Jordan Peterson on Channel 4 News

If you are not a fan of Jordan B. Peterson already, this video should do it….

Advertisements

Progressive Conservatism

I think the best definition of Conservatism is this: The conservation of the progress which has already been made. And when I write “the progress which has already been made” I’m not just referring to the last thirty years; I’m referring to the last five hundred years. When talking about individual people, thinking in terms of decades is fine, but when we are talking about civilizations, we must talk of centuries. Think of what the western world was like before the Great Reformation, and compare that to today. Would we ever want to go back?

Yet, it would seem some people in the western world today really do want to go back. Read this article entitled Want Equality? Curtail Free Speech. Yes, some useful idiot actually wrote that. Now, these morons would call themselves Progressive, but when one writes, “Our Government should look to criminalise not only Islamophobia, but racist rhetoric and the criticism of feminism and LGBTQAA+ rights,” that’s anything but progressive — it’s regressive.

In Canada, a motion (M-103) was passed recently which directs the government to investigate and act against Islamophobia. Now, when I type that word, Islamophobia, on my computer, my spell-checker red flags it. Why? Because it’s not a real word. And that is the problem with M-103 — it uses a term which is not properly defined. What exactly is Islamophobia? If we break the word down and define the parts, it means: an irrational fear of the ideas of the Islamic religion.

When I encounter those who defend M-103, every time I find that they are unable to distinguish the idea which is Islam from the followers of Islam (Muslims). That’s an important distinction — one is an idea, and the other is a group of people. If we want to live in a free society we must be able to criticize ideas. Martin Luther created a freer society when he openly criticized the state of Christianity in his day. It was not easy for him to do that, and because he did, we now live in a society where we are free to criticize. But, for how long?

Listen to Canada’s Heritage Minister defend M-103 in this video. She only gets confused…

Another good example is the exchange between Ben Affleck and Sam Harris on the Bill Maher show…

Once upon a time there was a political party in Canada called the Progressive Conservatives. That sounds like an oxymoron, but it’s actually a very good term. Progressive conservatism is the idea that, while we do want to progress socially, we do not want to do so at the expense of the progress which has already been made. What has made the western world the best society to live in so far in human history? Where does our wealth come from? What economic system has allowed us to become so wealthy? (Hint: free market capitalism.) Where do our freedoms come from? What system of government has allowed us our freedoms? (Hint: a system in which the rights of the individual are elevated over the group.) We need to conserve those things and protect them from those who would dismantle them while trying to create their utopia in which no one will ever be offended.

The Mother of Atheism

moonWhen the Cambodian king Norodom Sihanouk died in 2012, thousands of Cambodians swore they saw him in the moon. They believed his face literally appeared in the moon.

I remember once teaching Buddhist monks in Cambodia some English. I had finished explaining what the word millennium means. I said that we are now living in the third millennium according to the western calendar. I said that in the future we will have a 4th millennium, a 5th millennium, a sixth, etc… One of my students then said, “Oh, we will have come back many times by then.” He was referring to reincarnation of course.

Approximately 95% of Cambodians are Buddhist. Before Buddhism, Hinduism dominated in Cambodia. Cambodians don’t practice Buddhism at the same level. Some practice it very little. Some dedicate their whole lives to it, the monks for example.

However, you won’t find western-style atheism in Cambodia, or any country like it. The conditions necessary for atheism to flourish simply don’t exist in a culture which does not believe in a logical, reasonable, predictable Creator.

Science, as we know it today, was born in the Christian world. Christianity is the mother of science. The purpose of science is to study the physical universe, discover predictable patterns, and then use that knowledge to make life better for humanity. The first scientists were able to adopt this method due to the fact that they believed nature was predictable because it was created by a logical God. Modernism was based on the belief that we could know and understand how the universe works and manipulate the physical world to our advantage. As belief in God dwindled in the western world Post-Modernism rose. Post-Modernists are suspicious of absolutes: absolute truth and absolute patterns.

Atheism was born in the west when people began to believe that God could be understood with the same scientific methods used to understand the physical universe. Of course that does not work. How can you measure the One who created the universe as though He were a product of the universe? Atheists demand that God be scientifically provable.

Christian apologists, therefore, knowing that they can’t prove God scientifically, will turn to non-physical things to prove God: morality, consciousness, love, truth, goodness, and beauty. Morality, for example, is difficult to account for in a survival-of-the-fittest evolutionist world.

Christianity then, being the mother of science, is also the mother of Atheism. The belief in a logical and reasonable God gives us the ability to think likewise. But, when one steps off the foundation of God, and makes logic and reason the new foundation, disbelief in God arises. Unfortunately though, as the disbelief in God increases, the ability to think logically and reasonably decreases.

I’ve noticed that the militant atheism so popular ten years ago is being replaced with a much softer version today. Those outspoken atheists of the past are realizing the insanity which is taking over much of the field they liked to play in before. Gay marriage, for example, was widely accepted by atheists, but the new gender issues of today are not. If you look at popular Atheist Youtube creators you’ll notice their recent videos are much more anti-SJW compared to their older videos which are more anti-Christian/religion. Scroll down on Pat Condell’s videos for example.

This video is another good example…

It should come as no surprise to atheists that, as their own ability to think logically and reasonably is a direct result of Christianity, a rejection of Christianity is also a rejection of logic and reason. The evidence of that is all around in the insane social issues which plague western culture today.

Christian morality/logic/reason has been the immune system to the world’s evils in the past centuries, but as Christianity itself is rejected, that same morality/logic/reason is becoming an autoimmune disease. Hopefully people come to their senses sooner rather than later.

