Patheos published an article entitled, "Here are a Bunch of Christians Telling Caitlyn Jenner She Needs Jesus in her Life." I just wanted to talk about an excerpt from the last one, from Bryan Fischer. I didn't watch the YouTube clip; I just read the excerpt included below the video:
"Those of us that are saying this is not a good thing, those of us that
are saying this is bad for Bruce Jenner, bad for his future, we are
showing far more compassion to him than the editors of Vanity Fair… They
are showing no compassion for him, no genuine care for him because they
are celebrating his progress down a pathway that could lead him to kill
himself. I would suggest to you that there is absolutely zero
compassion, zero love in aiding and abetting someone’s mental illness, a
mental illness that could drive them to self-destruction."
I'm commenting on this because I don't think Mr. Fischer realizes why transgendered people kill themselves. It's not because there is something inherently suicide-inducing about transgenderism; it is because of the oppression that they face that makes their lives so unbearable. And Mr. Fischer fails to recognize his own hand in creating oppression toward Caitlyn. He instead thinks that he is being compassionate and loving. And as a result of Christian compassion and love, transgendered people are driven to suicide.
The editors of Vanity Fair are celebrating Caitlyn's progress down a pathway toward light. A path where she is free from confusion and is able to be herself without judgment. This pathway becomes a path toward self-destruction only when people like Mr. Fischer open their mouths and refuse to let transgendered people be who they really are. As if they haven't already suffered enough, thinking that they had been born into the wrong body.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Paul
You know the apostle Paul? The guy who wrote basically half of the New Testament? He's like on par with Jesus in Christian circles. Whatever you may say about the Bible, you do not mess with Paul. Why? Because what he said is Scripture. And all Scripture is God-breathed. So basically, Paul was transcribing what God was telling him.
That's what they say.
Keep in mind, though, that when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16, the "Scripture" in question was the Torah. The canonized Bible that we have today was not a thing. I find it doubtful that Paul thought of his own personal letters to churches as Scriptures, to be held in the same esteem as the Torah.
I came across this article. It's basically imagined "letters to the editor" if Paul's book of Galatians had been published today on Christianity Today. Here's the thing--the hypothetical letters to the editor are actually spot-on. Their critiques of Paul are absolutely correct. Paul was kind of a dick, and he split hairs on all kinds of secondary issues. He was extremely judgmental toward people in the churches. And his legalistic views on women and what they should wear...
But then I saw that the writers of these letters to the editor satirically ended the article with, "Had we known the extent in which our readership and advertisers would withdraw their financial support, we never would have printed such unpopular biblical truth." Meaning that they think Paul is great and unquestionably right. Sigh.
I really don't like Paul.
That's what they say.
Keep in mind, though, that when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16, the "Scripture" in question was the Torah. The canonized Bible that we have today was not a thing. I find it doubtful that Paul thought of his own personal letters to churches as Scriptures, to be held in the same esteem as the Torah.
I came across this article. It's basically imagined "letters to the editor" if Paul's book of Galatians had been published today on Christianity Today. Here's the thing--the hypothetical letters to the editor are actually spot-on. Their critiques of Paul are absolutely correct. Paul was kind of a dick, and he split hairs on all kinds of secondary issues. He was extremely judgmental toward people in the churches. And his legalistic views on women and what they should wear...
But then I saw that the writers of these letters to the editor satirically ended the article with, "Had we known the extent in which our readership and advertisers would withdraw their financial support, we never would have printed such unpopular biblical truth." Meaning that they think Paul is great and unquestionably right. Sigh.
I really don't like Paul.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Some family, some politics, and some welfare.
Some of my extended family is intensely conservative, both politically and spiritually. Every time I have an encounter with them, I tread cautiously in the conversation, because it feels as though I am entering a land mine field. A topic comes up wherein I express a belief that they disagree with, all hell breaks loose, and then they tell me that my head is full of mush. (That exactly happened to my older brother once when he told them he was considering voting for Obama in 2008.)
Naturally, like-minded people attract each other. So it was no surprise to me when my cousin's husband posted a link to an article on Facebook entitled, "Maine Just Put Welfare Leeches in Their Place." And it was no surprise that Facebook told me that she liked her husband's post (because Facebook is creepy and it tells me these things.)
