Courage and Brains Both

Written by Douglas Wilson

Thursday, 15 November 2012 10:04

I was asked this morning if I was going to say anything about the secession petitions that have been filed at the White House, and I realized I needed to. I have clearly been remiss. Some who thought I have never heard of a secession proposal that I wouldn't like might have been wondering what happened to me. Why was I not stirring in my stall, like an old war horse who senses the fray of a distant battle?

Because this set of secession petitions is nothing but stupidity on stilts.

Three quick takes:

1. Secession is not something that individuals do, and it most certainly is not something that individuals do on behalf of some other body. A random number of Texans don't get to ask if Texas can secede without checking first to see if Texas (the body that would have to do it) wants to. And if Texas wants to, let Texas say so.

2. If you have to ask, it isn't secession. The fact that these petitions are being filed at the White House, of all places, shows that these seceders are as nationalistic in their assumptions as anybody. "Please, mister . . ." This is not political theory; it is misdirected frustration. And while frustration can create some interesting political theater, it is not anything close to the real deal. This movement is showing all the intellectual rigor of a Ron Paul voter on food stamps.

3. This kind of thing distracts us from the real loci of civil resistance -- those areas where individuals as individuals do have the authority to make decisions that are not as cooperative with our metastisizing federal cancers as those cabinet level cancers would like. We still have many options -- the results of last week's election notwithstanding. This attempt to do what we cannot do is distracting people away from what they can do. And the reason for this is that what we can do requires courage and brains together, in equal measure.

Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites

Comments

Only registered users can write comments!

David Henry

Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:50 am

2. Isn't a peaceful movement towards independence to be preferred over a violent one? If asking first could achieve the same ends, shouldn't we try that, and only fall back on outright resistance if necessary?

David Stewart

Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:57 am

Dear David,

I can appreciate your sentiment. However, the very act of secession is one that connotes irreconcilable differences, with one party leaving the other whether they like it or not. This is what is rolled up in the word.

Also, why ask a rhetorical question? Dear Federal Government, can we please not be the all too necessary cogs in your machine, the cash cow your farm desperately needs, the foot soldiers for your next war, etc? What do we reasonably think the answer would be?

Still, I agree that as Christians we are commanded by God to not be rabble-rousers, and to seek the peace of society. Sometimes when we fall down on the job as the church corporate, however, things in society can get so bad that the only option left is to put on your walking shoes.

Spoiler alert - none of the state governments are going to secede. If they had the fortitude to do that, they would have nullified or otherwise legally resisted so much federal intrusion that we probably wouldn't be in the point we currently reside.

William Chad Newsom

Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:56 am

David, nothing wrong with asking, but ask who? Not the White House. A real secession movement would be working within state legislatures. South Carolina, Virginia, et al, never asked Lincoln's permission to secede.

Allen Miller

Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:12 pm

Does anyone reeeeeealy think that any state is going to be allowed to go quietly into that good night???

holmegm

Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:19 pm

It's a rather clever piece of political theater, anyway. Obama et al promise to be open, reset everything, listen to the people, etc. At the very least, this shows their lack of honesty in all that. It blows a raspberry at their oh-so-noble posturing.

Quote:

The petitions are created through the Obama administration’s "We The People" initiative, which was launched in 2011 as an effort to give citizens an opportunity to have their voices heard by the administration.

To appear on the website, a petition must receive more than 150 signatures. For the petition to be granted a response from the White House, it must receive at least 25,000 signatures.

A number of the secession petitions have more than enough votes to merit a response. Think they will get one?

Matt Weber

Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:43 pm

Well, I agree that the current crop of secessionism is in large part an overreaction to losing an election. I mean dang Republicans, yeah you lost but I don't remember Democrats completely losing their minds after Bush won his second term.

But...on the other hand something has changed. A perception, if you will, that if the Republicans couldn't win this last election then it is possible they may never win another. A reverse Whiggism sort of, where America is obviously declining and the tipping point has been reached. I don't know if this is true, but it is certainly the perception. The media, in the aftermath of the election, openly dancing on the graves of white people, christians, men, conservatives, really anyone who bears even a passing resemblance to the Founding Fathers, has not helped matters. Many conservatives are looking at this now like the South in the 1850s--doomed to perpetual decline and to become a marginalized, despised minority in their own lands.

But I'm waiting for you to say something about demographics, especially immigration. Here is an instructive post: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2012/11/2012-electoral-maps-by-sex-race-and_12.html

kevin s slack - Isn't Secession now unconstitutional?

Thursday, November 15, 2012 12:53 pm

Someone just said to me that secession is unconstitutional right after the War Between the States. Is this true?

I take pride that the Southern States took their stand and FOR the Constitution, yet the South lost unfortunately and the Federal government took secession out and through it on the garbage-heap of the things I most prize!

Jonathan - re:

Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:56 pm

holmegm wrote:

Wait, I'm completely lost about how this shows any lack of honesty by Obama. If Obama was being open and honest about listening to the people, are you claiming that he'd let a few states secede because 30,000 people (many not even from the state in question) signed an online petition?

I'm not seeing how this is "clever" political theater at all. It already makes the anti-Obama people look bad, and Obama would have to really, really mess up the response not to look mature in comparison.

holmegm wrote:

A number of the secession petitions have more than enough votes to merit a response. Think they will get one?

