too easily prone to call flaws in reasoning 'lies.' Such does not ask us to look for rational explanations for why an ideology or movement takes the approach it does. 

Here we should note that it is not uncommon for people who are reacting to longterm social injustices to respond to those injustices with a phobic reaction. By that I mean that in order not just to undo longterm social injustices, but to also try to prevent those injustices from occurring again respond phonically  And thus there is a fear in being able to distinguish between factors and variables that are coincidentally associated with a given injustice from those factors and variables that contribute to the injustice being addressed. The phobic reaction here is like the irrational fear a person who has been bitten by a dog might have to all dogs. Rather than learning to distinguish a dangerous dog from a dog that is not, those who have a phobic reaction to dogs fear all dogs and thus avoid taking chances on distinguishing threatening dogs from friendly dogs. 

Such an explanation for why ideologies and movements believe what Giboney might call lies gives those ideologies and movements some benefit of the doubt without having to agree with questionable beliefs.

Giboney has several valid points to make here and is worth reading. But it doesn't really provide an accurate description of CRT before examining whatever lies it might hold to. And that is a significant flaw in Giboney's article.

A Turf War Attack On CRT

 It is as if religiously conservative Christianity was the Titanic and Critical Theories, in this case Critical Race Theory, were an iceberg. The Titanic has struck the iceberg and the captain and crew of the Titanic are trying to cut their losses, but the water keeps pouring in. In the end of the, in this case, podcast, rather than an article, what was a discussion that had positive contributions to make turned into a sinking ship.

On the April 21st Mortification of Spin podcast (click here), Carl Trueman (click here for a bio) and Todd Pruitt (click here for a bio) talk with Gerry McDermott (click here for a bio) about his new book, Race And Covenant (click here for link to the book).

Initially, their discussion concerns this book, which consists of a compilation of essays by some impressive scholars and others of different races about race and God's relationships with nations in general. Spoiler alert here, though the credentials of many of the contributors are impressive and they should be read, most if not all of the contributors have conservative roots and thus the book does not present a balanced approach to the issues of race and racism.

The basic tenet of McDermott's book is that God has a kind of covenant relationship with nations where He will reward those that do well and punish those that do evil. McDermott claims that God does not just interact with people as individuals, He interacts with collectives of people called nations.

That covenant relationship, however, is not like the relationship that God had with Old Testament Israel in that there is no formal written pact between God and any given nation. Rather, the covenant relationship that McDermott is referring to consists of the general principles that God rewards and punishes nations according to their works. And that God will hold every nation accountable.

In the Reformed world, such a concept is consistent with the Transformationalists who believe that the Church should be working to transform the world, including its cultures and its political structures, but not so much with those holding to 2 Kingdom Theology because they tend to believe that the Church, as an institution, should only be involved with preaching the Gospel and disciplining its members.

 An implication, which is explicitly stated in the podcast, that comes with McDermott's premise is that Christians should be aspiring to loftier goals for their nation than what unbelievers aspire to because God has these national covenant relationships with nations. In their discussion, they agreed that such aspirations do not imply the desire to install Theonomy with the kind of expectation that we are then safe from Christian political overreach. 

 If only that was the case. We don't live in a Black-White world where the only way Christians can try too hard to control government is to have the government respond to their concerns is with theonomy. Jeff Halper has provided insights on a helpful distinction between an ethnocracy and a democracy (click here). Though the term 'democracy' is not included in the link, Halper has defined it in terms of a state of being in his book, An Israeli In Palestine. He defines democracy there as where a given nation belongs to all of its citizens equally. An ethnocracy is where a given nation belongs to one particular group more than any other group despite the use of democratic processes in choosing leaders.

Thus, Christians do not have to force Theonomy on a nation for the nation to belong to them more than to any other group. And thus by denouncing Theonomy, those in the podcasts did nothing alleviate fears that Christians would not seek too much power in our nation.

At this point, the podcast went ok. We should recognize that conservatives have a significant amount to bring to the table regarding race. And thus one should not dismiss McDermott's book. Rather, one should read it to see the perspectives the writers in his book bring to the discussion on race.

