"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Political Correctness Is a Loss of Individual Liberty

During October and November of 2015, something happened on the campus of Yale University that few Americans living in the midwest even know occurred.

What happened at Yale a little over two years ago serves as a microcosm of the problems we are facing in the United States today.

Individual liberties are being removed. Americans are being coerced to accept specific cultural ideologies and forcibly silenced from speaking opposing views. 

The land of liberty is becoming a tributary of totalitarianism.

The 2015 controversy at Yale started with an email from the administration to students.  Halloween was approaching, and school administrators encouraged students to refrain from wearing insensitive costumes on Halloween. 

Rather than focus on finances, or pay attention to enrollment numbers, or even work harder to better the curriculum, Yale administrators chose to spend their time policing the Halloween costumes of Yale's students. Administrators wrote: 
"Halloween is, unfortunately, a time when the normal thoughtfulness and sensitivity of most Yale students can sometimes be forgotten and some poor decisions can be made including wearing feathered headdresses, turbans, wearing ‘war paint’ or modifying skin tone or wearing blackface or redface.."
In other words, don't dress up as an Indian, an Arab, a person of color, or wear any other ethnic costume on Halloween. Those costumes might offend someone or hurt peoples' feelings, wrote the Yale administration. 

Yale professor Erika Christakis, a childhood education specialist and published author, wrote an email in response to administration. Erika questioned the wisdom of attempting to police Halloween costumes of Yale students. Listen to her argument:  
"What happens when one person’s offense is another person’s pride? Should a costume-wearer’s intent or context matter? Can we always tell the difference between a mocking costume and one that satirizes ignorance? In what circumstances should we allow — or punish — youthful transgression?
Dr. Christakis - remember she is a childhood education specialist - has long taught that adults deprive children and young people of learning experiences by over-policing their behaviors. In fact, Dr. Christakis actually believes that such micromanaging behavior to avoid potential offense leads to problem children and problematic educational cultures.

Thus, her email of counter-opinion.

Erika's husband, Yale Professor Nicholas Christakis, lived with his wife in a Yale dormitory during the fall of 2015. They taught courses on the campus, and also served as dorm parents. When his wife's email began to be shared among the students at Yale, both Nicholas and his wife Erika became the targets of personal attacks. 

Watch the video of Yale students coming after Dr. Nicholas Christakis as he seeks to defend his wife's views. Watch the cursing, bullying, and intimidation of one young Yale female student and see if the same chills go up your spine as they did mine when I saw it.

Every liberty-loving American should be aware of what happened at Yale in 2015. It's happening on all our college campuses. Our liberty is being lost in the laboratory of learning. 

Professor Erika Christakis was forced to resign


The victims in today's politically correct climate are lovers of individual liberty.

Did the husband and wife professors at Yale have any support from Yale faculty?

Sure. Numerous professors, including those at Yale’s top-rated law school, contacted them personally to offer personal support, but they all said it was too risky to speak their minds publicly. 

And lest we think political correctness is only on the coasts, Oklahoma City is fast becoming a place where one must conform to group think or lose one's job

It's time we Americans stopped worrying about feelings and started fretting about whether or not we are thinking. 

37 comments:

Dave Panzera said...

Political correctness has, unfortunately, morphed into a greater monster than it ever was when it first started. Political correctness is today now harnessed for the express purposes of political or power gain. It is often used by people to shut down conversation on a subject proclaiming greater offense is on one side than the other thus rendering the other person's opinions, positions, or worldview invalid.
Political correctness is now solely the position of intellectual cowards. You have every right to your free speech in this country, you have no right to be free from insult by someone else's speech. That is why political correctness was launched and invented. It was invented specifically to be able to end conversation when you no longer had anything of value to add to that conversation. So the trump card of political correctness will get played every time the person has run out of ideas or thoughts on the matter and instead they run to offense and cry foul.

Christiane said...

Oh dear. This is a complex and important post, Wade.

I remember in the UK when a very young Prince Harry wore a 'NAZI' costume and he was roundly criticized (and yes, I understood why) but I also realized that the young Harry likely had no clue (other than 'shock' effect) that he would offend most of his countrymen. So the young don't 'think'? Well, good grief, what IS an acceptable 'costume' to wear?
But it IS true:
People express themselves in our society in ways that sometimes are offensive to others.

I am an advocate for the legal rights of marginalized people in our country, but I am offended personally by some of the 'costumes' worn by participants in 'Pride' parades. Those costumes are designed to 'offend' in my opinion and I don't accept that a public parade should have costumes that children view that are not something for any child to see under any circumstances.