My guess is that they'll get a response. Why do you think otherwise? Has the administration been failing to answer any other petitions?

Jonathan - re:

Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:16 pm

Matt Weber wrote:

But I'm waiting for you to say something about demographics, especially immigration. Here is an instructive post: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2012/11/2012-electoral-maps-by-sex-race-and_12.html

Umm, it's hard to ask this question without making the conversation overly emotional, but...does the author of that blog follow theories of White superiority? Some of the comments are openly White-superiority in nature, and a lot of the data he's analyzing seem to be attempts to get ammo in that direction. His own comments seem to be borderline White superiority at times, though I can't tell if he's just making tongue-in-cheek inside jokes or not.

Matt Weber

Friday, November 16, 2012 6:41 am

I'm not really sure. I'm not a regular reader actually, having just seen that particular post linked somewhere else. As far as I can tell, he's just an "HBDer", meaning he believes there are differences in cognitive abilities between different races based on biological reasons (OTOH, no one denies that there are physical ability differences between different races for purely biological reasons).

But you don't have to believe any of that for this post. The takeaways from the graph are that whites, particularly white men, are the only force keeping conservatism alive in this country. If only nonwhites could vote, Obama would have won every single state, whereas if only whites could vote even CA and NY turn red. If the Republican party doesn't do something to halt immigration, conservatism really is finished. But, they don't call it the stupid party for no reason.

David Smith - Patience!

Friday, November 16, 2012 4:55 am

Pastor Wilson, I agree with you in much of what you say here, but I don't think many of us who signed those petitions, first, really believed they would be taken seriously by anyone in the federal government; second, no, we don't need permission, but this gets folks thinking about it. Sure, I wish everybody understood all of this at the level you do, but the pump has to be primed somehow. Folks are thinking about it, and that's a very good thing! One step at a time!

Ioannes

Friday, November 16, 2012 5:00 am

Jonathan, if your curiosity is genuine there is a good book he wrote on the subject called Black & Tan. This country doesn't know what a grown-up conversation on race looks like, but Black & Tan is a good start.

I must disagree with this post, though: however misinformed the attempt may be, or whatever its lack of practical implications, the fact that secession is now on the lips of ordinary people warms the cockles of my heart.

--Ioannes.

Eric Stampher - Winnie wants a war

Friday, November 16, 2012 11:24 am

So, pastor war horse Wilson, you're not pawing the ground to get us seceding.

Instead, you want us individuals to ....?

Lead the charge, please. Where we going?

Jonathan - re:

Friday, November 16, 2012 11:44 am

Ioannes wrote:

I don't think "this country" is capable of having a grown-up conversation on anything, but I've been part of some quite good extended conversations on race in the parachurch context. IVCF where I went to college was good at that, as was Rudolph Carrasco's nonprofit.

I haven't read Black and Tan, but I read Southern Slavery, As It Was a number of years ago. It didn't seem very relevant to what we're talking about now, or very grown up.

Jonathan - re:

Friday, November 16, 2012 11:44 am

Matt Weber wrote:

The idea that there are "physical ability difference between different races for purely biological reasons" is extremely debatable, and certainly hasn't been proven anywhere. There have been ability differences shown among small subsets for certain skills (for example, Ethiopians and a certain tribe of Kenyans in distance running), but I'm quite certain that no race-wide ability differences based on biology have ever been demonstrated scientifically. In fact, as of the last time I was active in researching it (which was quite some time ago, admittedly), scientists where still unable to find any single marker or consistent set of markers that could even define any race biologically.

Will S - Racism is not the answer

Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:31 am

I would like to remind everyone that racism is a sin.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=9J2nUPXdCKyMyAHZ8YHoDw&id=1DqYoMRNdBAC&dq=the+biblical+offense+of+racism&ots=ZiX7JFx89w&jtp=1

If you think that the reason the US is now in trouble is that we abandoned a sin (allowing black people to vote, and allowing people of color to *legally* immigrate to the US, etc), then you are just another part of the problem in America. God is judging us right now - probably for abortion. Don't make it worse by being a racist.

Tom J

Saturday, November 17, 2012 12:10 pm

If you think that the reason the US is now in trouble is that we abandoned a sin (allowing black people to vote, and allowing people of color to *legally* immigrate to the US, etc), then you are just another part of the problem in America.

It is important to remember that white people are racist, privileged, and bigoted by default. A white person who supports the melting pot, immigration, universal suffrage, etc. is not going to win any brownie points with non-whites. White conservatives will always be demonized as the great oppressor. It's who we are, see?

The issue is not about race. It is about tribalism. Because the historical peoples of the West are Caucasian, there exist many distinct groups of white people in the West. Some of the groups in positions of power are quite godless and have a pernicious effect on Christian civilization.

One of their tactics is to use mass immigration to replace white Christians with immigrants who are, as a whole, hostile to white conservatives or Christians and dependent upon a left-leaning white elite. The tactic is simple: free stuff + appeal to the pride of the newcomers. Morality is stripped of its basis in God's law. Historical events are twisted to portray the West and the Church as thieving savages who have stolen all good things from others. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Unless the Church provides a Christian response to this uncomfortable reality, there is not much to hope for in the near future but unrest and war. Having been raised color-blind among many ethnicities I did not learn that I was a racist until college, but a lot of us are sick and tired of being labeled by people who despise everything we stand for.