However, things took a wrong turn when McDermott was asked about Critical Race Theory (CRT). There, the graciousness that McDermott rightfully demands for the conservative contributors to his book was not shown to CRT. Whatever good McDermott said was in CRT was also in the Gospel. And since McDermott saw CRT as being destructive and offering nothing else that has not been offered in other places, McDermott and the podcast hosts of Trueman and Pruitt denounced CRT as being a false religion that is toxic to the discussion on racism.

It might be helpful to read this link and that link to compare what the 3 of them said that CRT teaches. What they said included:

1. Racism is ordinary and systemic
2. Race is and is not an artificial construct
3. There is a unique voice of color that must be assumed not only that it is competent, but that it is superior to the voices of whites
4. That the liberal order, which includes enlightenment principles, neutral principles of law, and merit, is oppressive
5. That the color blindness taught by Martin Luther King Jr is oppressive
6. White privilege is a reality and is at the heart of systemic oppression
7. Minorities should not be expected to fit into American society
   

 Now realize that the above list is not just a list that they claim CRT teaches, it is a list of teachings that they are critical of. 

The issue in the first item in the list is whether they are disagreeing with whether racism is systemic. For it seems that that claim should be based on observation and whether racism can be seen in at least some of the different systems relied on by society. Here, all we need to do is see if racism is systemic is whether racial prejudice is exercised by law enforcement, the judicial system, the economic system, and in voting. For it seems obvious that we see racial discrimination exercised in those areas if not in other systems our society depends on. An if that is the case, where is the complaint' that CRT has really nothing to offer on the discussion on racism?

Here we should note that McDermott does not deny that racism has been and still is a significant problem here. In fact, McDermott sees our nation being punished by God for our nation practicing slavery and Jim Crow. But the question is whether racism in our nation is still systemic.

The issue regarding the second item is whether CRT teaches that the concept of race is both is and is not a biological concept. McDermott claims that CRT is inconsistent on this point.

The issue regarding the third item is to what extent is the unique voice of color so much more informative than the voices of whites regarding racism and its solutions.

The issue regarding the fourth issue is not just how accurate is the claim that the liberal order is oppressive, but why is such a claim being made. Is it being made by observation? If so, how accurate is that observation? Here, we might want to listen to the unique voice of color since they are experiencing oppression. They might be seeing harmful things in what we have taken for granted.

The issues in the fifth item do McDermott et. al. rightly understand Martin Luther King Jr. when he talked about color blindness? Is not mentioning the race of those who oppress and those who are oppressed what MLK meant when talking about color blindness? In addition, do McDermott  et. al. understand that MLK stated that racism is part of a triplet of evil that included economic exploitation and militarism? Do McDermott and friends understand the continuity that exists between CRT and what MLK both spoke about and experienced? After all, MLK worked for justice during Jim Crow with its laws and culture. MLK was working not just to change people's hearts, but also to peacefully overthrow oppressive systems and laws.

The issue with the sixth item is whether McDermott and other conservative allies deny that white privilege exists. I wonder because I finally began to understand what white privilege is by listening to a religiously and politically Black conservative  talk about where he sees white privilege in his teaching profession.

The issue with the seventh item is whether minorities feel like they can fit into American society. Here, we should expect various statements that both agree with and disagree with that claim.

McDermott and the others then go on to claim how CRT is a religion that preaches a false Gospel. And the question here is whether any nonChristian ideology presents itself as a religion given the approach that McDermott, Trueman, and Pruitt take to CRT.

My own take on CRT is that like other approaches to undoing social injustices it promotes a phobic approach. Yes, it has a lot to contribute to the discussion on racism if not the redefinition of racism. For CRT teaches that racism is the combining of racial prejudice, which CRT states that everyone has, along with social and institutional power that is oppressive against people of color. To see how social power can be oppressive, one should listen to James Baldwin's argument while debating William F. Buckley (click here for the debate and go to the 14:02 mark of the YouTube video). Granted that Baldwin's argument is based on his life experiences during Jim Crow, the issue is whether all of what he has experienced has been eliminated with the dismantling of Jim Crow.

