September 15, 2019

White Privilege? Christian Privilege? Don’t We All Have Some Kind of Privilege

Every last one of us experiences some kind of “privilege” throughout our lifetime. It is inescapable. It’s part of who we are whether natural (sin) or a learned apparatus, privilege is exercised daily whether we want it to or not or whether it was consciously intended to be that way. The real issue with so-called “privilege” is whether or not such actions were of a malicious intent resulting in a significant consequence. Adding to this confusion is the fact that making a determination of significant consequence is subjective. Because of our sinful nature, we can never please everyone.

I got thinking about all this after reading an article on Powerline Blog about “Christian Privilege.” It seems that I agree with this author to the point that it appears the rhetoric about Christian Privilege has picked up in recent weeks, and for what reason I’m not sure other than to ask, why not? If you are so mixed up and weak minded to not understand how life is, I suppose it is easy to think someone else is getting something you are not or more of it and thus it is easier to make accusations of some sort of unequal privilege instead of just going out and earning it for yourself.

Oh, sure, I understand the roadblocks that do exist – not all are imaginary – that wrongly prevent someone from getting what they want, but then again, we can’t have everything can we?

There is a line that ought to be drawn between what is a real privilege, which was once recognized as discrimination of consequence, and perceived privilege – like I got more attention from the teacher because I had blue eyes.

We can’t help ourselves. We find ourselves continually placed in situations where we must make decisions that involve selecting one person over another. As a child playing games or picking sides for the recess softball game, the captains learn quickly who to choose for their team. Those choices are based on friendships, ability, popularity, and good looks. Does that somehow translate into privilege? How do you prevent natural things like this from happening?

We would kid ourselves to think things like good looks doesn’t provide some a better chance than others. Good looks are also a subjective topic and to some guy, a young girl he sees across the dance floor that he perceives as good looking, or friendly, or a great personality, will be the first asked to dance. Is this privilege or just the way it is? Can you say you know the mind of the other person?

Growing up, I was a gifted athlete. I was captain of the football and ski teams. Was I privileged? I know I was in some way. But, now that I am an adult and have put away childish things. With much sincerity, I can say that I earned much of that privilege. I didn’t seek out to become captain of the team. I worked to become the best I could be at what I did. Did I experience privilege along the way? Probably. Am I now to be punished for that because someone else sees that as some kind of inequitable privilege?

Any person has a very tough life ahead of them who sees things in this manner. I feel sorry for them.

The only time in my life that I can recall feeling angry toward someone because they got something I wanted, was when I was passed over for a job and it was given to another man because I was told, he was married and I wasn’t. Was that privilege or discrimination? Maybe it was neither. Maybe it was both. Time to move on.

The real discrimination comes from those who practice favoring one group, race, religious group, etc. over another for reasons of bigotry, anger, hatred, and ignorance. I will be chastised for saying so, but because of a man’s nature to sin, discrimination will always exist. All we can do is work toward mitigating the level of discrimination in order to bring it to levels that are inconsequential – a seemingly insurmountable task.

One thing is for certain though, burning up energy and fomenting anger and hatred at another person or a group of persons because you think they have been placed in positions of privilege over you is beneficial to nobody.

Discrimination/privilege exists. I don’t doubt it. I have seen it. I have experienced it. What I choose to do about that is up to me. Hating someone and being angry because of it doesn’t help.

The talk has shifted to Christian Privilege…whatever that is. I can only guess the reasons for this targeting. Placing bullseyes on groups setting them apart because of one’s perceived privilege is driven by many things or perhaps I should say people or groups of people.

Christians have always been targets of hatred as have all religious groups. As wrong as this is doesn’t change the fact that it is real. However, lumping Christians into one large group as being one and the same is a terrible thing.

Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, Episcopals, Pentecostals, Methodists and many more are all lumped together as Christians. I can guarantee there exists, in someone’s perception, Catholic privilege, Baptist privilege, etc. etc. So is it even correct to speak of Christian privilege? I would suppose to some degree.