Will S

Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:05 pm

//It is important to remember that white people are racist, privileged, and bigoted by default.//

Right. People are sinful by default. We are also adulterous, thieves, and tyrants by nature.

//A white person who supports the melting pot, immigration, universal suffrage, etc. is not going to win any brownie points with non-whites.//

We should not be trying to win brownie points. We should be trying to show the love of God to our neighbors. Who is our neighbor? The Samaritan. Yes. The Samaritan. The hated other tribe who was different ethnically and culturally. That was the neighbor that Jesus called on us to serve and to love.

//White conservatives will always be demonized as the great oppressor. It's who we are, see?//

We are not white conservatives. We are Christians who happen to have lighter skin trying to serve the people around us. We believe that conservatism will help everyone (regardless of the shade of skin).

//The issue is not about race. It is about tribalism. Because the historical peoples of the West are Caucasian, there exist many distinct groups of white people in the West. Some of the groups in positions of power are quite godless and have a pernicious effect on Christian civilization. One of their tactics is to use mass immigration to replace white Christians with immigrants who are, as a whole, hostile to white conservatives or Christians and dependent upon a left-leaning white elite. The tactic is simple: free stuff + appeal to the pride of the newcomers.//

How many Mexicans do you know? I work with a bunch of Mexicans (I work for one of those dreaded global corporations). The guys that work for me out of Mexico are extremely good at their jobs, hard working, and not particularly hostile to me (a white conservative).

//Morality is stripped of its basis in God's law. Historical events are twisted to portray the West and the Church as thieving savages who have stolen all good things from others. I could go on, but I think you get the point.//

I am the first one to say that the church has an unfair and wrong reputation in the secular world.

//Unless the Church provides a Christian response to this uncomfortable reality, there is not much to hope for in the near future but unrest and war.//

Right. The response is the gospel. Faithfully preached. To all peoples of all colors and all ethnicities. And all tribes.

//Having been raised color-blind among many ethnicities I did not learn that I was a racist until college, but a lot of us are sick and tired of being labeled by people who despise everything we stand for.//

Well. If you think less of someone because of their skin color, you are a racist. And you are sinning by doing that. If you think that whites are better in some way than blacks or hispanics you are sinning.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that some cultures are better than others. I will take the culture of rural Michigan over the culture of Amsterdam. But that is a cultural thing not a "tribal" or race thing.

Let me remind everyone of something else. Prior to Christianity, white Europeans wore face paint and slaughtered each other in tribal wars. Communism was invented by a white man. Communism was implemented by white men. Socialism was implemented by white men. The thug s were organized by white men. The tyrannies and mass murders of the 20th century were performed by white men. And, in the 2012 election, there were more white voters for Obama than minorities.

One of the reasons for racism (and I think one of the reasons for anti-immigration mentalities) is that sin comes from the outside. If we can just protect ourselves from those evil outsiders we can have the perfect society.... that is a lie. Sin comes from within. Hitler rose from a white male dominated nation. So did Stalin.

I will leave you with this shocking stat. The murder rate in 14th century London was higher than the murder rate is in Detroit today.

Jonathan

Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:16 pm

Tom J, I disagree with the vast majority of what you said, but since most of it is just unfounded generalizations about what you believe other people are thinking, arguing a logical case won't get either of us anywhere.

So I'll just focus on one sentence. You believe that immigrants as a whole are hostile to white conservatives or Christians. You believe that immigrants as a whole are dependent upon a left-leaning white elite. I believe that all of those points are absolutely false.

1) Immigrants as a whole are not at all hostile to Christians.

2) Immigrants as a whole are not inherently hostile to White conservatives. Of course, they will easily become hostile to those who are hostile to them. Even 10 years ago immigrants in general were far more favorable towards conservatives than they are today, and that was even with a ton of vitriol already in the air waves (Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, etc.). The hostility to conservatism is not universal, and has far more to do with the behavior of current conservatives than any natural tendencies of immigrants.

3) Immigrants are not dependent on a "White elite". Most of the immigrants I know are incredibly hard-working and take care of their households well despite certain disadvantages. Many of them, due to legal status, get far less help from the government than non-immigrants. If they were treated the same as citizens (a quite Biblical principal) and had fair wages, they would be doing even better. I don't see how normal legal status or fair wages could be characterized as "dependent on a White elite".

4) I disagree with the notion that there is a "White elite" working to make immigrants dependent on them.

John Jackson - You Know the Character of a Man by the Company He

Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:08 pm

Yes, finally. This post really demonstrates the character of the community surrounding Wilson. Pastor, what do you have to say about your constituents?

Phillip Harrison

Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:18 pm

Quote:

But...on the other hand something has changed. A perception, if you will, that if the Republicans couldn't win this last election then it is possible they may never win another.

That's it in a nutshell, at least as far as I'm concerned. If ever somebody shouldn't have had a chance of winning an election it was BHO this year, but the country has indeed tipped, probably permanently.
I signed Georgia's petition, not that I believe it will ever actually come to pass, but because it felt good.

Matt Weber

Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:10 pm

All the racial stuff is quite beside the point. The point of the maps I provided is that immigrants trend strongly liberal, and mass immigration is turning America more liberal. You can pretend that this isn't happening with a lot of rhetoric about the Brotherhood Of Christians Everywhere and paeans to the Nation Of Immigrant mythology, but the fact is that if only immigrants could vote Obama would have won every single state, including the reddest of the red. Actually think about that instead of just reacting.