In saying that CRT promotes a phobic approach is not to disagree with all that CRT. It is asking whether some of the approaches to undoing racial oppression is based on all-or-nothing thinking that prevents us from making distinctions between those factors that are accidentally associated with the racial oppression people of color have faced from those factors that are contributors to that same racial oppression. In other words, does CRT throw out the baby with the bathwater in its approach to racial oppression? If it does, then aren't McDermott, Trueman, and Pruitt are taking the same throw the baby out with the bathwater approach to CRT that CRT is taking to the status quo.

In the end, by taking their all-or-nothing analysis of CRT, it seems that McDermott and some other conservatives see themselves in a turf war over the narrative of racism with CRT. After all, McDerott, Trueman, and Pruitt are very disturbed over the number of Christians who believe that CRT has much to contribute to understanding and dismantling racism And the problem with that approach is that it tries to compel us to either accept what conservatives like McDermott have to say about racism or what CRT has to say  take a hybrid approach. With the hybrid approach, we would think for ourselves by trying to take the best insights from both groups. McDermott and friends do not want any person, believer or non-believer, to see CRT as having anything significant to say about racism in this nation and how to provide at least a partial solution to it.

You Might Be A Christian Nationalist If You...

All too often, we are not who we say we are. But getting us to be honest with ourselves often involves a conflict of interest. That is because we want to think about ourselves as being better than we really are.

The Scriptures contain some passages that can perhaps help us see ourselves for who we are. The parable of the 2 men praying in Luke 18:9-14 is such a passage. When we see that we are acting more like the Pharisee in the parable, then we are tending to believe about ourselves what he believed about himself--that he was righteous and spiritually superior to others. Here we should remember that it was the worst person in society, not the most religious person, who was saved because that person begged for mercy so much that he didn't have time to compare himself with the Pharisee.

Ben Sebrell (no bio material was available) has written an article for The Witness: A Black Christian Collective which informs us that we might be [American] Christian Nationalists (click here for the article). Sebrell's article doesn't include the word 'American' with Christian Nationalism, but he does imply it. BTW, while Sebrell is focusing on American Christian Nationalism, we should note that Christian Nationalism was once the rage in Europe as evidenced by its religious wars and even in WW I when soldiers from many European armies were taught that God was on their side.

What is interesting in Sebrell's take on the subject is that he defines Christian Nationalism as the combination of Western Christianity and American white supremacy. While some might object, we should note that racism was, according to my memory in reading about the subject, not an issue during the Roman Empire. And yet, once Christianity had spread throughout Europe, Christian Nationalism appeared and racism emerged in the West. So Christian Nationalism appeared in Europe before America became a nation. European forms of Christian Nationalism were racist as evident in Europe's colonization and imperialism. And so when America emerged through the emigration of its white, Christian settlers, we saw the continuation of a racist Christian Nationalism.

So now we arrive at Sebrell's article. His article is simply a collection of statements stating what Christian Nationalism looks like. Below are some of those statements:

• It looks like people who claim to be pro-life saying, “If he had just listened to the police…,” whenever a Black image-bearer is needlessly gunned down in the streets.
   
• It looks like preachers standing in pulpits and all but deifying our founding fathers and the congregation saying, “Amen.” I wonder how those people will feel when this life is over and they find out that many of those hallowed founders died and split hell wide open while the slaves they owned traded in scrap wood shacks on dirt roads for mansions on streets of gold.
   
• It looks like Christians who will spend thousands of dollars to fly across the world to take photos with poor kids in Africa while ignoring the Black and Brown kids down the street.
   
• It looks like saying Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization after having remained conspicuously silent when it comes to white supremacy, the KKK, the Capitol Insurrection, etc.

 

There are other statements in the article which indicate whether one is an American Christian Nationalist. Again, many of these statements give us reason for pause since they could very well apply to us white Christians.

Sebrell tells us that Christian Nationalism is is a form of idolatry. And what Sebrell doesn't mention but Chris Hedges does is that idolatry eventually involves self-worship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week #14 Of The New Life

At the end of one of the recent The Daily Social Distancing Show episodes, they showed a video of a young Black woman describing why she and perhaps some others would want to destroy stores. After she explained that, she ended with the following message. That message approximately said that we should be glad that Blacks only want equality and not revenge.

