Is Self-Segregation a Sin in the Bible?

Most Christian Americans including myself condemn the words and actions of White supremacists, the KKK and Neo Nazis. But in our private lives whether it be who we date or marry, the neighborhood we live in or the church we attend we live racially segregated lives.

This will be my first article in a series I am calling “A Biblical View of Race Relations”.

Racial Segregation in America has changed little over a half century after the Civil Rights movement.  The map of the United States that is at the top of this article has been called “The Race Dot Map” [1]. It was made by Dustin Cable at the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service.  His program draws on data from the 2010 U.S Census and it literally has over 308 million dots representing individuals living in the United States and he combined this with google maps technology to bring us this stunning representation of racial distribution in America.

Blue dots represent Whites, green dots represent Blacks, orange dots represent Latinos and red dots represents Asians. Brown represents other racial groups.

A brief glance at the race dot map shows blue blotches all across America confirming the statistics that America is still a primarily white nation.  However those dots reveal something else.  Whites choose to live in rural areas far more often than minorities do. Minorities (Blacks, Asians and others) in many parts of the country tend to live in or just outside of major metropolitan areas.

But the most important thing they reveal is racial segregation.  Even in areas that appear to be purple from a high level view (that means a lot of races living near each other) when you zoom in on the map to neighborhood levels you will see that neighborhoods across America are still primarily segregated by race.

Whites live in mostly White neighborhoods

An article on CNN.com entitled 4 ways you might be displaying hidden bias in everyday life states:

“According to the CNN/Kaiser poll, a majority of whites (69%) say the people they live around are mostly of the same race as them, while Hispanics predominantly say they live around people of other races (59%). Blacks are split, with 51% saying they live around people of other races and 41% saying they live around mostly other black people.

One longstanding explanation for the prevalence and persistence of racial segregation is that white families are unwilling to live in neighborhoods, or send their children to schools, with large minority shares. A landmark study published in 1971 by economist Thomas Schelling demonstrated that once the minority share reaches a “tipping point,” the whites leave.” [2]

Whites prefer mostly White schools

An article from BusinessInsider.com entitled “Why schools still can’t put segregation behind them” states:

“A federal district court judge has decided that Gardendale – a predominantly white city in the suburbs of Birmingham, Alabama – can move forward in its effort to secede from the school district that serves the larger county. The district Gardendale is leaving is 48 percent black and 44 percent white. The new district would be almost all white.

The idea that a judge could allow this is unfathomable to most, but the case demonstrates in the most stark terms that school segregation is still with us. While racial segregation in U.S. schools plummeted between the late 1960s and 1980, it has steadily increased ever since – to the the point that schools are about as segregated today as they were 50 years ago.…

In my view, we cannot fix those systems by way of more individual choice, charters, vouchers or school district secessions. The fact is, educational funding is down across the board, when compared to a decade ago. If we want all students to have a decent shot at better education, we need to recommit to statewide systems of public education. Only then will our base fears and racial biases begin to fade into the background.” [3]

Whites mostly have White friends

An article from the Huffington Post entitled Do Most White Americans Really Only Have White Friends? Let’s Take A Closer Lookstates:

“According to the survey, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in 2013, 91 percent of people in the close social networks of white Americans, or the people they most often talk to about important matters, are also white. Similarly, 83 percent of those in the close social networks of black Americans are black.” [4]

Whites marry Whites

An article from NBCNews.com entitled “One in Six Newly Married Americans Has Spouse of Different Race or Ethnicity” states:

“In 2015, 17 percent, or one in six newlyweds, had a spouse of a different race or ethnicity compared with only 3 percent in 1967, according to a Pew Research Center report released Thursday…

The largest share of intermarried couples — 42 percent — include one Latino and one white spouse, though that number has declined from 1980, when 56 percent of all intermarried couples included one white and one Hispanic person.

The most significant increase in intermarriage is among black newlyweds; the share of blacks marrying outside their race or ethnicity has tripled from 5 percent to 18 percent since 1980.

While white newlyweds have seen a surge of intermarriage, with rates rising from 4 to 11 percent, they are the least likely of all major racial or ethnic groups to intermarry.” [5]

My personal choices regarding segregation

I live just outside a major metropolitan area and like other major metropolitan areas in the country it is racially diverse unlike rural areas that are mostly White.

I have for many years worked alongside of Black, Asian, Indian and many other racial groups as a software developer.  In fact, being in the software development world will expose you to almost every racial demographic that there is.  I have been in hiring positions and have hired Black, Asian and Indian programmers.

While there is a Baptist Church just down the street from my house that is primarily Black I choose to attend another Baptist Church not far my house that is primarily White.

I have moved several times over the years and anytime I moved to a new house I had choices between neighborhoods that were mostly White, mostly Black, mostly Asian and some that were very racially diverse with equal parts of different races.  I have chosen neighborhoods that were mostly White every time.

If my children were to attend the School district in the city I live the school is actually almost half Black.  We chose to exercise school of choice options and send them to a mostly White school district that is nearby.

When I was dating when I was a young man I chose only White women to date and I married a white woman who is the mother of my children. After my divorce from my first wife and when I went on dating sites I chose only White women in my racial preferences and I dated and eventually married a White woman again.

In my personal life my closest personal friends are White.  But I do have many extended relationships with Blacks due to this site.  Since I started this blog more than 3 years ago I have interacted with many African American Pastors both hear in America as well as in Africa itself.  In fact I can say that in Africa the Bible teachings regarding gender roles are far better received than they are here in America.

As a result of this site I have also been able to interact with many Christian Pastors in India and other Eastern areas.  It has been a blessing to hear from them how this ministry has helped them.  I have actually had many requests from Pastors in Africa and India to translate my writings into their local languages and I was more than happy to give them permission.

Summary of the facts about self-segregation in America

Race segregation is no longer mandated by law in America as it once was.  Instead today we mostly choose to live self-segregated lives.

The facts are that whites(myself included) primarily desire to live in neighborhoods that are primarily white, send their children to schools that are primarily white and worship in Churches that are primarily white. Whites primarily date and marry whites.  And for the most part Blacks and Asians do the same but to a lesser or greater degree.  Hispanics seem to be more integrated than other minority groups although that is not true in all areas of the country.

Yes there is a percentage among all the races whether it is 10 to 20 percent of persons that regularly integrates with other races.  So this is not to say that whites never marry Blacks, or that Asians never marry whites. It is not to say that Whites never have Black friends or Asians never have White friends.  But the norm or pattern in American society is that races generally live segregated personal lives mostly being around people of their own race unless there are too few of their race in a given area and they are forced to integrate with other races.