Jonathan - re:

Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:05 pm

Matt Weber wrote:

I didn't even see a map showing what it would look like if only immigrants were voting. I saw a map showing what it would look like if only non-White people are voting. Those aren't things you can just equate. The blog you quoted assumes/proves the superiority of White people, not of non-immigrants.

And, just so you don't have to worry, we will never be a nation of all immigrants. The children of immigrants aren't immigrants.

Maybe it would help your spirits if you stopped thinking about immigrants as uniform block of "other" people who are all the same, different than you, and opposed to conservative values. They're not. Anyone who was attacked as routinely by one party over a span of years as immigrants have been attacked by Republicans would likely have ended up voting in large part for the opposite party.

Tom J - Blanket Response

Saturday, November 17, 2012 7:09 pm

Right. People are sinful by default. We are also adulterous, thieves, and tyrants by nature.

You ignore the point. The question is not man's universal sin nature, rather a deliberate attempt to denigrate and dismiss whites based on perceived racial faults. Do not confuse the two.

We should not be trying to win brownie points. We should be trying to show the love of God to our neighbors. Who is our neighbor? The Samaritan. Yes. The Samaritan. The hated other tribe who was different ethnically and culturally. That was the neighbor that Jesus called on us to serve and to love.

I am talking exactly about showing the love of Christ. We must show love for the Mexicans in Los Angeles, the Turks in Cologne, the Africans in Paris, the Somalis in Malmo, the Pakistanis in London, and the Albanians in Rome. Brownie points have nothing to do with charity. Brownie points have to do with votes. Don't expect to get many votes from immigrant communities or their descendants by running candidates who hold to Christian morality. This is proven by the polls.

We are not white conservatives. We are Christians who happen to have lighter skin trying to serve the people around us. We believe that conservatism will help everyone (regardless of the shade of skin).

You are right. Perhaps I should have said, “right-winged Christian extremists.” I used the term “white conservatives” because the Republican, i.e. party of “conservatives,” is the only major party that still pays even lip service to Christians. It is also essentially the white party. Lose the Republican party to the Non-christians and there will be no one left to represent Christians in this country politically.

How many Mexicans do you know? I work with a bunch of Mexicans (I work for one of those dreaded global corporations). The guys that work for me out of Mexico are extremely good at their jobs, hard working, and not particularly hostile to me (a white conservative).

How many Mexicans live in your gated community? See how that's an obnoxious question? Personal experiences are no replacement for statistics taken over countries and continents. My friends and relatives are many and varied, which is why charges of racism are laughable.

I am the first one to say that the church has an unfair and wrong reputation in the secular world.

Then we are in agreement. My point is that traitorous Westerners encourage such beliefs and do their best to poison immigrants and minorities against Europeans/Christians/White people/conservatives/etc. Based on the numbers more immigration means more of a stranglehold on power for those who hate Christ and the Church. The Church in the West is stereotyped as white and conservative, so expect a lot of vitriol directed toward white conservatives, Christian or otherwise.

Right. The response is the gospel. Faithfully preached. To all peoples of all colors and all ethnicities. And all tribes.

Agreed, but don't count on the American or European Church to step up to the plate. We are much like the German church before WWII, compromised and ignored. If we would not stop abortion, gay marriage, or promiscuity, what chance do we have of stopping inter-ethnic conflict?

Having been raised color-blind among many ethnicities I did not learn that I was a racist until college, but a lot of us are sick and tired of being labeled by people who despise everything we stand for.

Well. If you think less of someone because of their skin color, you are a racist. And you are sinning by doing that. If you think that whites are better in some way than blacks or hispanics you are sinning.

Don't be obtuse. I did not and do not think less of minorities. In college I learned that I am a racist, heterosexist because I am a straight, white, man, who loves God-'n'-Country-and-Jesus-most-of-all. I won't bother to list my non-white friends or acquaintances though. To clarify my first sentence: white people are considered racist by default.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that some cultures are better than others. I will take the culture of rural Michigan over the culture of Amsterdam. But that is a cultural thing not a "tribal" or race thing.

Don't read race into “tribe.” I used the word to illustrate the struggle between cultures. I would also like to note that cultures develop over generations and there is cultural inertia that cannot be changed by locality. Also, cultures tend to vote in a block.

Let me remind everyone of something else. Prior to Christianity, white Europeans wore face paint and slaughtered each other in tribal wars. Communism was invented by a white man. Communism was implemented by white men. Socialism was implemented by white men. The thug s were organized by white men. The tyrannies and mass murders of the 20th century were performed by white men. And, in the 2012 election, there were more white voters for Obama than minorities.

Yep. That's what happens when you reject the living God, though I might add that Asian/African Communists and tyrants were pretty good at killing each other too. But think about how long it took for Europeans to Christianize. It took the Church centuries (and many wars) before all of Europe was brought under the gospel. How can we expect Non-christians of today to Christianize in a matter of years? Won't flooding the West with millions of Non-christians (many of whom happen to be non-white) change it for the negative, especially when the successors of Stalin and Hitler are grasping for the halls of power and need pawns? I fear a breakdown in the west precisely because of the conflict between leftists who use non-whites to cement their power and rightists who appeal to the bitter, Non-christian whites, who feel like they are losing their homelands to hostile colonists. The problem is that both camps are not Christian. They cannot be expected to act like Christians.