I consider myself a Christian but I can also say I belong to none of the so-called Christian denominations. To somebody, I am privileged because I have a strong faith in a just God. To some, I have privilege because I accept that the promises Yahweh made to those that believe and follow him as real and I reap the benefits of those blessings even though I tell Yahweh daily that I really am not deserving of them. Is Yahweh showing privilege to some and not to others? You could look at it that way but I will tell you this. He gives to those he promised to give to and never goes against His Word.

Man’s sinful perception of privilege is rooted in the belief that somebody else has and/or is favored over another because of some distinction between them that is different than another’s. Yahweh doesn’t operate that way. You can have the same “privilege” I have with no strings attached. It doesn’t matter the color of your skin or whether you are good looking or homely enough to stop a clock. Yahweh doesn’t see those things because he created you. He doesn’t care if you are a gifted athlete. Nothing is different. And we’re all the same.

The choice is yours of where you want to focus your energy – on being angry and hateful because you think somebody has something you don’t or you can make your own life better by seeking Yahweh’s privileges.

Discrimination is a terrible wrong. Obsessing on silly “privilege” is a distraction. One that takes your focus and attention away from the Creator.

 

Share

Give Up Second Amendment in Exchange for an “Upgrade” of the First?

You can’t make this stuff up.

I was sent a link to an article at Powerline, where the author made a valiant attempt to inject some semblance of rational discourse into a topic that never experiences anything close to rationality – school shootings.

To prove this point, simply read the comments that follow the article. I’d like to take a moment and address one of them. A commenter writes: “I suggest a trade-off: Conservatives support the deletion of the 2nd amendment in return for an upgraded 1st amendment which restores prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, and makes the graphic depiction of murder on TV, film, the Internet and video games illegal.”

I immediately wondered what world this person must live in. I know where I live and it’s seldom in and of this world but I think my reasoning skills are a tad bit better. Let me explain, even though our existence has driven us to a point where an explanation is actually needed.

This person suggests that “conservatives” support the deletion of the Second Amendment as part of a trade-off. I’m wondering why liberals, who have and will continue to enjoy their Second Amendment right aren’t included in this obvious ignorant attack? I guess I just didn’t know only “conservatives” support the Second Amendment.

Try, if possible, to understand the trade-off. Before I comment further, I hope that it is obvious that this person fails miserably in understanding the First and Second Amendments or even holding any discernment as to the difference between a God-given right, a Government-given privilege, and the freedom to make choices according to your morals and/or ideology.

The commenter suggests an “upgrade” to the First Amendment in exchange for a repeal of the Second Amendment. It is unbelievable, to the unlearned I suppose, that a person views a reduction in their rights as an upgrade. Once upon a time a right, in the context of the Bill of Rights, was constructed with the idea that a person was free to exercise that right while at the same time not infringing on the choices of others in exercising any right or choosing not to. The comment above surely delineates a lost understanding of something so basic.

For those in need, here is the First Amendment as it is written: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The “upgrade” is said to include: “…restores prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, and makes the graphic depiction of murder on TV, film, the Internet and video games illegal.”

For clarification, we the people and We The People, have butchered the First Amendment but not nearly to the extent of the Second. However, people mostly have the right to pray or read the Bible any place and at any time they so CHOOSE. I have yet to find written in the Bible where Yahweh says that prayer must be done openly in a public arena, in a formal and structurally organized way and included in the curriculum of public schools. In other words, because Government dictates that praying and Bible reading are not part of the public school curriculum, any student, for the most part, and while not disturbing others in their quest for an education, can pray or read their Bible if they so CHOOSE. I’ve never understood those that think they are denied their “right” to their established “religion” because prayer and Bible reading are not “REQUIRED.”

As much as what movies, music, video games, Internet, and all is a reflection of the decadent and immoral American society as a whole, last time I checked, a parent has a right to control what their children are allowed to see and listen to. Parents fail miserably in this but is that a good enough reason to pretend that making this crap illegal, in other words destroying another right of a person to CHOOSE, the right answer? Is that why the person called this an “upgrade.” Up is down, down is up…etc.