But how do we 'resolve' the conflict of our 'freedom' with our culturally-blended society where a woman offended by a skimpy costume at a 'Pride' parade is also terribly offended by pictures of the young girls dressed in prairie dresses in photos of the victims of polygamy who were forced to marry old men by some 'prophet'?

And how do you 'resolve' a woman's religious offense at seeing photos of the 'bling Bishop' from Germany compared with seeing the Pope go to minister among the people of South America who live on the trash heaps and feed from garbage piles and shelter as best they can with tin pieces and cardboard boxes taken from the trash piles?
The contrasts are sometimes too abrupt, too sharp, too dramatic and vivid to ignore and YES there is a personal reaction.... an emotional reaction.

Likely we all have our own 'sets' of what jars us to the point of 'offense' . . .

So, as a Christian person, do we look to the 'story' underneath the 'costumes' and try to comprehend the 'why' the costumes were really chosen instead of rushing to judgment on something that is a 'presenting problem' rather than seek understanding as to what 'need' was satified within the person who offended us? And why are we 'offended' at all??? We who have each of us a known ability to shock and offend, often simply by doing 'nothing' and saying 'nothing' in the face of what demand a response that may be vital to keeping someone from harm????

We Christian people need to call on the deeper discernment that avoid judging and makes honest effort to 'understand'

If there is a response from a Christian person, that the response should be formed in accordance with the mind and heart of Our Lord ...
the Lord of the Beatitudes,
the Crucified Lord who spoke from the Cross,
the Risen Lord we are all of us sustained by.

For Our Lord's sake at least, if we don't have 'all the answers' at least let us do no harm to those who suffer and express that suffering in ways we have NO WAY to comprehend within ourselves. If our response to what 'offends' us is to be a Christian response, may it be one that offers understanding and healing in the way that not only benefits the 'offender' but also calls us to account for our 'pride' at looking down on those who 'offended' us.
Our Lord can heal all concerned in ways unforeseen. :)



Tom Ross said...

Ah History repeating itself. Another formation of a demonic flash mob to influence a particular outcome. Remembering the movies of my youth, back then it depicted the power of the gun to have your way with people until the "white" knight rode into town to save the day for the people being oppressed.

Sadly, the "white knights" are afraid to show their faces today because of the offence they will give and their fear of losing their "job."

In our society there is no reliance on God to provide our every day needs. Something the "Saints" should be doing daily.

Shalom

RB Kuter said...

I guess that a definition of the "politically correct" position is one held by people who are radically leftist, close-minded, exclusive, socialist in ideology, lean toward anarchy and rejection of authority, evolutionist, probably atheist or agnostic, pro-abortion and definitely gender fluid. Anyone taking an opposing position to that ("conservative, supportive of respect for order and law", open to dialogue, genuine Christian, supportive of the right to life of those yet to exit the womb, is a monster. Is that pretty accurate?

It seems that way to me and it seems that the intensity of the polarization has reached a level where it is impossible to dialogue or reason or to even accept the privilege/right of someone to have a view that opposes this "politically correct" position. This makes it more difficult for the United States to maintain a spirit of "e Pluribus unum".

Probably all of this portrays that we are living the concluding chapter.

Rex Ray said...

Wade,

I think before 2015 the year of 1970 revealed “The land of liberty is becoming a tributary of totalitarianism.”

In 1968, Richard Nixon was elected President promising to end the Vietnam War. In 1969, the ‘My Lai Massacre’ by American troops (up to 500 civilians killed) was exposed, leading to increased public opposition to the war.

April 30, 1970, Nixon announced on TV the bombing of Cambodia. Four days later at Kent University, students protested his decision. The National Guard wounded 9 and killed 4 students that were over 100 yards from them.

That caused 100,000 to demonstrate in Washington, D.C., over 450 schools closed, and a New York University banner displayed: “They can’t kill us all”.

Three days before the killing, Nixon on TV had talked of “bums” who were anti-war protestors on United States campuses. Later on national TV a dead girl’s father said, “My child was not a bum.”

Anonymous said...

This amazes me, primarily because I am watching my nation descend quickly down the slippery slope of political correctness, while living abroad. There is something to be said for living "on the outside, looking in." I watch the media in the U.S and how it reinforces ideas that are ludicrous. I am living in the Middle East and I know full well what the average American's opinion is of my location. Yet, living here, few would probably believe that here, in a Muslim country, due to leadership of many countries in the Gulf region, "Merry Christmas" is what is said during the Christmas holiday (not "Happy Holidays" like the U.S) and finding a Christian church to attend is surprisingly easy. I see the Ichthyus (Jesus fish) on cars driving openly. It was recently (April 2nd, "The Atlantic" interview)the Saudi Crowned Prince who spoke of Jewish people having a "right to their own land." Why is it that nations in the Middle East are the nations unafraid of speaking openly and unapologetically, while the United States, under constitutionally protected freedom of speech and religion, are not?