One of the reasons for racism (and I think one of the reasons for anti-immigration mentalities) is that sin comes from the outside. If we can just protect ourselves from those evil outsiders we can have the perfect society.... that is a lie. Sin comes from within. Hitler rose from a white male dominated nation. So did Stalin.

You bet. The Nordicist thinks he merely has to expunge the world of Semitic influence (including Christians and Communists) in order for the forces of nature to usher in a glorious new age of Wodin worship. The EU technocrat thinks that Paris needs just a tad more vibrancy in order for the world community to join hands and unite into a fungible and functional whole. These two camps are forming, especially in Europe where populism is popular. There will be conflict.

I will leave you with this shocking stat. The murder rate in 14th century London was higher than the murder rate is in Detroit today.

Source please. I agree in principle though. Detroit benefits from an additional six hundred years of gospel preaching and legal development, plus a generous social welfare system that protects many of the most vulnerable. Also, Detroit was not decimated by plague or fire. Why Detroit though? Is there something about Detroit that is known but not mentioned?

I say with confidence that Christ will establish His kingdom over the whole earth and that some day even Libya and Saudi Arabia will bow before God. Today ain't tomorrow. We have to fight the battles of our day. If migration, demographic change and the accompanying political change are the big issues of Right Now, then the church must inure itself to charges of racism, cultural imperialism, and a vast array of other slurs.

Tom J, I disagree with the vast majority of what you said, but since most of it is just unfounded generalizations about what you believe other people are thinking, arguing a logical case won't get either of us anywhere.

Jonathan, I see that you have seized the moral high ground. Let us continue:
1) Have you ever paid the jizya? That is a reality in many immigrant areas of Europe: check statistics on violent crime in Oslo or the number of "no go areas" in France. Heck, there were violent "Salafist" riots in Bonn not too long ago. These are all Christian nations, apostate or otherwise. Research the number of Imams who pursue Sharia Law in Europe and even America.

2) No one said anything about "natural tendencies" of immigrants, except that they are not "natural conservatives." Michael Savage did not win the election for Obama.

3) Social Welfare in its present form discourages initiative and keeps people in a state of dependency to an elite that, guess what, is mostly white. Have you ever experienced the indignity of welfare? One is not free under welfare. Check the statistics on immigration and welfare rates.

4) Cheap workers and cheap votes.

John Jackson, just stop it. I represent my own opinions and have no business or personal relationship with Pastor Wilson. I do not attend his church. I do not sit under his teaching and I do not assume that he agrees with me. You obviously disagree with me. Fine. I simply was responding to Will S because I am sick and tired of the liberality, with which charges of _____ism are thrown about. I agree with Matt Weber that race is not the issue. But demographic/social/political change must be addressed. The America of 1980 is gone. The Europe of 1980 is gone. My openness comes from having been raised in multiculturalism. I will not sugarcoat my language because it offends proper white people. I will speak my opinions openly, because that is the mark of a free man. Immigrants, whites, minorities, and Muslims are my equals and I speak to them as equals. Where I'm from that means plain talk.

Will S

Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:15 pm

Source for the murder rate info: "Civilization: The West and the Rest" by Niall Ferguson (Harvard historian).

Jonathan

Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:41 pm

Tom J wrote:

Don't expect to get many votes from immigrant communities or their descendants by running candidates who hold to Christian morality. This is proven by the polls.

No, that hasn't been "proven by the polls". Are you saying that immigrants generally oppose your favorite "Christian morality" issues? Because I'm fairly certain that's false. Immigrants poll quite well on several of the religious right's favorite "morality" issues. Are you instead saying that because immigrants voted against a certain candidate, likely one they perceived to hate and distrust them, that that thereby shows they don't support "Christian morality"? That would be a logical fallacy.

I would love to know, though, who the perfect pro-love of neighbor, anti-hate of enemy, anti-retaliation, anti-abortion, pro-marriage, anti-divorce, anti-poverty, anti-war, pro-rehabilitation, pro-immigrant candidate who doesn't love money, shows deep humility, and holds to orthodox Christian theology is. Because in my mind, that would be the "Christian morality" candidate that you think immigrants would reject.

Tom J wrote:

I used the term “white conservatives” because the Republican, i.e. party of “conservatives,” is the only major party that still pays even lip service to Christians. It is also essentially the white party. Lose the Republican party to the Non-christians and there will be no one left to represent Christians in this country politically.

I strongly disagree that Republicans are "the White party", and I strongly disagree that Republicans represent Christians.

Tom J wrote:

How many Mexicans live in your gated community? See how that's an obnoxious question? Personal experiences are no replacement for statistics taken over countries and continents. My friends and relatives are many and varied, which is why charges of racism are laughable.

There are statistics taken over countries and continents that show that immigrants are dependent on the white elite and like getting free stuff? The very fact that you claim to be talking about "immigrants", but then claim to refer to statistics taken over countries and continents, betrays that perhaps immigration isn't your issue. One country's immigrants are another countries emigrants, so I don't know what statistical population you're even claiming to use. Could it have been from the race-focused blog you were citing?

Also, you say "immigrants and their descendants"....but that seems to exclude White people in your mind. Again, it looks like you're using "immigrants" as a code word for "non-White peoples".