Supposedly, once we become “of age” we can CHOOSE to see and hear what we wish. As the Scriptures say: Bring up a child in the way in which he/she should go and he/she shall never depart from it. As much as some would desire, it is still quite difficult to control what a person thinks…short of lobotimization.

I would suppose that in this person’s mind, their “upgrade” was some kind of carrot at the end of a stick. It doesn’t work that way. Rights are about CHOICE not about being forced to have to abide by someone’s ideology, including governments’.

The Second Amendment doesn’t force people to pick up a gun and use it. The Second Amendment is about giving any lawful citizen of this country the option to do that if they CHOOSE. If I believe that Government is a serious threat to my existence, as well as my freedom to make choices, anyone mandating to me that the only gun I can own is a single shot .22 caliber rifle, isn’t allowing me full exercise of my right to self defense and/or the threat of tyranny.

What another commenter said was that there would be no First Amendment if the Second Amendment (or the principle on which it was founded) did not exist.

What man-governments have done to the Second Amendment, masked behind comments like, “reasonable controls,” is to continue to limit and restrict the choices of people in how they can defend themselves. Gun Free Zones outlaw freedom of choice. People who get shot and killed in a Gun Free Zone are the responsibility of every government and individual who demands and has been successful in taking away my freedom to choose how and where I can defend myself. Someday, you will have to answer for your totalitarian behavior, but for now, you will have to live with the reality of what you have done. There is blood on your hands.

Sleep well tonight, my pretty!

Share

Class Privilege For Hunters

It appears the legislative committee for Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has given approval of a plan that would grant opening day hunting privileges to non-residents who are wealthy enough to own at least 25 acres of land in Maine. Hiding behind some nonsense about approving the measure to open up or keep open more land for hunting, the committee has taken a step to promote class privilege. Perhaps many members of the committee have relatives and friends who own 25, or more, acres of land in Maine that would like to hunt on the first Saturday that has been set aside for residents only.

Maybe it would be easier to mail in a copy of your income tax return and set a minimum threshold on income to be eligible to hunt in Maine. Or maybe if you are a fly fisherman only, who practices catch and release…..oh, never mind.

Share

Emily Got Her Gun But She Has No Right

EmilyMillerWhile at times it appears as though advances are being made to bring the Second Amendment back to an actual right, I have to question whether this is real progress or merely the Powers that are in control, allowing, thus creating the privilege to “Keep and Bear Arms”.

If the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights actually existed in the form that most of us have been taught, then, like other amendments and bills of rights, it wouldn’t contain the vast number of so-called “reasonable restrictions”. It is my opinion that when restrictions, whether deemed reasonable or unreasonable, are placed on actual rights, i.e. God-given rights (self defense), then man has co-opted, yes, stolen, that right and turned it into a privilege.

In most recent years, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) told us in Heller v District of Columbia, that the Second Amendment was an individual “right” to keep and bear arms. In that ruling and as part of Justice Scalia’s Majority Opinion, he stated that the Second Amendment was a guaranteed right of an individual to keep and bear arms. He further made note that the ruling had nothing to do with “reasonable” restrictions. Therefore, the lie became that the Second Amendment was not a right at all but a privilege disguised as a right.

We saw and heard mostly the same thing in NRA v. City of Chicago, where it was “unconstitutional” for the City of Chicago to prohibit the ownership of guns in the city. The SCOTUS basically said the City of Chicago didn’t have complete authority to deny the “right” to keep and bear arms. Nothing in both cities has really changed which reinforces the fact that gun ownership is a privilege, completely controlled by government. A right cannot be controlled by man. It just isn’t a right anymore.

As an example of the bureaucratic nonsense a United States Citizen must go through, I have been sort of following the story of Emily Miller, a journalist who went to the government officials in the District of Columbia to obtain a permit to carry a gun. It was pointed out often that it was next to impossible to get such a permit because anyone seeking a permit had to show a “legitimate” cause for needing one. Mind you the legitimacy is determined, not by what the Second Amendment says, but by the dictates of the chief of police, and we can only guess where his marching orders come from.