We Whites are lucky that equality is all they want. Why? When we look at history, what is obvious is that White America has incurred a moral debt to different groups of people of color that it has no way of paying back. And considering how some of that White America includes moral majority types who pride themselves on telling others to take personality responsibility for their actions, such a fact serves as a basis for some of the worst hypocrisy seen in the history of mankind.

Do we really want to end racism? Those Blacks who want equality instead of revenge are doing their part. What is White America's part?

The first thing White America must do to end racism is to acknowledge our moral failings, both in the past by our ancestors and the present by ourselves. We are not talking about the individual alone, we are also talking about the group. We are talking about both individual and corporate, with White America serving as group in the word corporate here, moral failings. And if we are religiously conservative Christians, we should feel freer to acknowledge those moral failing because of the forgiveness provided in Jesus Christ, but the imperfections of our faith do not always allow that.

The second thing White America must do is to restructure our laws, both civil and criminal, so that they are less punitive. Face it, we have a very punitive society. It reminds me of these words from the song, For What It's Worth about the beginning of paranoia (click here for the music):

'It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the man come and take you away.'

How well do those words describe part of life for many Black Americans?

Race-based law enforcement is a fact of life for many Black Americans. Here, I am not saying that all police have problems with racism, but I am saying that there are more than just a few bad apples among police officers. How race factors into law enforcement cannot be measured by one statistic as apologists for today's status quo of law enforcement. The measurements include racial profiling and harassment, false arrests and evidence planting, not providing the accused with adequate legal counsel, harsher prison sentences for Blacks than for their white counterparts, physical abuse and then killings. And I am probably missing some other problems here. Those who deny race-based law enforcement do so by being selective with the data.

Why must White America look to make our legal system less punitive? It is possibly for our own good as for the good of others. After all, haven't we incurred a moral debt that we could never pay? If so, then shouldn't we empathize with those who make mistakes or have even deliberately hurt others? Here we need to ask whether revenge in the name of punishment is more important to us than rehabilitation.

But there are reasons why White America would resist reducing the punitive part of the justice system. After all, if we are still a society based on White Supremacy, we need a justice system that enforces a hierarchical society. That introduces authoritarianism into the mix. For authoritarianism, in this instance, is a heavy-handed way of responding to those who would challenge the system based on White Supremacy.

For the most part, authoritarianism is heavy-handed because it is basically based on fear. It is based on the fear of losing control, and in this case it is a fear of losing that hierarchical structure where White America reigns supreme. And part of the fear of losing control here is based on the reality of the moral debt we have incurred and the response we should expect in return. So not only is our authoritarianism based on fear, part of that fear is based on real guilt. And that real guilt tells us that we are not innocent.

There is another part of authoritarianism that we must do away with if we are to greatly reduce racism. That part of authoritarianism is black-white thinking. Here, black-white thinking applies to looking at those in one's own tribe, one's own race in this article, as being good despite their faults while one looks at those from other tribes, especially opposing groups, as bad despite their strengths and good points. The labels of good and bad don't fully recognize all that we are. Instead they are used to focus select group of traits a person has while other important traits are ignored.

There is no one who is all good and very few who are all bad. And thus when we come to grips with what is wrong with us, we should want society to deal with others who have failings as we would want society to deal with us. But black-white thinking does not allow for that because it prevents us from looking at ourselves as being mixed bags of good and bad.

Finally, the last thing we must do to significantly reduce, racism is to follow the advice of Martin Luther King Jr when he spoke out against the Vietnam War (click here for the speech):

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

Will America Ever Be Honest With Itself?

I remember when The Daily Show with Jon Stewart did a segment on racism. Most of the whites they talked to believed that there was no longer any significant racism in America while the blacks overwhelmingly said the opposite. We should note here that when racism does occur in America, whites are usually the guilty culprits while blacks and others are most often the victims.

Itzbeth Menjívar (click here for a short bio) has written a short but worthwhile article on racism, sexism, and other stuff. in America for the Sojourners website. She introduces the article by commenting on Trump's latest racist tweets and the support he gets from his followers (click here for the article). She confirms how Trump's tweets telling certain congresswomen to go back to their own nations is racist--which it is by EEOC standards. She goes on to comment on how men have forever been telling women how they should behave. In the end, there are many times women are not treated as being equals to men.