Tom J wrote:

Based on the numbers more immigration means more of a stranglehold on power for those who hate Christ and the Church.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. You're taken a recent correlation, based on current political strategy, and acting like it's a natural result based on the immigrants themselves and not based on the words and actions of the politicians who are trying to use hate of immigrants as a political tool.

Tom J wrote:

The Church in the West is stereotyped as white and conservative, so expect a lot of vitriol directed toward white conservatives, Christian or otherwise.

And the Church where many immigrants come from isn't White at all, and in many ways is far more conservative than the American church. So why do you think immigrants are automatically going to associate any anti-White conservative feelings with any anti-Church feelings?

Tom J wrote:

If we would not stop abortion, gay marriage, or promiscuity, what chance do we have of stopping inter-ethnic conflict?

Have you read Exclusion and Embrace? That's the best theological work I've seen on trying to develop a theological basis to stop inter-ethnic conflict, FWIW.

Tom J wrote:

I am a straight, white, man, who loves God-'n'-Country-and-Jesus-most-of-all.

Really not seeing why you put Country in the middle of God and Jesus.

Tom J wrote:

I won't bother to list my non-white friends or acquaintances though. To clarify my first sentence: white people are considered racist by default.

I'm sure there are people who do that. I'm also sure there are people who consider "immigrants" to be anti-White racist by default. (Even though, apparently irrelevant to this conversation, many immigrants are White.) The fact that some people practice one form of stereotyping doesn't justify you to practice the equivalent.

Tom J wrote:

Don't read race into “tribe.” I used the word to illustrate the struggle between cultures. I would also like to note that cultures develop over generations and there is cultural inertia that cannot be changed by locality. Also, cultures tend to vote in a block.

I don't think he was the one who is determined to bring race into the equation.

Tom J wrote:

It took the Church centuries (and many wars) before all of Europe was brought under the gospel.

I don't think "many wars" brings anybody "under the gospel", which might explain why Europe continued to have incredibly bloody wars long after it was supposedly Christianized.

Tom J wrote:

How can we expect Non-christians of today to Christianize in a matter of years? Won't flooding the West with millions of Non-christians (many of whom happen to be non-white) change it for the negative, especially when the successors of Stalin and Hitler are grasping for the halls of power and need pawns?

Since when did immigrants need to be "Christianized"? Since when were our immigrants primarily non-Christian?

Tom J wrote:

I fear a breakdown in the west precisely because of the conflict between leftists who use non-whites to cement their power and rightists who appeal to the bitter, Non-christian whites, who feel like they are losing their homelands to hostile colonists. The problem is that both camps are not Christian.

Do you really believe that the bitter whites who feel like they are losing their homelands to hostile colonists are exclusively or even primarily non-Christian?

Tom J wrote:

They cannot be expected to act like Christians.

Umm, why the heck not?

Tom J wrote:

If migration, demographic change and the accompanying political change are the big issues of Right Now, then the church must inure itself to charges of racism, cultural imperialism, and a vast array of other slurs.

Well, I definitely agree with that, and I'd say that many elements of the church are not currently doing the best job of it, especially those elements most associated with the political right.

Tom J wrote:

1) Have you ever paid the jizya? That is a reality in many immigrant areas of Europe: check statistics on violent crime in Oslo or the number of "no go areas" in France.

I've lived in neighborhoods far more Muslim than any area of Oslo or France, and I've never even heard of someone playing the jizya, ever. Much of my family is composed of Christians from Muslim countries, and none of them hae ever paid the jizya either as far as I'm aware.

Tom J wrote:

No one said anything about "natural tendencies" of immigrants, except that they are not "natural conservatives." Michael Savage did not win the election for Obama.

So you're saying that no one said anything about natural tendencies except that very thing I was referring to. I agree that Michael Savage did not win the election for Obama - but Savage, other people who think like him, and people who have been inspired by him have certainly turned a lot of immigrants towards Obama.

Tom J wrote:

3) Social Welfare in its present form discourages initiative and keeps people in a state of dependency to an elite that, guess what, is mostly white. Have you ever experienced the indignity of welfare? One is not free under welfare. Check the statistics on immigration and welfare rates.

No, I haven't ever been on welfare. I know many people who have - most tend not to like it at all and want to get out. I'd like to see your statistics on immigration and welfare rates though, especially ones that count all immigrants.

Matt Weber

Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:08 pm

Quote:

I didn't even see a map showing what it would look like if only immigrants were voting. I saw a map showing what it would look like if only non-White people are voting.

Right, because exit polls don't ask "Are you an immigrant or descended from a post-1965 immigrant" The only decent proxy we have for immigrant voting is race, because most of the nonwhites in America are post-65 immigrants or their descendants. I suspect that if you polled European immigrants, you would also find an Obama slant, albeit a smaller one. But the polls don't ask, so we'll never know.

I would like to see a map of only people who receive no government benefits of any sort, whether directly with welfare or via employment with a government contractor or enterprise, but this is also impossible because there is no data. I suspect it would be a Romney landslide, but who knows.

Also, given that the Republicans can't stop talking about how great immigration is or how we are a Nation Of Immigrants as the shibboleth goes, I doubt immigrants voted for Obama due to any demonization. For the most part, they voted for Obama simply because they are more liberal, especially on economic matters but even on social matters as well. In other words, far from some kind of "unified other", immigrants are like us and are people with their own beliefs and preferences, and vote accordingly.