So I read the article. It was worse than I expected. It was unbelievably pejorative toward welfare recipients. The state of Maine introduced another requirement for citizens to receive various forms of welfare; citizens must volunteer at least 24 hours a month, complete 20 hours of part-time work per week, or enroll in a vocational training program. Not surprisingly, the number of welfare recipients fell from 12,000 to 2,500.
Of course the number fell. People who had depended on welfare for survival because they cannot find a job or are denied access to jobs are now no longer eligible to receive it. The decrease in the number of those receiving benefits is not, in fact, reflective of people getting jobs and no longer needing welfare, as conservatives would like to believe; the decrease in the number is because it has become harder to receive welfare. Those who were on welfare before are not made better off by this new law; they are made worse off. And who benefits from the law? Those who are not on welfare, because they now have to pay less in taxes. Who passed the law? Those who are not on welfare.
But, oh, the language used in this article. Welfare recipients are described as "capable adults," as if there is no excuse; they are described as "lazy parasites to society who suck the vitality out of American taxes"; they are the "leeches of society" who can be "utilize[d]" to benefit the community. And of course, Democrats are painted as "sore losers."
I'm sorry, writer(s), but not everyone has the privilege of having your skin color, which endows you with all kinds of societal privilege. I'm sorry, writer(s), but not every family has generations of accumulated wealth backing their family up and enabling them to have savings. I'm sorry, writer(s), but working one, even two, full-time minimum wage jobs does not generate enough money to support a family, much less to accumulate savings. I'm sorry, writer(s), but not everyone was able to go to college, which makes them inherently underqualified for many decent-paying jobs.
I think this is why you almost never see those in poverty vote Republican.
Back to my family. So these are the views that members of my extended family hold. That the most vulnerable in society are leeches whose life source must be cut off. It is very hard for me to consider my relatives "family" when they view and ideologically treat others as absolute shit. In fact, it is embarrassing for me to consider these people "family" when they act this way.
Naturally, like-minded people attract each other. So it was no surprise to me when my cousin's husband posted a link to an article on Facebook entitled, "Maine Just Put Welfare Leeches in Their Place." And it was no surprise that Facebook told me that she liked her husband's post (because Facebook is creepy and it tells me these things.)
So I read the article. It was worse than I expected. It was unbelievably pejorative toward welfare recipients. The state of Maine introduced another requirement for citizens to receive various forms of welfare; citizens must volunteer at least 24 hours a month, complete 20 hours of part-time work per week, or enroll in a vocational training program. Not surprisingly, the number of welfare recipients fell from 12,000 to 2,500.
Of course the number fell. People who had depended on welfare for survival because they cannot find a job or are denied access to jobs are now no longer eligible to receive it. The decrease in the number of those receiving benefits is not, in fact, reflective of people getting jobs and no longer needing welfare, as conservatives would like to believe; the decrease in the number is because it has become harder to receive welfare. Those who were on welfare before are not made better off by this new law; they are made worse off. And who benefits from the law? Those who are not on welfare, because they now have to pay less in taxes. Who passed the law? Those who are not on welfare.
But, oh, the language used in this article. Welfare recipients are described as "capable adults," as if there is no excuse; they are described as "lazy parasites to society who suck the vitality out of American taxes"; they are the "leeches of society" who can be "utilize[d]" to benefit the community. And of course, Democrats are painted as "sore losers."
I'm sorry, writer(s), but not everyone has the privilege of having your skin color, which endows you with all kinds of societal privilege. I'm sorry, writer(s), but not every family has generations of accumulated wealth backing their family up and enabling them to have savings. I'm sorry, writer(s), but working one, even two, full-time minimum wage jobs does not generate enough money to support a family, much less to accumulate savings. I'm sorry, writer(s), but not everyone was able to go to college, which makes them inherently underqualified for many decent-paying jobs.
I think this is why you almost never see those in poverty vote Republican.
Back to my family. So these are the views that members of my extended family hold. That the most vulnerable in society are leeches whose life source must be cut off. It is very hard for me to consider my relatives "family" when they view and ideologically treat others as absolute shit. In fact, it is embarrassing for me to consider these people "family" when they act this way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)