After that, Menjívar mentions the legitimate social issues that the congresswomen who were tweeted against by Trump are working on. Then she shifts here attention to us by citing a portion of Martin Luther King's Jr. Letter From A Birmingham jail. In that cited portion, King talks about the biggest obstacle to progress for Blacks: white moderates. What bother King about white moderates is their non-committal attitude to achieving progress for Blacks. For what many  such whites were saying is that while they agreed with King's goals, they opposed his methods. From that, King saw that such moderates were more interested in the comfort brought by an order that was without justice than in justice. Their first concern was their own comfort. Their second concern was to come off as being concerned for the welfare of blacks. And that brings us back to racism in America. For in opposing King's nonviolent direct methods of protest, what these white moderates were demonstrating was that they were promoting racism by preferring order to justice.

There are many ways by which racism appears in America. Not all of its forms are equally ugly. King saw that one of the least ugly, if ugly at all, form of racism was also the most devastating to his cause. And this was one of the points of Menjívar's article.

Nothing more will be commented on here because more attention should be paid to the article by Menjívar than this article that is commenting on it. Her article is short and to the point and should be read and shared.

Breaking Away From Racism Is Hard To Do

Jemar Tisby (click here for a bio) has recently attempted to address the problem of racism in conservative American churches. The title of the article is Why White Nationalism Tempts White Christians (click here for the article). And though he has some very insightful things to say, there is a hint that  Tisby is fishing for a more comprehensive approach as to why White Christians find it difficult to away from white nationalism and racism.

What are some of the very good things things Tisby says?  Below is a partial list. We should first note that Tisby uses the recent mass shooting in a California synagogue as a backdrop for his discussion. He does so because the shooter there was a member of a very conservative Christian denomination: the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And this has a special interest for me because I too am a member of that denomination.

• Too often Christian individuals and institutions act as if general statements condemning bigotry and saccharine assertions of racial and ethnic equality are sufficient to combat white nationalism.
   
• White denominations, especially in the theologically Reformed branch of the church, should hold specific workshops, classes and special events explaining white nationalist beliefs and tactics so their members can guard against subversion.
   
• White churches and leaders must bring members who express white nationalist views or sympathies under church discipline, with the ultimate goal of discipleship and restoration. But, if necessary, suspension from the Lord’s Supper and excommunication should be an option.
   
• Maybe white racists and nationalists can sit comfortably in the pews of certain churches because whenever calls for social justice arise their leaders say that such issues are a “distraction” from the gospel.
   
• Their view of the gospel only focuses on issues of personal salvation and individual piety. It never touches broader matters of systemic and institutional injustice. It has little to say about white supremacy and its specific manifestations such as white nationalism and the alt-right.

We should also note that the magazine of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, New Horizons, had just, previously to the shooting, published an issue where a number of articles dealt with racism (click here for that issue). In that article, there is a reference made to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's 1974 report on racism (click here for that report). Here we should note that within the last two years, other conservative American denominations have made public statements about their dealings with racism.

Now the mentioning of the most recent edition of the New Horizons magazine that deals with racism and the reference to the OPC's 1974 report on racism is because what is missing in those works coincide with what is missing in Tisby's article. And what is missing, at least for the OPC, is an important reason why racism can stealthly find a home in that denomination. The reason why those works are incomplete is because of the denomination's insularity. For almost nowhere in the New Horizons articles or the OPC report on racism are there any outside references that would address racism as it exists in America.

The reason for the denomination's insularity is because of its theology. And this is where, as Tisby wrote in the article, the denomination's theology interferes with its battle against racism and white nationalism. The denomination's theology says that God's Word is sufficient in terms of teaching us what to believe and how to live. And because of that, the OPC's approach to racism have rested solely on using the Scriptures to address racism. But the problem with that approach isn't that the Scriptures are insufficient. The problem is that Scriptures give us little to no information, history and insight into why racism in America has taken the shape it has.