White Privilege, SJWs, and Missions Revisited

img_2666
Life through the eyes of a SJW

What do you get when you combine feminism, leftism, and missions? You get the website: A Life Overseas. Okay, maybe I’m being too harsh there. There are some good articles on the site. It’s kind of like the Woman’s World of missionary blog sites. They do, however, give voice to what I think are some fairly stupid viewpoints.

There was once an article posted on the site which inspired me to write this: White Privilege, SJWs, and Missions. The Life Overseas article was written by a woman who was deeply offended when she discovered an Asian missionary to not be really Asian at all. The reason she thought he was Asian was because he used a pseudonym for security reasons. She had high respect for that missionary and his teachings. That is, until she found out he was a white male. Oh the humanity!

I criticized that article outright and called it for what it was: racist. The article was removed because, as this woman exposed the white man for not being an Asian man, she also compromised his security. Here is an excerpt from that article…

If you are an overseas worker in a certain East Asian country, you will have probably heard of [evil white missionary]. He is a theologian and missiologist who writes and blogs about contextualization. Many people I know read his articles, and as an Asian person myself, I was pleased that people were paying attention to an Asian perspective. So imagine my surprise when I discovered that…

[Evil white missionary] was actually a white man.

When I found out, I was shocked, but my shock quickly turned to irritation and my irritation to indignity.

Why is a white man posing as an Asian, and speaking as an expert on Asian issues?

And why does the Western church profess to grasp the inner workings of faith within a culture that is not its own?

Cultural Appropriation?

You can read my other article to see how I feel about “white privilege” and “cultural appropriation”.

But now, a new article has been posted on A Life Overseas written by the same author. And I think it might even be more stupid than the first one.

The author, calling herself Grace Lee, is now claiming the entire western missionary movement is racist. Her evidence: her hurt feelings.

Here’s an excerpt…

Something is rotten in the state of Western missions when the very communities that are meant to proclaim God’s inclusiveness seem to make people of color feel other and less than.

And another…

There was that time I heard about an all-expense paid retreat for women on the field. Excited about the possibility of a fun and relaxing trip away, I found the promotional video online and eagerly watched it. But my heart sank as the video only featured frame after frame of white women. I knew immediately that this retreat was not designed with me in mind. I was not even on their radar, much less on their screen.

So, basically what she is saying here is, “There were only white women in the video, and that hurt my feelings, and so therefore: Racism!”

Then there was the time that our missions agency was considering mobilization of internationals. Leaders from around the region gathered together to discuss the pros and cons of such an endeavor. I and other minority members expressed our apprehension of recruiting locals into a primarily white organization, citing concerns about expansionism and assimilation. I was thankful that we were given a voice in this decision. But I was mistaken. Instead of hearing our reservations and taking time to reflect on the alternatives that we suggested, a task force was immediately formed at the end of that meeting to move ahead with the plan.

I don’t know, maybe her ideas simply weren’t any good. The reader isn’t given enough information to develop an opinion. We just have to trust her that it was racism.

Her accusation is quite extreme: “Something is rotten in the state of Western missions…” And if you’re going to be making that accusation, you need some hard evidence to back it up. But you don’t see that in her article. All you see is her hurt feelings.

I can understand that the makers of the women’s retreat video were insensitive by not including any non-whites in the video. But, under what circumstances was that video made? Was it a high budget project filmed in the USA? Or, was it filmed by some missionary ladies with an iPhone in someone’s backyard? Maybe there were only white woman available.

Grace Lee provides no evidence of real racism. All she provides is her hurt feelings and a demand that the reader acknowledge her feelings as sufficient evidence. The real world simply doesn’t work that way.

Did Grace Lee try to sign up for the women’s retreat and then receive an email stating that she was not welcome because she wasn’t white? That would be real evidence. But I assume she never tried to sign up because the promo video was enough to send her down into the pit of despair. I wonder what she would have found if she went to the retreat. A bunch of racist white women (who for some odd reason decided to be missionaries in non-white countries)? I doubt it.

You can’t expect equality of output where there is no equality of input. But that’s what SJWs demand: equality of outcome. We need to deal with injustices as we see them, case by case, individual by individual. To accuse the whole Western missions world of racism is complete nonsense. Historically, Christianity has been centered in the white nations, so of course there will be a larger number of white people in missions. Over time this will change, but until it does, falsely accusing people of racism, and slandering respected missionaries (like the not-Asian white guy mentioned above), will only cause unneeded, unnecessary division.

When one criticizes this SJW behaviour, the response is never, “I disagree with you and here’s why…” rather, it is, “You’re wrong and shame on you!”

Manufacturing false victimhood through hurt feelings trivializes the suffering of true victims by victimizing the trivial. If you want to make accusations of racism you need to provide real evidence (something that would stand in a courtroom) and only then can we stand together to denounce those guilty. Hurt feelings, generalities, and vague examples of what may or not be racism are not only insufficient, but will do much damage to the unity of the Church on the mission field.

In other words: grow up, develop a thicker skin, and stop being offended at everything. Oh, and having a sense of humour doesn’t hurt either.

Further reading: “White Privilege” in Missions. Really?

Unconscious Bias…

P.S. If you believe you are guilty of white privilege, then never fear! There is an online course to cure you of your toxic whiteness. For only $297 U.S. you don’t have to be an evil white S.O.B. anymore! Click here to sign up!

The Power to Protest

If anyone were to ask my advice as to when one should organize a protest against something, I would say, “Only when you are powerless to do anything else. Because, if you do have the power to change the situation, and yet still resort to protesting, then your protest is only self-serving — you don’t really care about changing anything.”

Is the community you grew up in poor? Is there a high drop out rate in the schools? Is there a high fatherless rate in the families? What can you do to change that? How about starting some big brother/big sister programs? Or, some after school tutoring programs? Some sports programs?

If you don’t try any of those things, and go straight for protesting in the streets, blaming others, then I have to question your sincerity when you say you care.