This morning I was watching the news and there was an update on Miller’s application process, that had taken well over a year…so far. She received a provisional permit, in which it then becomes valid after the completion of 16 or 18 hours of “training”. The training of course MUST be only that which is approved by and/or done by the District of Columbia.

Because the “reasonable restrictions” are so great, only 76 citizens have applied for a permit; 16 have been approved. Pathetic! An applicant must show that their life has been threatened by what the police deem to be a legitimate threat.

This is no RIGHT! We are being lied to and the Supreme Court’s rulings are a joke. Call the rulings what you wish and convince yourself it’s all good, but United States Citizens DO NOT have a “RIGHT” to keep and bear arms. If you possess a gun or guns, it is only because the Corporation allows you, so far, to do that.

Don’t kid yourself.

Share

Maine Now Offers Elitist, Privileged Moose Hunting Opportunities

Here I go again about to make more enemies within the hunting community. Due to Maine Governor Paul LePage’s failure to veto a very bad hunting bill, “An Act To Promote the Maine Economy and Support Maine’s Sporting Camp Tradition” went into effect on January 12, 2014. The governor did not sign the bill either. By default, it became law.

The bill began as LD738 and then was amended, actually replaced by S-304.

It creates a new moose hunting permit lottery system for hunting outfitters, who may sell or transfer the permits as part of an eating, lodging and hunting package. The permits made available for this lottery, if any, will come from 10% of the number of permits that exceed 3,140, which is the total number of moose hunting permits issued in 2010. Individuals hunting with permits issued under this system must hunt with a licensed Maine guide. Proceeds of the new lottery system will be allocated to youth conservation education programs under certain conditions and any remainder will be allocated to the Moose Research and Management Fund.

This is wrong on many levels. First, this action steals away from Maine residents, the same opportunity as anyone else to have the opportunity to hunt a moose. Whether it is one permit or 1,000, any number of permits that are allocated to specific special interest or those only with the ability to pay more money than anyone else, is wrong.

Second, this is nothing more than government subsidizing of private business. What makes it doubly worse is that it is the conservation-minded hunters’ tax dollars, from fees paid for licenses, that provides for the management of moose herds in the State of Maine. Is it right then that those tax payers have their moose hunting opportunities taken away from them for the purpose of subsidizing Maine guides and outfitters, who, according to the stipulations of the bill, provides for the sale of moose permits to wealthy “sports” who can afford them.

Third, there exists a number of people in Maine who have never had the opportunity to hunt moose. Some have tried every year since the moose hunt was reimplemented. Think now how these few will feel? Many hunters each season lament the problems with the moose lottery in that with its design, some have obtained several permits while others have never received one. These hunters have demanded changes to a more fair system.

Fourth, none of the money generated from these moose permits that will go to the privileged will do anything to enhance moose hunting in Maine. One might be able to argue that the increased revenues would be used to improve the moose herd and overall bettering moose hunting opportunities, but it’s not set up that way.

Singling out sporting camps and in addition singling out only those sporting camps that meet certain requirements, perhaps above beyond even the majority of camps and outfitters, is doubling down on commonality while promoting privilege and elitism in the hunting community. Are these moose now property of the king?

I am all for enhancing hunting opportunities when the science dictates those harvest requirements. But those opportunities must be made available to ALL those who buy a license to hunt. Setting aside advantages to targeted groups is wrong.

The bill is designed to take advantage of a growing number of moose permits being made available because of a robust moose population. Should the number of permits drop below the 3,140, no specialized and privileged moose permits would be available. However, this last moose season, moose permits totaled 4,100 or 960 more than the 3,140. No matter what kind of spin you want to put on this, that’s 96 moose opportunities taken away from the residents of Maine, some who have been trying since the very first moose lottery system to get a permit. This just isn’t right.