Jonathan

Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:28 am

Matt Weber wrote:

The fact that you lack data doesn't allow you to make it up. Race is a terrible proxy for immigrant voting. Where is your data that most non-White voters are post-1965 immigrants or their descendants?

Here are all the problems with your theory:

1) Most Black and Native American people in the United States got here long before 1965 and a large number of Asian and Latino people got here before 1965.

2) Of the non-White immigrants who arrived most recently, a large percentage are either non-citizens or too young to vote. A large percentage of their descendants are too young to vote as well.

3) Many European, Middle Eastern, Central American, and South American immigrants (and heck, even some of the African immigrants) are racially White.

4) Even of the immigrants who are eligible to vote, a very large percentage do not vote, especially recent ones.

5) Even if it were true that "most" non-White voters were post-1965 immigrants, it would still be a terrible proxy, as your own map shows. Most Californian voters are White...so was the Californian vote a good proxy for what White Californians voted? There are tons of examples like that on the maps.

6) Your cherry-picking of post-1965 immigrants and their descendants not only fails to give you the numbers you claim, it is also arbitrary...why not post 1984 immigrants and their descendants, or post-1900 immigrants and their descendants, or post-1500 immigrants and their descendants?

Matt Weber wrote:

I suspect that if you polled European immigrants, you would also find an Obama slant, albeit a smaller one. But the polls don't ask, so we'll never know.

You should probably refrain from making sweeping suggestions about national policy based on personal suspicions for which you have no evidence.

Matt Weber wrote:

I would like to see a map of only people who receive no government benefits of any sort, whether directly with welfare or via employment with a government contractor or enterprise, but this is also impossible because there is no data. I suspect it would be a Romney landslide, but who knows.

Who knows indeed. I'm assuming your map would exclude police, military, firefighters, defense contractors, doctors at publicly-funded hospitals, and those who procure natural resources on government-owned land?

Matt Weber wrote:

Also, given that the Republicans can't stop talking about how great immigration is or how we are a Nation Of Immigrants as the shibboleth goes, I doubt immigrants voted for Obama due to any demonization. For the most part, they voted for Obama simply because they are more liberal, especially on economic matters but even on social matters as well.

This blows my mind. I'm not sure which assertion is more surprising to me - the fact that you think immigrants have the impression that Republicans say wonderful things about them, or the fact that you think immigrants are largely liberal on social matters.

I think you are really focused on race, and want to transfer that to a focus on immigration, but the missteps involved are leading you to make up really inaccurate data.

Matt Weber

Sunday, November 18, 2012 8:58 am

To your points:

1: Yes, most blacks are not descended from recent immigrants. This would be relevant if blacks voted differently from other nonwhites, but blacks went for Obama 96-4. IOW, separating out blacks isn't going to change the 50 state Obama landslide, it would only change the margins of Obama's victory.

2: Obviously when discussing voting patterns of immigrants, I'm not really concerned about who the immigrants that didn't vote voted for.

3: True enough for Euro and a couple of other regions. Exit polls rely on self-ID so Middle Easterners might put "other". African immigrants are overwhelmingly black though, the only real exception being white South Africans fleeing that sad country. South and Central Americans are overwhelmingly Hispanic and are separated out on that basis. If there is evidence that white immigrants vote significantly differently than nonwhite ones and that they are present in numbers that would sway the totals, then produce it.

4: Again, not concerned about those who don't vote. If they did vote, then the situation for conservatives would be worse than it is now.

5: If 90 % of people in category A are also 90% of category B, the B is a good proxy for A. Almost all of the nonwhites other than blacks we have today are a result of post-1965 immigration. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to accept. The Democrats consider this a huge success.

6: 1965 was the year that immigration law was changed from the national origins system of 1924. America has had a few large waves of immigration, and 1965-present is the latest one. So I use that one.

Quote:

I'm assuming your map would exclude police, military, firefighters, defense contractors, doctors at publicly-funded hospitals, and those who procure natural resources on government-owned land?

In my own words: or via employment with a government contractor or enterprise.

Quote:

I'm not sure which assertion is more surprising to me - the fact that you think immigrants have the impression that Republicans say wonderful things about them

The Republicans do say wonderful things about immigration and immigrants, as anyone who pays attention would see. Maybe immigrants don't have this perception for whatever reason, perhaps because the Democrats have more of a presence among immigrants and lie to them about it. But in that case, the proximate cause is "democrat lies" and not "republican attacks"

Finally, you keep trying to tar me with the racist brush, but you are the one focusing on the racial aspect. I suspect it is because you just don't want anyone talking about this sort of thing. But by all means, if you can swing the data some other way, or have some better way to estimate voting patterns based on mass immigration, then go to http://elections.reuters.com/#poll and have at it. I await the result.

Jonathan

Thursday, November 22, 2012 3:30 am

Matt Weber wrote:

1: Yes, most blacks are not descended from recent immigrants. This would be relevant if blacks voted differently from other nonwhites, but blacks went for Obama 96-4. IOW, separating out blacks isn't going to change the 50 state Obama landslide, it would only change the margins of Obama's victory.