-Hupomone

Wade Burleson said...

Hupone,

Your comment, observations, and question are all stunning.

RB Kuter said...

40 years ago there were those who leaned to the "left" (emphasis on social reform, higher involvement by the government to resolve the problems of society, etc.) and those who leaned to the "right" (emphasis on private enterprise as a means to resolve problems, less involvement by the government). But even though there were differences, they were not polarized to the extreme positions which we have in today's America.

It's difficult for us to imagine today, but 4-5 decades ago in the United States, the polar extremes of both "left" and "right" were much closer to the "middle", thus minimizing extremities and creating a more cooperative environment. At that time, the immorality of politicians was suicide for those of either persuasion, "right" or "left". Society would not consider the legalizing of pot and other non-prescribed drugs. It would have been utter self-destruction for ANY politician to even hint that they were "socialist" or that they admired any national government that functioned under a socialist ideology. Being divorced would be a very big obstacle for any politician to overcome and more often seen as a disqualifier from elected office. The thought of a pregnant woman intentionally destroying the life of her "yet to be delivered" infant would have been totally repugnant to society of both persuasions. Homosexuality was unacceptable behavior and the thought of two people of the same sex getting married would have been humorous. The taking of the life of a police officer, while they were serving in their line of duty, would not have been tolerated. Illegal immigrants would have been considered by both sides as being that; "illegal" and not having any legal status in this country.

These were the positions of those functioning with an ideology that leaned toward the "left" or the "right" so the extremes were minimized. Both sides were actually positioned closer to the "middle". This enhanced the possibility of cooperation and civil dialogue.

I propose that today's extreme polarization in society is not the result of the "right" moving further to the "right" in their assessment of these values but it is the "left" that has pulled out virtually all stops, barriers, guard rails and have moved to such an extreme leftist ideology involving all of these issues as to make civil dialogue, reasoning, and political compromise virtually impossible.

Given the determination of the "right" to maintain its principles (call them "old fashion") and the determination of the "left" to force their extremist positions into play, any improvement would seem unlikely unless the "left" begins a shift back to the "middle" position which they once held. It seems unlikely that the "right" is going to abandon those principles held.

Debbie Kaufman said...

"Halloween is, unfortunately, a time when the normal thoughtfulness and sensitivity of most Yale students can sometimes be forgotten and some poor decisions can be made including wearing feathered headdresses, turbans, wearing ‘war paint’ or modifying skin tone or wearing blackface or redface.."

I agree with this email. I agree with what they did. And I do not dismiss feelings. Liberty does not mean we devalue another race or group of people. That is what these costumes and black face tend to do. They also stereotype a group of people and that is not liberty for those who are being devalued.

In the early days of vaudeville and even Hollywood, Black face was used to stereotype and devalue the black community. They used black actors to portray feeble minded characters. Mexicans were portrayed as servants to the whites, feeble minded and lazy while the Mexican woman was portrayed as sultry and women who tempted the white men or as fat cooks with many children. That has changed. It's not political correctness, it's treating people with respect, as human beings, equals. As it should be.

Now there is political correctness which was ridiculous such as Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas, but we can display the fish on cars without repercussions and we can display Christian sayings and Bible verses on our cars, which I don't do because to many times I don't act as a Christian while driving my car. I may get impatient at Railroad tracks or when someone speeds by me or when I get cut off and I don't want that to muddy what my vehicle could say, but I am free to do it.

I disagree that feelings are not Biblical. First God gave us those feelings and facts aren't always facts or just facts or even true facts. Following our gut in making decisions or when we think we are in a dangerous situation most times serves us well. And if feelings don't matter then an abused wife needs to not follow her feelings of physical and mental hurt, stay in the marriage for the sake of liberty. I know that is an extreme and maybe even hyperbole an example, but I use it to get my point across.

It was feelings along with scripture that MLK Jr. began fighting for Civil Rights as he couldn't stand to be treated badly any longer nor any person of color to be treated as badly as they were at the time and before. It was feelings that caused many changes that we experience today. So I believe feelings play a huge part in our lives along with facts.

Rex Ray said...

Good for you Debbie,

A university’s reputation is based a lot on the actions of the students. An email to them to not wear a costume that would make fun of others is a lot better than trying to apologize later.

The two professors that lost their jobs should have known their right to teach ended where school policy began.