Does the Bible condemn Self-Segregation?

Anyone reading this that lives near a major metropolitan area in the United States would not even need to read these statistics I have just listed or see the Race Dot Map to know from their own life experience that we live mostly segregated lives.  The fact that racial segregation exists is beyond dispute.  If you are a person that has many close friendships with people of other races and you attend a church that is very racially diverse and you live in a very racially diverse neighborhood you are the exception in America, not the norm.

The fact is that human beings in large part tend to cluster with those whom they share the most common heredity. 

This is why despite early struggles between those of English and German decent and then those of Irish decent eventually these groups all came together in America and their children easily intermarried because they have a common heredity.  Before a German, Frenchman, Englishman or Irishman opens his mouth it would be difficult to tell which one he is simply because of common heredity between these groups.  Yet if you stood an Englishman next to a Greek man you would be able to tell one was of Northern European decent and the other was of Southern European decent.

So, the question then becomes is this natural human clustering by common heredity a form of hatred towards others of different heredity? Is this natural tendency for human beings to cluster in this way a part of our sin nature that we as Christians should struggle against?

We know for sure that the Bible does not allow us to hate people based on their race or ethnic background.

“Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.”

Proverbs 10:12 (KJV)

There is absolutely no Biblical allowance for hating people because of their racial or ethnic origins.  Yes, we can hate sin and evil systems of thought and wicked practices but God never allows us to hate people because of their ethnic background.

What we have seen in recent days from White supremacists, KKK members and Neo-Nazis is the very definition of racial hatred and we have seen how racial hatred “stirreth up strifes”.  Whether it is the belief that the White race is superior to others and therefore should rule over other races or hatred of Jews and Blacks or other groups – we as Christians should condemn such actions by these groups.

But there is one belief in these groups that we have no right to condemn.  We should never condemn their love for their kindred- those of their common heredity.  Do we condemn Blacks for loving those who share common heredity with them? Do we condemn Irishmen or Italians for loving those of common heredity with them? What about Chinese or Japanese people? What about Jews?

Many Whites in America love their White heritage but are afraid to say it publicly.   Many Whites would be ashamed to admit what I did about preferring to be around those of common heredity with them(other Whites).   We are taught if we say we love and prefer to be around Whites, or if we ever feel defensive because of attacks against Whites in our media and politics that we are the same as the KKK and Neo-Nazis and this comparison is an utter and complete LIE.

While I do not believe Whites should march alongside of KKK members and Neo-Nazis who promote hatred and violence –  I do believe Whites should find peaceful ways to stand up against the attacks on White culture in America.  It is sad when men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson can only be seen in light of their involvement with slavery(which I agree was an original sin of America).  This would be like saying we need rip out the Psalms because King David was a murderer and adulterer.  It is utterly absurd.

Some will try and say “Well most whites in America are not purely English, Scottish, Irish, and German and so on but rather they are a mixture of these ethnicities. So they have no right to love or prefer whites because whites are a made up ethnicity.”  But can anyone deny that those of northern European decent do not have more in common as far as their heredity than they do with those in southern Europe, Africa and the Middle East? The answer is no – this fact cannot be denied.

But contrary to popular American and Western teachings today – preferring to live among those of common heredity whether we refer to this as “race”, “ethnicity” or “kindred” is not the same as hating those who are of a different heredity.

The Apostle Paul said this of those of who were his common kindred, those of his common heredity:

“2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”

Romans 9:2-5 (KJV)

Paul never said he wished himself accursed for the Greeks, Romans or any other ethnic group – he only said this of his own “kinsmen according to the flesh”.

To love one’s kinsmen according to the flesh, those of common heredity, more than those who are not kinsmen according to the flesh is not sinful or wrong.  Whether it be to love one’s children, one’s parents, one’s cousins or even one’s ethnicity or race more than those they do not share common heredity with is not immoral or a violation of God’s law.

In fact the Bible says the first way we put our faith into practice is by caring for our kindred, specifically those or our own family:

“But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.”

1 Timothy 5:4 (KJV)

So the conclusion of the matter is this.  If loving and therefore preferring one’s kindred according to the flesh more than others is not sinful or wrong then neither is self-segregation.

Am I saying self-integration is wrong?

Let me be very clear that just because I am saying self-segregation is not wrong does not mean I am saying self-integration is wrong.  The Bible does not forbid us from marrying those with whom we do not share common racial or ethnic heredity.  So no it is not a sin for a White person to marry a Black person or an Asian person.  It is not a sin for a White person to prefer the company of Blacks or Asians and live in interracial neighborhoods or attend interracial churches.

What I am saying is that it is wrong for those who choose to self-integrate to condemn those who choose not to and it is especially wrong for governments to force integration upon their populations through various housing schemes and busing schemes.

Government forced racial integration is a violation of basic human freedom and the freedom of association.

Forced racial integration by governments is the flip side of racial hatred by groups like the KKK and Neo Nazis in that both of these can be the direct cause of racial strife.

Doesn’t the Bible call Christians to ignore race and ethnicity?

There are a few passages of the Scriptures that will be raised by some to challenge the idea that self-segregation is not wrong for Christians and they will say it is in fact a violation of the Christian faith and the passage below is the best representation of them:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

This passage condemns segregation in the assembled Church.  It is completely unchristian and unbiblical for a church to limit its membership by race or social class.  Christ is the savior of all regardless of gender, race, ethnicity or social status (slave or free, rich or poor).

In Christ there is no spiritual distinction between these classes, but Christ did not call for the elimination of social or physical distinctions in this world.  In other words – Christ was not an egalitarian.

The Apostle Paul sent back a runaway slave to his owner (read the Epistle to Philemon) and he commanded slaves to obey their masters (Colossians 3:22, Ephesians 6:5, I Peter 2:18).  While there is no distinction in the salvation of male and female human beings God commands that “the head of the woman is the man” (I Corinthians 11:3) and that wives are to be subject to their husbands in everything “as the church is subject unto Christ” (Ephesians 5:24).

The fact is that distinctions such as ethnicity, race and gender still exist in this world and other things that cause people to naturally cluster still exist in this world and Paul recognized that when speaking of his love for his kindred in the flesh (his Jewish brethren).