The 94-6 margin among Black voters goes against your point, not for it. The fact that there's such a large number of Black voters pushing the overall minority vote in Obama's favor makes it HARDER to discern what the actual immigrant vote was, not easier.

I'm not sure why you completely ignored that quite a few Asians, Latinos, and Native Americans got here long before 1965 too.

Matt Weber wrote:

2: Obviously when discussing voting patterns of immigrants, I'm not really concerned about who the immigrants that didn't vote voted for.

I'm pointing out that you don't actually know what immigrants support. When discussing the beliefs of those who are coming into our country, it is silly to only look at the ones who happened to be able to vote in one particular election, especially when in the process you disqualify most of them and mix the results with a huge number of people who AREN'T them.

Matt Weber wrote:

3: True enough for Euro and a couple of other regions. Exit polls rely on self-ID so Middle Easterners might put "other". African immigrants are overwhelmingly black though, the only real exception being white South Africans fleeing that sad country. South and Central Americans are overwhelmingly Hispanic and are separated out on that basis. If there is evidence that white immigrants vote significantly differently than nonwhite ones and that they are present in numbers that would sway the totals, then produce it.

You don't have anything remotely resembling evidence for your position, and yet you're asking me to come up with the same numbers that you don't have in order to prove that the point you made up is wrong? No one appears to have those numbers, so I can't produce them to prove you wrong anymore than you can produce them to prove yourself right. But I'm not arguing that you're wrong, only that you don't know.

Matt Weber wrote:

4: Again, not concerned about those who don't vote. If they did vote, then the situation for conservatives would be worse than it is now.

Which you know...how?

Matt Weber wrote:

5: If 90 % of people in category A are also 90% of category B, the B is a good proxy for A.

Almost all of the nonwhites other than blacks we have today are a result of post-1965 immigration. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to accept. [/quote]

Perhaps because it is untrue? The only map you showed included Blacks, so your 90% assertion is wildly off for that reason alone. But on top of that, it is also false that 90% of the nonWhite people in the United States are the result of post=1965 immigration - where did you get that statistic from? And that is even MORE true for non-White voters, which you seem to be ignoring.

Matt Weber wrote:

6: 1965 was the year that immigration law was changed from the national origins system of 1924. America has had a few large waves of immigration, and 1965-present is the latest one. So I use that one.

You believe that the immigrants in 2012 are substantially similar to the immigrants in 1965 because that's when immigration law changed and immigration increased overall. I understand that, but think it is invalid - there are enormous differences between those who immigrated to the United States in 1965-1970 and those who immigrated between 2010 and 2015. And in fact, you're trying to claim that the DESCENDANTS of 1965 immigrants are so substantially similar to 2012 immigrants that you can just lump all their numbers together, along with a lot of other numbers, and just assume that the total well-represents every little subgroup. I think that's an assumption only possible with significant evidence, which you don't have.

Matt Weber wrote:

Quote:

I'm assuming your map would exclude police, military, firefighters, defense contractors, doctors at publicly-funded hospitals, and those who procure natural resources on government-owned land?

In my own words: or via employment with a government contractor or enterprise.

So your map would exclude those, right? And if so, why do you believe that it would be a Romney landslide?

p.s. - Are immigrants more or less likely to work for government contractors or enterprises than non-immigrants? I would guess less likely, but who knows?

Matt Weber wrote:

There must have been a lot of Democrat lies sneaking into Republican mouths during those Republican debates.

Matt Weber wrote:

Finally, you keep trying to tar me with the racist brush, but you are the one focusing on the racial aspect. I suspect it is because you just don't want anyone talking about this sort of thing. But by all means, if you can swing the data some other way, or have some better way to estimate voting patterns based on mass immigration, then go to http://elections.reuters.com/#poll and have at it. I await the result.

I'm not taring you with the racist brush. I'm pointing out that you're focusing on race and trying to call it immigration. You're saying "But I'm not focusing on race!" then giving us numbers solely based on race and claiming that "non-White race" is a fine approximation for "immigrant". If you can't come up with actual numbers for immigrants, then just admit that and move on. Stop showing us maps of non-White voters and claiming that it is equivalent to what immigrants must believe.

Jonathan

Thursday, November 22, 2012 3:36 am

To summarize for clarity:

* Most recent immigrants can't vote. Therefore, their numbers aren't represented in the voting totals at all, so to assume you know what they believe based on other people's votes is inaccurate.

* Most non-White people are not immigrants. Not only the overwhelming majority of Black people, but also many Asian, Latino, and Native American people are not immigrants. So you can't just take the votes on all non-White people combined and assume that it represents immigrants.

* People who immigrated in 1965 are not the same as people immigrating now. The children and grandchildren of people who immigrated in 1965 are certainly not the same as current immigrants. You can't just take all those subgroups, lump them together with other subgroups, and then assume that the summed total represents every little subgroup accurately.

* Many immigrants are White. With all the other inaccuracies in your assumption that non-White = immigrant, this just adds to the inaccuracy.

* When you lack the numbers you need to prove you point, you can't just grab any other number out there and say that it's good enough. If you don't know, you don't know. This isn't a "90% of one equals 90% of the other" issue - even that would be poor logic, and your inaccuracies are far, far worse that that.

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Father
Sister Heather
Avuncular
Femina

Nate
Shadow Shroud
Nephew
Amoretti

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Blogroll

Pastors Blogroll