Debbie, I believe Wade will not admit he’ s wrong based on the fact he never has. :)

The closest he ever came to it was many many years ago when he said, “Sometimes, words do not convey the true meaning.” (He had said in very plain words that Jesus was a Southern Baptist.)

I believe a person stands tallest when they don’t let pride hold them down.

Scott Shaver said...

"Feelings" come and feelings go, feelings are deceiving. Put your faith in the Word of God, naught else is worth believing.

RB Kuter said...

I went back and read the email written by Yale professor Erika Christakis that apparently caused the student outrage shown in the video. It seems that the professor's email became so controversial as to eventually lead to the dismissal of both professors.

The husband-professor trying to dialogue with the students in this video, seemed quite civil and generous in his attempt to reason with students. It appears that he expected them to behave in an adult manner which one would anticipate coming from intelligent Yale scholars, but he didn't have a chance! They went into a frenzy, feeding upon the excitement and anger of one another, with one student screaming and trying to out-do the guy next to them. Their behavior does not legitimize their claimed cause, it simply indicates to me that they are immature babes throwing a tantrum!

After reading the professor's email, I thought, "What's all the furor about?" The email seemed quite civil and well thought out and did express an alternative view from that of the school's administration outlawing Halloween ethnic costumes but isn't that what education and free debate in an academic venue is all about? Can someone explain to me how this email response to the Administration's edict was so offensive as to challenge the humanity, self-respect or ethnicity of anyone?

If this email by the professors was so volatile as to disturb the group of students to the point of their becoming violently confrontational, then either their skin is far too thin or they are working themselves up into a dramatic frenzy in order to create campus press coverage. Rather than crusading for some noble cause, it appears to me that the student group confronting the professor and trying to shout him down are instead attempting to establish themselves as some sort of social crusaders over a very elusive and unsustainable offense.

I see none of the levels of offenses mentioned by Debbie Kaufman actually reflected in the Professor's email response. If you can point out to me some statement made in it that is racist or proposes that we regress to painted black faces then I will apologize and acknowledge my oversight.

The absurdity of such anger being generated hints that there is more to the story than simply the professors' emails. Perhaps these professors were identified on campus in some other way as being villainous to the ideology of the students; i.e., "right wingers"? Surely this student outrage is not confined to the mere email message written.

Actually, I view this as further support for my proposition written above; the polarization of the "left" and "right" have become so extreme as to disallow any civil and intelligent dialogue. The main mistake of the professors was to make any attempt to meet and dialogue intelligently with these students as though they were speaking to a group of adults.

Scott Shaver said...

I don't think Ms Kaufman researches some of the news she likes to provide running commentary for RB. Shooting from the hip is a good way to blow your fingers off if not careful.

Rex Ray said...

RB,

How did you find the email written by Erika Christakis? I thought it criticized Yale’s email telling the students what NOT to do.

If so, why did her email make the students angry?

RB Kuter said...

Rex Ray: if you go to Wade's post and click on the link following his mention of "Yale professor Erika Christakis" email, it carries you to a Washington Post article about the email the professor wrote and in that Washington Post article is reference to the email written by the professor with a link to the actual email written.

Scott: I hope that Debbie did read the actual email written by the professor prior to commenting or will now do so and point me to comments in the email that might have generated such a hostile response to it. Debbie's comments may be valid points about life in general but I fail to see how they, and the student's outrage, relate to the email message written by the professor which resulted in their ultimate dismissal and apparently, an ugly mark on their reputation.

Scott Shaver said...

The "normal thoughtfulness and sensitivity of most Yale students" is a highly loaded and manipulative statement coming from the administration. Define Yale's idea of "thoughtfulness and sensitivity". Is this a thinly veiled mandate to express no freedom of speech or expression that does not follow Yale's doctrinal views of political correctness and social "justice"? Sounds like a semi-forced collectivism to me.

Wade Burleson said...

Debbie and Rex,

I always appreciate your comments. I have to agree with RB Kuter on this one. The principle being fought for by the professors is one of freedom and liberty. One of these days your Christian faith may hurt someone's feelings. I know you both would never deny your faith because of another person's feelings. Likewise, I believe we all should give freedom to everyone else to believe, speak, and live as they please - even if THEY hurt our feelings. Liberty is about freedom of expression, and I'm only advocating liberty for all people.

Scott Shaver said...

Excellent Dr Burleson. In the words of a famous American from another era,"give me liberty or give me death".

Rex Ray said...

Wade,

You said, “The principle being fought for by the professors is one of freedom and liberty.”

Yes, and everyone has a right to smoke, but that right ends were my nose begins. And the right for students to dress in a manor that would hurt other’s feelings is where Yale’s nose begins.