Let me just say one more word about those who self-integrate and those who actually thrive on integrating with people of very different racial and ethnic backgrounds. I thank God for these people! We would not have missionaries without having people like this.  In the same way that God grants the gift of celibacy to a chosen few I believe he grants this gift of self-integration and desire to some to go to other peoples.  They thrive on this and we as Christians should support this.

In fact, my Christian friends who disagree with me the most on this issue of self-segregation are usually missionaries.  They just can’t fathom why everyone should not be like them and thrive on interracial and interethnic integration.  In fact a great deal of Christian missionaries I know reject the entire concept of nationalism in any of its forms.

In my next article I will cover the topic of ethno-nationalism from a Biblical perspective.

References

[1] D. A. Cable, “RACIAL DOT MAP,” Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia , 2013. [Online]. Available: https://demographics.virginia.edu/DotMap/index.html.
[2] E. Grinberg, “4 ways you might be displaying hidden bias in everyday life,” CNN, 25 11 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/living/implicit-bias-tests-feat/index.html.
[3] D. Black, “Why schools still can’t put segregation behind them,” Business Insider, 8 6 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.businessinsider.com/school-segregation-today-united-states-2017-6.
[4] E. Swanson, “Do Most White Americans Really Only Have White Friends? Let’s Take A Closer Look,” Huffington Post, 3 9 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/03/black-white-friends-poll_n_5759464.html.
[5] C. Cusido, “One in Six Newly Married Americans Has Spouse of Different Race or Ethnicity,” NBC News, 18 5 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/legalized-50-years-new-marriages-outside-race-ethnicity-fivefold-n761491.

Advertisements

We must denounce White, Black, Antifa and Muslim Terrorism

President Trump is absolutely right that we need condemn violent extremists of BOTH the “alt-right” and the “alt-left”.

Last year it was 21 police officers being assassinated or ambushed and this weekend a man drove his car through a crowd of protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia injuring 19 and killing one.  All of these events are forms of terrorism and must be equally condemned.

We as Christians need to stand up against all forms of terrorism.  Terrorism has no place in Biblical Christianity.

What is Terrorism?

Terrorism is when a person or group of persons attempts to bring about a desired political or social change by specifically targeting the civilian population of the region in which they hope to bring about a change.  Terrorists attempt to “terrorize” the civilian population into pressuring their political leaders to make the changes they want.

It needs to be made clear that terrorism is not simply a person or group killing people in order to scare others into bowing to their demands.  Terrorism also occurs in the form the threats or intimidation of the demands of certain group are not met.

So, for example – if a crowd of people march through the street peacefully advocating for societal or political changes this is not terrorism. However, if this same crowd marches through the street advocating for using intimidation or violence to force society to embrace their views this would be a form of terrorism. If a group of protestors actually engages in physical violence and intimidation including burning down buildings and looting this is most definitely a form terrorism.

Examples of White Terrorism

When the KKK and other white supremacist groups engaged in burning crosses on people’s lawns this was a form of terrorism against blacks.  When the KKK and other groups have burned down black churches and engaged in lynching’s this was a form of terrorism against blacks.  When whites stood at voting stations trying to scare blacks away from exercising their lawful right to vote this was a form of terrorism against blacks.

Most recently when Dylan Roof, an admitted white supremacist, killed 9 people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston South Carolina on June 17th, 2015 this was a textbook case of White terrorism.  Last weekend when James Alex Fields, an admitted neo nazi, used his car as a weapon to mow down counter protestors injuring 19 and killing one in Charlottesville, Virginia this was also a textbook case of White terrorism.

Examples of Black Terrorism

In the 60’s and 70’s when groups like the Black Panthers advocated for the assassinations of police officers (and many police officers were in fact assassinated) this was a form of terrorism.  When blacks marched through the street peacefully advocating for change this was not terrorism, but when blacks rioted in various cities burning down whole city blocks these actions were textbook cases of Black terrorism.  In fact, rioting by blacks has become an almost accepted form of terrorism by our current American culture over the last half century.

The threat of riots is also a form of terrorism.  Think of how many times over the past half century that jurors on certain cases had to consider that blacks in their city or cities around the country might riot and people could be hurt or killed as a result of their verdict. That fear of a riot SHOULD NEVER EVER have to be a consideration for any juror in any trial.

Recent examples of Black terrorism include the Ferguson riots in which many businesses were burned out and looting took place.  Black terrorism that was very reminiscent of the terrorism which took place in the 60s and 70s occurred last year.  On the fourth of July 2016 in New York City, a black man named Alexander Bonds, walked up to a police car in New York and assassinated a female police officer named Miosotis Familia.   Three days later on July 7th, a black man named Micah Xavier Johnson, an admitted Black Lives Matter supporter, gunned down 14 police officers killing 5 of them in Dallas, Texas.   Then only 10 days later on July 17th, another black man named Gavin Long ambushed and then assassinated 3 police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  In total, 21 police officers nationwide lost their lives to ambush style assassinations by mostly black assailants.

Examples of Muslim Terrorism

Whether it was the attacks of September 11, 2001 which killed almost 3000 people or the Boston Marathon Bombing which injured several and killed 3 people Muslim terrorism is perhaps the most rampant amongst an ideological group of people. We have almost become accustomed to hearing weekly on the news about bombs going off in crowded squares or men with cars or knives running into crowds and indiscriminately killing people all done to further the political ideologies of Radical Islamic terrorists.

Examples of Antifa Terrorism

“Antifa”, short for “Antifacists” groups have been around since the 1920’s and 1930’s but have had their numbers and financing swell since the election of Donald Trump and the could right be considered part of the “alt-left” in America.  Antifa Groups believe that violence is warranted and justified against any groups they deem to be sexist or racist or in many terms anyone opposed to progressive and socialist ideologies.

Their goal is to use force and intimidation to shut down public meetings, speaking events or protests by groups which they deem to be opponents of their ideology.

Recent examples of Antifa violence include violence against a white nationalist demonstration in Sacramento, California on July 26th 2016 where 14 people were injured including 7 being stabbed.  On Thursday, February 2nd 2017, 150 Masked Antifa protestors came to UC Berkeley to right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking there.  After the violence and property damaged they caused for fear of public safety the University canceled his speaking engagement.

At a Pro-Trump rally, on April 15, 2017 Antifa members again came to violently intimidate trump supporters.  20 arrests were made and 11 people were wounded.

White Terrorists meet Antifa Terrorists at the “Unite the Right” clash in Charlottesville

The most recent White terrorist and Antifa terrorist events actually took place at the same event on the same day in Charlottesville, Virginia this last week on Saturday, August 12th 2017.  The “Unite the Right” event was organized to protest the removal of Confederate Statues and land marks in Southern States.