Governor LePage should have stiffened his spine and vetoed a very bad bill designed to enhance the privileged while doubling down on the regular hunters of the state, stealing away their deserving opportunities to hunt moose.

Share

Fascist Feinstein Isn’t Only Government Fascist

drudgefeinsteinMatt Drudge, justifiably, was irate over Sen. Diane “Fascist” Feinstein’s proposed amendment to a journalist protection bill. Drudge isn’t the first to label Feinstein a fascist. I’ve been doing that for several months now, perhaps even years, but then again I’m not Matt Drudge either. The fascist label nicely can appear in front of many, many operatives in Washington, D.C. You just have to look for them and then honestly recognize the truth.

Lost in the uproar over Fascist Feinstein’s proposed amendment, which would limit freedom of the press and free speech to only those who work for, “an entity or service that disseminates news and information”, is that the bill itself, without the amendment is fascistic and limits freedom of the press and freedom of speech. So where is the uproar?

“The fundamental issue behind this amendment is, should this privilege apply to anyone, to a 17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for five dollars and starts a blog? Or should it apply to journalists, to reporters, who have bona fide credentials?” Feinstein asked.

In essence Fascist Feinstein is advocating that only certain “privileged” or “elite” or government approved people are entitled to free speech and free press. That is understandable when you consider the fascists in Washington that place themselves in the hierarchy of privilege, above the law and yes, even members of “the Posterity.” Since almost forever in this country, we have been taught that those items in the Bill of Rights applied to everyone. Evidently that was or has become a damned lie.

Consider, if you will, this statement by Fascist Feinstein:

I can’t support it if everyone who has a blog has a special privilege … or if Edward Snowden were to sit down and write this stuff, he would have a privilege.

I am of the opinion that it is Fascist Feinstein and the rest of her fascist friends in Washington that orchestrated the entire Edward Snowden event, part of which is to bring the slaves of America to this point where rights are further shoved down the toilet hole in favor of government granting special rights, privilege and protection to their elite and selected members. Her statement admits her desire to grant privileges and at the same time remove rights she deems undeserving.

If you will recall, I have stated often that the biggest deterrent that exists in this country, that keeps us from total tyranny from our own government, is the millions of guns privately owned. Another of those deterrents is the freedom of the Internet that allows and provides people an unlimited base of flowing information…..some good and some bad, but freedom of speech should not be about good and bad. Freedom of speech no longer exists when limits are placed on it and/or that so-called freedom is handed out to only a select few by a fascistic government.

It becomes necessary for any tyrant, fascist, dictator, etc. to quell rights, destroy real freedom of the press and freedom of speech. This is nothing new. History has shown this to be a fact for centuries. Isn’t this what really behind Barack Obama’s and the rest of Washington’s attack on the Internet? They have done everything they can to this point to put in place a complete ceding and takeover of the Internet once the conditions are right for the event to happen. Limiting that speech in cyberspace is just a small part of the big picture.

Imagine if Fascist Feinstein’s amendment were put in place in 1700s Philadelphia. Benjamin Franklin would never have been given a chance to write and publish. But then again Franklin was a part of that “Posterity”, as are folks like Feinstein and all the other pimps in Washington and would have been granted special privileges. Wouldn’t he? Let’s be honest here.

The important thing to realize in this report of outrageous actions by a privileged senator is to not be distracted by the reports of outrage by Matt Drudge to her amendment. Where is the outrage that our government feels the need to grant special privileges where once a Bill of Rights did this for all…..or did it?

It appears that throughout most of history rights are accorded the people when the granting or authorization of such rights doesn’t interfere with the ruling Posterity or better yet it plays into the hands of the Posterity. It has taken over 200 years for this country to get to a point where government fascists openly grant special rights and privileges while further taking away the rights most of us never had through government and were only allowed to practice until it became a problem.

While you focus on the one hand that is creating a major distraction between Matt Drudge and Fascist Feinstein, the intention here is to bring people more willing to passively concede any thoughts of rights while eagerly accepting something not quite so bad.

And the end result is?

Share