And because of the denomination's insularity, what others have said regarding how we should battle racism has also been ignored. At this point we can say that it has been ignored for reasons cited above from Tisby's article. That insights from social justice activists regarding how to contend against the social injustices of racism are looked at as an optional secondary information that do not explicitly direct us to the Scriptures. Too many of us believe that if we read the Scriptures, we will know all that we need to know about how to resist and confront racism. But that approach causes us deliberately neglect to read insights from people who have observed what is involved in white nationalism and racism in America.
 
Here we should note that Martin Luther King Jr. tells us that racism is due to a preference of society for things rather than people and that racism is inseparably bound to economic exploitation/materialism (King would vary as to which one he would include in the list) and militarism so that one cannot eliminate racism by targeting racism alone. We should note that a vast majority of conservative American Christians have no exposure to King's view of the entanglements that maintain racism's web.  As for what King said, it is below (click here for a source):

 I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

We might also note from King's quote, that in order to topple racism, we have to be ready to tip some of conservative American Christians' sacred cows. This is a point that Tisby also seems to have overlooked. Obviously, we need to note that America was founded as a white nationalist nation mostly by white nationalists. But if that isn't enough, if society being thing-oriented rather than person-oriented maintains racism, then our cherished economic system, Capitalism, must also be made vulnerable to a very cutting examination and challenge. For American Capitalism  pushes society toward being 'thing-oriented.'

Despite what Tisby has missed, he gives many helpful insights into how conservative American Churches, like the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, can address its and society's problems with racism and white nationalism. His article deserves to be read and reread a number of times.

ONIM For January 21, 2019

10 Best Fact Checking Sites Found Here.

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.

 

Christian News

• How To Fight Racism, Part 1--Awareness -- Witness: A Black Christian Collective
• Why Being Pro-Life And Pro-Death-Penalty Isn't A Contradiction -- The Chorus In The Chaos
• Some Thoughts On Systematic Theology As Poor Relation, Part One -- Moritification Of Spin
• Empathy Is Good, Justice Is Better -- Roger Olson
• Consider Me Triggered -- Mortification Of Spin
• Administrator Who Tried To Rig Online Polls For Trump 'Made Great Contributions,' Liberty University Says -- Christian Post

World News

• Cory Booker Joins Senate Republicans To Kill Measure To Import Cheaper Medicine From Canada -- Intercept
• Ted Cruz Won't Rule Out Future Support For White Supremacist Steve King -- Huffington Post
• Tens Of Thousands Take To Streets In Act 9 Of 'Yellow Vest' Protests -- France 24
• France's Mass Yellow Vest Protests Continue To Grow In 2019 -- World Socialist Web Site
• Food Pantry Offering Free Groceries To Furloughed Government Workers -- Chicago Sun Times
• Arrests For Illegal Border Crossings Hit 46-Year Low -- NPR
• No Park Rangers Or Food Inspections--But Government Reopens For Oil And Gas -- U.S. News And World Report
• Hundreds Of Government Employees Aren't Getting Paid. So Restaurants Across The Country Are Feeding Them For Free -- CNN
• U.S. Shows Flagrant Disregard For Science Once Again -- Truthdig
• This EPA Rule Change Could Kill Thousands -- Truthdig
• Angela Merkel Assails Europe's Nationalists As Agents Of 'Catastrophe' -- Bloomberg
• Standing Rock Inspired Ocasio-Cortez To Run -- Guardian
• Gunman Dead After Hostage Incident At Logan Township, New Jersey UPS Facility -- 6 Action News
• 6 Ways The Border Wall Could Disrupt The Environment -- National Geographic
• FDA To Resume Food Safety Inspections Tuesday -- NBC News
• This Coal Lobbyist Should Not Run The E.P.A. -- New York Times
• Who Are The UK Yellow Vest Protesters? -- BBC
• Kiah Morris: The Vermont Incidents That Led To A Black Lawmaker's Resignation -- Burlington Free Press
• EPA Criminal Action Against Polluters Hits 30-Year Low -- AP News
• U.S. House Republicans Move To Reprimand King Over White Supremacy Comments -- Reuters
• School Shootings Have United Gen-Z And Young Millennials -- Axios
• The Birmingham Civil Rights Institute's Insult To Angela Davis Has Boomeranged -- Nation
• ACLU: Government Mistakenly Wanted To Deport US Veteran -- AP News
• Why Federal Workers Have To Show Up Even If They're Not Being Paid -- Atlantic
• Global Debt Of $224 Trillion Nears Record Despite Faster Growth -- Bloomberg
• NASA May Decide This Year To Land A Drone On Saturn's Moon Titan -- Space
• California Commission Finds PG&E Falsified Records For Years -- CNN
• Restuarant Owner Meets Man Who Robbed Him Instead Of Calling The Cops: 'Forgiveness Is Better' -- Yahoo News