On Friday night, the first night of the event, men marched with white tee shirts and torchers toward a monument of Thomas Jefferson.  Their march was a meant to be a reminder of clan marches of decades before. Fights broke out with student protesters at the base of the statue and were later broken up by police.

The worst part of the event though came the next morning on Saturday, August 12th. By that time many more Neo Nazis and white supremacists had arrived but also Antifa forces had arrived in force.  The police instead of separating the Antifa and other protestors from one another for most part allowed them clash leading to extremely intensive violence with fights breaking out on both sides culminating in a neo-Nazi man named James Alex Fields, using his car to mow down 19 and killing one is very reminiscent of recent Muslim terrorist attacks.

President Trump was absolutely RIGHT when he condemned violence on “many sides”

In one of his first statements on the violence in Charlottesville President Trump stated:

 “We condemn in the strong possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides

He was criticized by many in the press and even his own Republican party for not simply denouncing the White supremacists by name in his first statements.  Most Americans, because of one sided reporting by the press, thought all the violence was coming from the White supremacist side and that was actually quite false. Some on both sides have argued that if it were not for the lack of police getting between the two groups and especially Antifa agitators looking to gin up violence the tragic death of Heather Heyer would never have occurred.

I thought this was a great statement by President Trump condemning White Terrorism and hate groups:

“And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including KKK, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and other hate groups are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.”

However, I believe this statement does not go far enough. If you are going to name the names of groups involved – then you MUST name all groups involved on both sides.  Where was the condemnation of Antifa groups that came to agitate and incite violence? I realize President Trump was under a lot of political pressure but if you going to name names – you need to name both groups involved in the violence.

I am so glad that as I was writing this article President Trump had the courage to speak out against the alt-left that was also was responsible for the violence that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia.

This was his statement in a press conference today according to CNN:

“”I think there is blame on both sides,” Trump said during a contentious back-and-forth with reporters in the lobby of his Midtown Manhattan building.

“What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging at, as you say, the ‘alt-right,’ do they have any semblance of guilt?” Trump asked. “What about the fact they came charging with clubs in hands, swinging clubs, do they have any problem? I think they do.”
He added: “You had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. nobody wants to say it, but I will say it right now.””
President Trump also made a FABULOUS point about the error of removing confederate statues and relating it to George Washington:

“George Washington was a slave owner. So will George Washington lose his status? Are we going to take down statues to George Washington?” he said. “How about Thomas Jefferson, what do you think of Thomas Jefferson, do you like him? OK good. Are we going to take down the statues, because he was a major slave owner? Now are we going to take down his statue?”

He added: “You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

Hate is not always wrong – it is what we hate and how we direct our hatred

As Bible believing Christians we know that we are to love our brother but hate and rebuke their sin:

“Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.”

Leviticus 19:17 (KJV)

“But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ”

Ephesians 4:15 (KJV)

So, hating sin is righteous, but hating people is never encourage in Christianity.

If we were to translate this for non-Christians the concept would be this:

You can hate the ideology and actions of a person or group of persons and even condemn those ideologies and actions but you should never hate the person or group of persons themselves.

So practically speaking I can hate the underlying ideologies of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Antifa and Black Lives Matter but still love them as people. I preach vehemently against these ideologies but hold no hatred for their persons in my heart.

In the political and spiritual worlds, we need to fight with words and ideas not fists, knives, guns and bombs.

“3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;”

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (KJV)

Is there a time to fight with fists, knives guns and bombs?

I just said in the political and spiritual world of disagreements and debates and in trying to push for what we think is right we should never resort to physical violence.

But that does not mean there is never a time for violence.  The Bible says in Ecclesiastes 3:8 that there is indeed “a time for war” and King David said “Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight” in Psalm 144:1.   Even the right and responsibility of a man to defend his home and his family is stated by the Prophet Nehemiah when he said “fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses” in Nehemiah 4:14.

So, when is violence justified whether on a national level in sense of nations going to war or the case of individuals and families?

The answer is when someone threatens the freedom or safety of our family we every right to defend ourselves and our families.  If someone were to come and try to kidnap my wife or children to use them as slaves I have every right to engage in violence against them to stop them.  If a nation threatens the safety of our nation our national leaders have a right to call us to the defense of our nation.

But just because my local, state or federal government passes policies or laws that I feel are unjust or immoral does not mean I have a right to act in violence against them until they change the laws to what I think are just and right. Now there may be times that we as Christians may or even should practice civil disobedience to those laws – but we do not have the right to go and terrorize the citizens of our area until they pressure the governing officials to change the laws and policies to our liking.

Conclusion

While the right of self-defense is Biblical – terrorism is NEVER right. It is never right to use various means to terrorize the civilian population of any region to try and pressure the people to pressure their leaders to change laws and policies to please a certain group.

While there are those on the right like the KKK and Neo-Nazis who try and intimidate or terrorize opponents of their views the fact is in America the vast majority of intimidation and terrorism from a political perspective comes from the left.

Conservatives, especially conservative Christians, cannot speak their views on college campuses or in their places of work without being intimidated into silence by leftists. Especially in places of learning like colleges, schools and other public venues where we should be able to openly and freely discuss things that even cut to the core of our society.  We should be able to openly and honestly discuss differences regarding faith, race, culture, views of equality, marriage and gender roles but far too often these subjects are completely shut down in our society.

In a follow-up article to this I am going to delve a bit into the topic of White nationalism.  As preview of that article we will be discussing the concept that White nationalism does equal Neo-Nazis and the KKK.  The Neo-Nazis and KKK and other violent White groups are white nationalists for sure – but not all White nationalists advocate for violence or are like Neo-Nazis or the KKK.

We will talk about White nationalism as a form of nationalism called “Ethno-nationalism”.  I realize for many of my readers they might be scratching their heads saying “why is he getting into this – this is Biblical Gender Roles after all?” and the reasons are simple.

I have said before that for most of my life I have been a student of history, theology and human nature.  On the subject of human nature, I have always been curious as to why we as humans behave the way we do and what ways we behave that are natural or right by God’s design and which ways are contrary to his design and I think as Christians we cannot avoid the subjects of racism and ethno-nationalism.

 

The Pope calls for Christians to violate God’s first command to mankind

Because of comments that were inappropriately attributed directly to the Pope and not Peter Raven as they should have been I have decided to retract my post as well.

It has been brought my attention that lifesitenews.com has printed this correction of the article I quoted at the begining of this post:
“March 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – On March 3, LifeSite published an article originally titled: “‘Pope Francis has urged us to have fewer children,’ claims Vatican academy member.” That article misquoted botanist and environmentalist Peter Raven, who was reported to have said at a Vatican press conference that, “Pope Francis has urged us to have fewer children to make the world more sustainable.” After reviewing audio recordings of the press conference, LifeSite has amended the story to accurately reflect Raven’s words.

What he actually said was, “We need at some point to have a limited number of people which is why Pope Francis and his three most recent predecessors have always argued that you should not have more children than you can bring up properly.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/correction-vatican-academy-member-misquoted-in-story-on-pope-francis

This however does not change my suspicion of this Pope in regard to his alliance with environmentalism.   It would not surprise me if over time he actually did publicly accept the overpopulation myth.  But to date there is no official evidence it.

I still do not agree that the Pope allowed an avid forced abortion promoter to speak and I do believe the overpopulation ideology had a wide audience at this Vatican summit.  Something the Pope should never have allowed.

Is Donald Trump making America masculine again?

Could Donald Trump have been elected because a large group of Americans believe America has become “too soft and feminine”? Could Donald Trump’s strong masculine persona have been a major driving force in his appeal to millions of Americans? Some surveys suggest this might be the case.

“Right now, a large group of Americans are feeling very hopeful about Donald Trump’s presidency. In polls, they show up in different demographic categories: They’re Republicans; they’re Trump voters; they’re of all different ages and from every geographic region…

America has been experiencing intense gender anxiety in recent years, and this is particularly true in conservative evangelical communities. White evangelicals’ ambient concern that the country is becoming “too soft and feminine” speaks to that anxiety, and to a deeper concern that the foundations of life in the United States are changing.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/trump-white-evangelicals-communities/509084/

“The two motivations—conviction and bigotry—are difficult to tease apart. Particularly in the United States, a country that remains more religious that its Western peers, faith and culture are in a feedback loop, complementing, responding, and reacting to one another. This is especially true when it comes to trans people in public bathrooms. Wisdom from the Bible can be brought to bear on any question, but on this issue, the ideas at stake are foundational. They are part of “the way of reading the Bible, going back to Genesis” said R. Marie Griffith, a professor of religion and politics at Washington University in St. Louis. “There’s this belief that God created man, and out of man, he created woman. And these are really crystal-clear categories. There’s something very deep and fundamental about that for the Christians who have … a way of thinking about the Bible as the word of God…

But more broadly, this is also a question about gender roles. In a recent PRRI / The Atlantic poll, 42 percent of Americans said they believe society is becoming “too soft and feminine.” Thirty-nine percent said they believe society is better off “when men and women stick to the jobs and tasks they are naturally suited for,” including 44 percent of Republicans and 58 percent of white evangelical Protestants. These numbers suggest nervousness about fluid gender identities—and that America isn’t even close to a consensus that men and women should choose the way they act.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/americas-profound-gender-anxiety/484856/

While secularists and liberal Christians may see little to no difference between “conviction and bigotry” we as Bible believing Christians know there is a huge difference between the two.  I can’t tell you how many people write me every week calling me a bigot for teaching the following three truths straight from the Scriptures.

Biblical Truth #1 – While men and women are equally human, they are not equally made in the image of God

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”

1 Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

The Bible is crystal clear – man, not woman is the direct image bearer of God.  This is not say that women do not also bare some attributes of God.  The common attributes of humanity that men and women share like self-awareness, emotions, free-will and creativity are part of the image of God.  But the masculine human nature was designed in the very image and likeness of God and the female human nature was designed to complement and help man to exercise is his duty as an image bearer.

God designed man to need to be the hero, the provider and protector.  So, man needed someone weaker than him, someone who would desire to be lead and desire to be provided for. So, God made woman to desire a leader, a provider and a protector. God knew that man would need someone to bare his children and to care for them.  So, he designed woman to naturally desire children and to naturally desire to care for them and nurture them.  God designed men to desire beauty because he desires beauty. So, he made woman beautiful and he designed her to desire to make herself beautiful for man.

In summary – God made woman, including each and every one of her physical and psychological attributes for man as the Scriptures tell us.

“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

1 Corinthians 11:9 (KJV)

Biblical Truth #2 – Because woman was created especially for man, God has determined that man is to be head over woman in all areas of life including the family, the Church and Society

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

I Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

Ephesians 5:23 (KJV)

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV)

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”

1 Timothy 2:11-13 (KJV)

Biblical Truth #3 – In those limited times when God has allowed women to be over men – it was a shame to men

“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”

Isaiah 3:12 (KJV)

Those of us Americans who believe in Biblical gender roles are not bigots but rather we have convictions that are based on the very Word of God.  I and every other man have no more value to God than a woman does.  The Scriptures tell us that from a spiritual perspective our souls have equal value to God and we have equal access as men and women to God’s salvation.

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

Both men and women are joint heirs of the grace of God and our heavenly inheritance to come.

But just because we are equal spiritually – does not mean we are equal in our roles or in our image bearing status.  God has made men and women physically and psychologically different by design – not by chance.  I gave the reason earlier that he made us different – he made woman for man.

Conclusion

I agree with a large chunk of Americans who believe America has become “too soft and feminine” and that America was better off “when men and women stick to the jobs and tasks they are naturally suited for” or in other words when men and women performed the roles and functions that God designed them to perform.

The prophet Isaiah’s words could not be more true when speaking of how America has been ruled for several decades when he wrote “…women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. (Isaiah 3:12)

Whether it was women in various positions, or men acting like women in various positions our country has been ruled from a feminine perspective for too long and we have suffered the consequences.

What a feminine perspective of ruling our nation has looked like

We are told that it is selfish for hardworking Americans to desire to keep most of what they earn and to expect that they will pay taxes only for the basic services of government and not for a welfare state for those who do not work or do not make as much money.  To do so might hurt some poor people’s feelings.

We were told that we cannot protect our borders and force people to go back to their countries because we might separate families and people from other countries who need our help – even though Americans can’t find jobs and many of these immigrants will be a drain on our social welfare system. To do so might hurt some foreigner’s feelings.

We were told we cannot tell countries that they are treating us unfairly in their trading practices.  We were told we can’t protect our companies and workers and put tariffs on other countries. We were told that we could not inform other nations that we have the most powerful economy in the world and we are going to start acting like it by telling them it is a privilege, not a right for them to sell their products to our citizens.  To do so might hurt the feelings of these nations that we trade with.