Israel-Palestine News

• World Food Programme Cuts Aid For Palestinians -- Aljazeera
• Why Is The Pro-Israel Right So Threatened By Black Jews? -- Forward
• Video: Israel's Blockade Threatens Collapse Of Gaza's Strawberry Industry -- Mondoweiss
• Israel Evicting Palestinian Family To Replace Them With Settlers -- Aljazeera

Donald Trump News

• Judge Blocks Trump's Attempt To Roll Back Birth Control Mandate -- New York Times
• Preet Bahara, Sally Yates And James Comey: Fired While Investigating Donald Trump -- CNN
• All Signs Point The Same Way: Vladimir Putin Has Compromising Information On Donald Trump -- USA Today
• Congress Members Donate Salaries During The Shutdown, But Not Trump Appointees -- Quartz
• Trump's Support Plummeting Among White Americans Without Degrees Admid Government Shutdown, Poll Shows -- Independent
• 5 Reasons Why Trump May Want A Shutdown That Have Nothing To Do With A Wall -- USA Today
• Trump Tried To Illegally Withhold Disaster Relief Money From Puerto Rico -- Vox
• Trump's Government Shutdown Is Becoming Catastrophic For The Economy -- Business Insider

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• Angela Davis: 'It's Important Not To Generalize' About Birmingham's Jewish Community -- AL.com
• Millions Of College Students Are Going Hungry -- Atlantic
• The 'Private Governments' That Subjugate U.S. Workers -- Truthdig
• Fleeing A Hell The US Helped Create: Why Central Americans Journey North -- Guardian
• Antarctica Is Losing Ice 6 Times Faster Today Than in 1980s -- AP News
• Domestic Violence Shelters Are Cutting Services Because Of The Shutdown -- Huffington Post
• 10 Persistent Cancer Myths Debunked -- Cancer Research UK
• Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From Veterans In Burn Pit Lawsuit Against KBR, Halliburton -- Military Times
• The Legacy Of 'Boys Will Be Boys' On American Life -- Christian Science Monitor
• World's 2nd-Deadliest Ebola Outbreak Reaches 600 Confirmed Cases -- ABC News
• Witnessing Firsthand The Cruel And Inhumane Treatment Of Asylum-Seekers -- Seattle Times
• Zimbabwe Police Fire Live Rounds During General Strike Protests -- Guardian
• More Than Half Of All Food Produced In Canada Is Lost Or Wasted, Report Says -- CBC
• TSA Officers Open Up About What the Goverfnment Shutdown Is Doing To Their Families -- AZ Central
• $11 Toothpaste: Immigrants Pay Big For Basics At Private ICE Lock-Ups -- Reuters
• For First Time In History, A US Military Service Is Working Without Pay -- Military.com
• The West Has Islam Dangerously Wrong -- Truthdig
• White People Assume Niceness Is The Answer To Racial Inequality. It's Not -- Guardian
• Native American Vietnam Veteran Speaks Out After MAGA Hat-Wearing Teens Harass Him -- Huffington Post
• The Fear That Lies Behind Aggressive Masculinity -- ZNet

Just For Fun

• Trump Offers Pelosi $130,000 To Keep Quiet -- Barowitz Report
• ICE Launches Campaign To Reunite Immigrant Children With Arresting Officer -- Onion
• Defiant Pelosi Begins Swimming To Afghanistan After Trump Denies Use Of Government Plane -- Onion
• Trump Threatens To Cancel Pelosi's Netflix Subscription -- Babylon Bee
• Ocasio-Cortez Accuses Math Of Sexism -- Babylon Bee