We were told that we cannot protect our country from terrorism by calling out Radical Islamists for the enemies that they are.  We are told we cannot control what nations immigrants come from as this is “discriminatory and unfair”. To do so might hurt some Muslim’s feelings.

We were told calling for respect for police officers is racist. Our government would not acknowledge the fact that the black community bears the brunt for the reason that they are arrested and incarcerated at a higher percentage than whites because of the breakdown of the family unit in their community.  Our leaders couldn’t talk about the elephant in the room that 70 percent of black of babies are born out of wedlock and maybe, just maybe, this is the biggest contributor to crime and poverty in the black community.  To do so might hurt some black people’s feelings.

We were told that we cannot bring the full force of America’s military might to bare on cities in Iraq and elsewhere that have large terrorist populations for fear of collateral damage.  We might hurt the feelings of our enemies if we accidentally kill their families in during the bombing of cities.

All of these types of decisions are based on feelings, not logic. This is the feminization of American leadership.

This is why it was so refreshing to me and millions of Americans to see a man stand up and not be afraid to tell people the truth.  A man who is not afraid to make tough decisions that may hurt some people’s feelings.

He was far from a perfect candidate and he will be far from a perfect President.  But for all his faults I believe God can not only use Donald Trump to make America Great again, but he can also help America to be masculine again.

Working class Americans give Trump the Presidency

In a historic presidential election like none we have seen in the past century white working class Americans(both men and women) propelled Donald Trump to victory.

For decades the white working class voting block had been successfully divided by Democrats and Republicans so it was often ignored as a voting block.  Instead politicians pandered to other voting blocks.

On the Republican side fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and libertarians were courted as their primary base.  On the Democratic side blacks, hispanics, the LGBTQ community, teachers unions and workers unions were courted.

But Donald Trump saw something no one else did.  A way to create a new coalition made up of people from the various voting blocks that both Republicans and Democrats were courting.

He saw the working class American voting block as a block of voters that had been ignored since Ronald Reagan was president.  The Democrats were tapping into only a part of this block in courting working class union workers.  Donald Trump saw that there was a vastly larger block if he targeted both union and and non-union working class Americans as one large group.

“Race, as is often the case, played a major role in the election. For much of the election, commentators, particularly in the dominant Eastern media, seemed to be openly celebrating what CNN heralded as “the decline of the white voter.” The “new America,” they suggested, would be a coalition of minorities, educated workers and millennials.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/11/09/donald-trumps-presidenti-victory-demographics/#24c222ca79a8

But Donald Trump knew that in order to win he could not win with whites alone as he would never get 100% of the white vote.  So Trump targeted the black community and he actually did increase by a small margin the number of blacks voting Republican.  Even for those blacks who did not vote for Trump – he planted enough seeds of doubt about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that for many blacks if they did not vote for Trump, they stayed home.

He made a great deal of promises to help the black community and if he carries through on even half these pledges he will likely grow the number of black voters voting Republican in the next election.

He also peeled off a few millennials as well and in doing so he cut into the new democratic coalition “of minorities, educated workers and millennials” while at the same time cutting into a traditional democratic strong hold – union workers.

In doing all this Donald Trump took states that had not been taken since Ronald Reagan took them in the 1980s. He did not hide this strategy but proclaimed that he would expand the Republican base in this way all through the primaries.

And make no mistake this election was about a lot more than getting more people to vote for Republicans than Democrats.  It was about changing the way  Americans think.

Donald Trump basically asked Americans these questions:

Would you rather have a job and be able to earn your own way than receiving a government check for doing nothing but breathing?

Do you want your government to protect your country not only from military and terrorist threats but also from economic threats?

Do you want your government to stop it’s policy of unchecked and unregulated immigration?

Many voters answered a resounding YES to all three of these questions. For millions of voters this election was not about Republicans and Democrats but instead it was about these very important policy questions that affect lives of every day Americans.

But the sad fact of American politics is that except for whites, all the other races in our country seem to vote pretty monolithically for the socialist and globalist policies of the Democratic party.   If Donald Trump is to succeed in protecting the American people and our economy and return us to a lasting prosperity and freedom he will have to find a way to break up the monolithic voting patterns of these other racial groups.

With all this being said I am very excited at this historic opportunity.  Since George H. W. Bush in 1989 we have had an unending string of moderate Republican Presidents or Presidential candidates.  Both George W. Bush and his father, as well as Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney were all moderates.  They did not want to make vast sweeping changes in the government or our policies.  All of them were soft on immigration and all of them were globalists and free traders.

Now we finally have a President who will stand up to the entrenched bureaucracy in D.C. in a way that perhaps no President in our history ever has.  We finally have a President that will return to the historic position of Presidents from a century ago who believed that the government needs to protect the people not only militarily, but also economically.

After decades of deregulating our immigration rules and the utter failure to enforce our nation’s immigration laws we finally have a President who will bring law and order not only to our cities but also to our borders.

He will appoint Judges to Supreme Court and other Federal courts who will upload the founders original intent.  Hopefully we finally have a President who will protect the religious freedom of our people from the onslaught of secularism.

Rather than continuing the values that have lead to the weakening of our culture ,economy and military hopefully Donald Trump will return us to the original values that made this country great.

But in the end Donald Trump is just a man, an instrument that God has allowed to come to power.  Ultimately as believers our hope must continue to be in God.

Image Source: Gage Skidmore

Rachel Maddow offended at Bill Clinton for calling Hillary “a girl”

Apparently Bill Clinton committed a mortal sin by checking out his wife before he knew her name and just referring to her as “the girl”.  This is the opinion of the raging feminist Rachel Maddow.  We can all agree that Bill Clinton has committed a lot of sexual immorality.  The Public record testifies to this fact.  But checking out his wife as student in college before he knew her name was not one of his sins.

This is what Bill Clinton said that was apparently so offensive to Rachel Maddow’s feminist ideology:

“In the spring of 1971 I met a girl.

The first time I saw her we were, appropriately enough, in a class on political and civil rights. She had thick blond hair, big glasses, wore no makeup, and she had a sense of strength and self- possession that I found magnetic. After the class I followed her out, intending to introduce myself. I got close enough to touch her back, but I couldn’t do it. Somehow I knew this would not be just another tap on the shoulder, that I might be starting something I couldn’t stop.

And I saw her several more times in the next few days, but I still didn’t speak to her. Then one night I was in the law library talking to a classmate who wanted me to join the Yale Law Journal. He said it would guarantee me a job in a big firm or a clerkship with a federal judge. I really wasn’t interested, I just wanted to go home to Arkansas.

Then I saw the girl again, standing at the opposite end of that long room. Finally she was staring back at me, so I watched her. She closed her book, put it down and started walking toward me. She walked the whole length of the library, came up to me and said, look, if you’re going to keep staring at me…

…and now I’m staring back, we at least ought to know each other’s name. I’m Hillary Rodham, who are you?

I was so impressed and surprised that, whether you believe it or not, momentarily I was speechless.

Finally, I sort of blurted out my name and we exchanged a few words and then she went away.

Well, I didn’t join the Law Review, but I did leave that library with a whole new goal in mind.”

http://time.com/4425599/dnc-bill-clinton-speech-transcript-video/

And now we get to see Rachel Maddow’s feminist response to Bill Clinton’s speech.

Rachel Maddow’s Response to Bill Clinton’s speech

“I think the beginning of the speech was a controversial way to start, honestly,” she said. “Talking up ‘the girl,’ ‘a girl,’ leading with this long story about him being attracted to an unnamed girl, thinking about whether he was starting something he couldn’t finish.

“Building her whole political story for the whole first half of the speech around her marriage to him. I think, unless there were worries that this was going to be too feminist a convention, that was not a feminist way to start … I’ve got to say, the top of the speech I found shocking and weird.”

http://freebeacon.com/politics/maddow-beginning-bill-clintons-speech-shocking-rude/

Now let’s break down the sins against feminism that Bill Clinton committed in his speech.

The 3 commandments of feminism that Bill Clinton broke

  1. Thou shalt not refer to a woman as “a girl”
  2. Thou shalt not attribute any of a woman’s success to her marriage or her husband.
  3. Thou shalt not be attracted to an unnamed girl based solely on her body.

Before I continue – I am not saying there are only three commandments of feminism.  In fact someday I will compile a list of what I think all the commandments of feminism are.  But he definitely broke these three commandments.

Why feminists think it is so horrible to refer to Hillary as “a girl”

What Bill Clinton was seeking to do by referring to Hillary as “a girl” was to try and demonstrate that she has the softness, gentleness and empathy of a typical woman – in essence he was seeking to present her feminine side. Now in truth based on how she as acted in the public eye since her husband was President more than 20 years ago we know she is anything but feminine.

So I say to President Clinton you get an A for effort, but  a F for substance because no one is buying what you tried to sell about your wife.

Hillary Clinton was one of the manliest first ladies this nation ever had as far as her demeanor and feminists love that about her! Feminists having a seething hatred for women who act like women.  They only respect women who act like men.

This is why Rachel Maddow literally had a cow about the description of Hillary Clinton as “the girl” because it took away in her mind Hillary Clinton’s greatest strength – the fact that she is such a masculine woman.

Connecting a woman’s success to her marriage and her husband is “shocking and weird”?

In feminism it is just fine to say “behind every great man was great woman” but apparently it is a mortal sin in their religion to say “behind every great woman was a great man”.

While I might agree with them that “tooting your own horn” and telling people how you helped make someone else become great is not exactly cool – I don’t see that in Bill Clinton’s speech.  He was simply trying to humanize Hillary Clinton and speak about her from a very personal level.  But for the foaming at the mouth feminist Rachel Maddow any mention of her as a girlfriend, wife or mother and somehow associating that to her success was the height of evil!

Before we continue though I want to just let my readers know that while I respect the offices that Bill and Hillary Clinton have held – I do not respect their persons.  While most politicians to a certain extent are liars and cheats – this couple has wrote the book on scheming, lying and manipulating people to get what they want.

Anyone who has watched “House of Cards” would see Bill and Hillary Clinton in that show.  Also anyone who is honest with history would admit Hillary Clinton has rode her husband’s coat tails since he was the Governor of Arkansas and she has little real accomplishments in her political career and many more failures than successes.  It is simply her last name that has brought her where she is today.

And this is for you Rachel Maddow.  You may find it “shocking and weird” when a man talks about how he was first attracted to his wife.  But I think the majority of Americans would find the behavior you and the rest of the LGBQT community engage in as FAR more “shocking and weird”.

How dare a man check out a beautiful woman without even knowing her name!

This last violation of the feminist religion is the most interesting one.  This is a violation to even many women who don’t think of themselves as feminists – even some conservative Christian women who are opposed to feminism.

“How can a man be so attracted to and mesmerized by a woman simply because of her body and appearance? He does not even know her name let alone anything about her! How shallow! How crass! He is objectifying her!”

What I am about to say I have said many times on this blog and it will continue to be one of the primary themes of this blog.

Man need to stop being ashamed of their masculine natures and the way God designed them as men.

Yes our masculine natures as men have been corrupted by sin just as feminine nature in women has been corrupted by sin. But this behavior in men is NOT a corruption of man’s nature.

A man is not shallow or childish by allowing himself to be attracted to a woman without even knowing her name or anything about her.  It is by the design of God himself and we as fathers and husbands must instill a healthy respect for this part and other parts of the masculine nature in our daughters and our wives.

When we hear our wives or daughters talking down about men checking them out or them noticing men checking out other women we as men need to call them out. I know this brings up the question “Well wouldn’t you be offended if some guy checked out your wife or daughter?” If I respect another man’s masculine nature as much as I want him to respect mine then no it should not bother me and it does not bother me.

What I mean by “checking out” a woman

Now I need to clarify what I mean by “checking out” a woman because I am sure all sorts of definitions are going through people’s minds.  But before I can define what I mean by “checking out” a woman I need to help the ladies understand the masculine nature a little better.

Let me explain this in a way that women can understand and I think most men if they are being honest about themselves will verify what I am saying to be true.

Here is the formula that all women must be made to understand:

Crying for Women = Staring for Men

Ladies have you ever just heard a story or watched a scene in a movie or television show and you have involuntary tears coming out of your eyes? In these moments your emotional response is completely involuntary and it just a natural response by your feminine nature to certain stimuli.

In the same exact way sometimes when a man sees a beautiful woman he may also experience an involuntary response to seeing her beauty – he may he may stare and he may even get erection simultaneously.

Women need to be taught that what I have just described is a normal masculine response to female beauty and this type of natural response to feminine beauty by men should never be criticized or looked down upon by women.

Am I contradicting my previous statements about men not gawking at women?

I know for those who have read other articles I have written on men looking at women that what I may have said might seem to contradict what I have previously written.  In my post “How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 3” I gave this advice to men after spending most of the article addressing how women respond to men looking at women.

“What that means men is that while glancing at beautiful women may be natural for you, and give you pleasure, you have to make sure you are not mastered by this. Eating is something we are naturally driven to do as well, but we can eat too much, and too often, the same principle applies to our God-given male sexuality.

There is a difference between Glancing and Gawking

While I would say that woman are wrong for condemning men for taking discreet glances at other women, I would say men are equally wrong when they gawk at women. The classic seen of construction works whistling and saying obscenities to a random woman as she walks by is an example of unconstrained, uncontrolled male sexuality, and that does not honor God or women.”

I talk a lot about men “glancing, not gawking” and to do this requires self-control on the part of the man. Now some Christians would say a man should not even glance at another women – or take a second look at her.  To do so is lust in their view. I have dispelled this unbiblical belief in my article “What is Lust?”.

But where we can agree is that it is not appropriate for men to gawk. So let me further define what I mean by gawk.

For the purposes of this blog – I define gawking as “a man purposefully staring at a woman that may cause her or others in the area to feel uncomfortable”.  

This is not the same as a man involuntarily staring and not even realizing he is doing it.  Sometimes we as men are accidentally mesmerized by your beauty ladies in the same way sometimes something just makes you cry – remember that.

Now that I have given all that as background I will now define what I mean when say it is ok for a man to “check out” a woman.

For the purposes of this blog when I say “check out” as in a man “checking out a woman” I mean that a man is either involuntarily staring at a woman or he is taking purposeful tasteful glances of a beautiful woman.

Now all of us men at a certain point will realize we are involuntarily staring at a woman and at that point we can and should catch ourselves and then if we still want to check out that woman we should move to tasteful, yet purposeful glances. If we continue staring at a woman after we catch ourselves and thus we are doing it purposefully then this would be the very definition of gawking and not something we as gentlemen or as Christians should do.

How should women respond to men checking them out?

Well I already wrote a three part series on this subject that I still get a fairly large amount of email on to this day.

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 1

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 2

How should Christian women respond to their men looking at other women? Part 3

But I will add this advice to those articles. Ladies if you catch a guy accidentally staring at your cleavage or your rear end cut the man some slack. Wives if you catch your guy accidentally staring at another woman cut the man some slack.  There is a big difference between involuntary staring or tasteful glances and purposefully staring (gawking).

Ladies respect the way God made the men in your lives – whether they be your father, your brother, your husband or your sons.

Men respect your masculine nature and stop condemning yourself every time you are drawn to feminine beauty and have the natural responses God made you to have.  Just practice self-control and exercise your God given masculine nature within the bounds of God’s law.

Photo Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bill_Clinton_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg

Ideology is the problem in both Black terrorism and Muslim terrorism

In the same way that some Muslim clerics bear direct responsibility for inspiring violence against western countries so too President Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and groups like Black Lives Matter bear direct responsibility for inspiring violence against the police officers of this nation.

My heart goes out to the families of the police officers who lost their lives today in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. But just as Islamic terrorism against western nations will not stop until we attack the sources of its inspiration so too Black terrorism against police will not stop until we remove the sources of its inspiration.

And please do not think I am advocating for any violence against our President or black leaders like Al Sharpton and Jackson.  By “remove” I mean we need to shame these men and these groups publically for the violence they have been inspiring for many years against police.

For decades characters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have fomented black hatred of police.  The problem in their view was not that blacks commit crimes at vastly larger rate in proportion to their population – the problem was police profiling.  Then our nation elected its first black president and instead of focusing on the problems in the black community that cause crime (like the breakdown of the family) this President chose to focus on police profiling. This President has directly fomented violence against police by giving credence to the falsehoods of people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and groups like Black Lives Matter.

We must attack the ideologies that inspire violence

In both Islamic terrorism and now in recent Black terrorism we must realize the enemy is an ideology. We cannot stop “lone wolfs” or small groups of blacks or Muslims who want to strike fear in the population at large or police in particular.  What we must do is attack the ideology that inspires these people to do the heinous things that they are doing.

Here are five things we can do to fight this propaganda war to destroy the sources of inspiration for these evil acts:

  1. Any groups which promote violent acts to terrorize citizens or police must be hunted down and brought to justice.
  2. Any websites that promote terrorism toward citizens or police must be shut down or we need target them with cyber warfare.
  3. Even groups like Black Lives Matter that do not directly promote violence but whose ideologies are indirectly inspiring terrorist acts against citizens or police must be defunded and called out as inspirations for these acts.
  4. We also need to shout from the roof tops and put in perspective the statistical facts for black citizens about the hugely disproportionate amount crime which comes out of the black community which makes race a factor in crime profiling.
  5. We need to help the black community redirect its anger and frustration with police profiling back at the problems within its own community including the fact that 90% of blacks in this country are killed by other blacks.

Black anger needs to be directed inward

The last point I just made is about the need to help blacks redirect their anger and frustration with the police back at the problems in their own community. I recently wrote a post entitled “How can we blame Police for having bias against blacks?” in which I detailed the fact that while blacks only make up 13% of the population of the United States they are responsible for more than 50 percent of murders and robberies as well as 40 percent of cop killings.

I had responses from many black people telling me that they were tired of being profiled such as being followed in stores or being pulled over by police without what they believed to be proper cause. I understand that American blacks may be frustrated by these types of things in the same way American Muslims may be bothered for being profiled.

But American Blacks and American Muslims both need to do the same thing.  They need to direct their anger and frustration inward at their own communities and those in their communities that are the CAUSE for this profiling.

The need to work in their own communities doing these four things I mentioned in my article “How can we blame Police for having bias against blacks?

  1. Encourage the rebuilding of the black family unit
  2. Discourage dependence on government
  3. Get blacks back into church
  4. Support law enforcement officers and get tough on crime

As far as profiling goes these three things MUST be accepted:

Profiling does not cause crime, crime causes profiling.

Profiling does not cause terrorism, terrorism causes profiling.

Profiling is not racism or bigotry but rather it is a common sense approach to crime and terrorism.

Conclusion

We need a president that instead of saying we have a “police problem” needs to say we have a “crime problem in the black community”.  The fact is that 99% of cops do their job and are not bad apples.  We cannot have a President and groups like Black Lives Matter who whip up an entire racial community against the 1% of bad apples among police to the point where police officers are literally being assassinated.

Photo Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Black_Lives_Matter_protest.jpg