RB,

Thanks for the tip on how to read the email of Erika Christakis to Yale. I’ve heard it said if you step between two that are fighting, you may get hit from both sides. That seems to have happened with the two professors.

Her email starts: “Nicholas and I have heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the mass email sent to the student body about appropriate Halloween-wear.”

I can see Yale being angry with them for taking up for the students, but why did the students get angry with them over her email?

Maybe it was her writing, “I wonder what is the statute of limitations on dreaming of dressing as Tiana the Frog Princess if you aren’t a black girl from New Orleans?”

Isn’t that saying, ‘If you’re black, it’s OK to dress as the Frog Princess’?

Wikipedia: “The decision to depict the two main characters, Tiana and Naveen, as frogs for the majority of the movie has also caused controversy, with some saying that it is equating people of color to animals.”

Christiane said...

I'm for freedom from being bullied in a society where civility and respect seems to be giving way to something unspeakable. And the 'unspeakable' is being done openly.

Today, 'freedom from' the attacks of others may be the only way of survival for those who do not wish to engage in the same kind of negative behaviors as the bullies . . .

for an example, there is a negative, extremely destructive spirit actively at work among some Christian people . . . Dr. Dwight McKissic noted it with these words:

" there is an underbelly, subterranean, disagreeable, element in SBC life that view the MLK50 as “race baiting,” “cultural Marxism” advocacy; and a “social justice warriors” convocation. Of course, this element views “social justice” and “social Justice warriors” (their terms not mine) as a pejorative, although the Bible addresses justice, repetitively and affirmatively."

Bullying is not the same thing as the biblical 'speaking truth in love', no. So perhaps a new dialogue can be formed to address why it is that any entity in Christian life NEEDS to have a bullying 'underbelly' to do the negative treatment of others that those more respected leaders of an entity personally refrain from for the sake of their reputations only, as I do believe 'using' a bully to do dirty work is a grave sin against the victims, the bullies, AND also the soul of the 'respectable' entity leader who directs the communications with other entities.

Dr. McKissic nailed it in his recent post. He is spot on. And that same 'underbelly' is showing up on many Christian blogs using bullying tactics, misrepresentations, and name-calling put downs to attack their victim(s).

Hopefully, there will come some 'confrontation' of these bullies that gets through the present 'reinforcement' of what they are doing as seen from those who harbor them and hide behind them as they abuse opponents. This situation is getting worse fast. God have mercy.

RB Kuter said...

Rex Ray: Sorry, but I am not familiar with the story or its characters having "Tiana the Frog Princess" so don't know the ethnicity of the princess or anyone else portrayed in it. It seems that the professor in her email is saying in this statement that you quoted something like, "Children can play dress-up, even portraying characters of a different ethnicity than their own and it's okay, pretend, and fun and at what age does it become prohibitive?"

Not sure but I'm guessing that's what was intended. Nevertheless, why would anyone take offense of the professor's email, especially to the frantic and manic level displayed by the unruly students? Doesn't make sense to me.

Christiane said...

A thought for Mr.Shaver, this:

God looks into the 'heart' of a person when judging them. As to 'feelings', we typically think of the repository of our feelings as being referred to as 'the heart' (no, not the physical organ that pumps our blood) . . .

I wouldn't sell 'feelings' short if you have not lived a long, long life, Scott. I do believe when you are older or elderly, you will understand more about the role of 'feelings' and their power in your own life . . .

Seems to me, too many people are being 'taught' that 'feelings' aren't important, but who is doing this, and why? I know an example from a country that demanded absolute obedience to authority and exacted a terrible price to prove it from 'followers', but I will spare you the details, but yes, it involved having the person care lovingly for another being and then commanding them to kill that which they had come to love. By doing so, they 'proved' their complete loyalty to 'the cause'.

So what has influenced your own opinions about the place of 'reason' and 'feelings'. Who are your teachers? And what have they told you about the 'fruit of the Holy Spirit'? I AM concerned about the sources you have been following that disparage the place of 'feelings'.


?

everette said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
everette said...

Political correctness can work both ways. The same people who see nothing wrong with a little blackface would likely be outraged if someone attended a costume party dressed as, say, a red-faced preacher with a demonstrably large wallet and a scantily-clad schoolgirl in tow. After all, it's just a caricature, right?

Similarly, I noticed that a lot of the people who decry "political correctness" are totally OK with the fact that Colin Kaepernick remains unemployed because of how he expressed his feelings. Many of these people get upset when someone doesn't wish them "Merry Christmas," and were outraged when Michelle Obama pointed out, correctly, that the White House was built by slaves owned by the very Founding Fathers that so many American Christians have effectively beatified.

I think that Christians ought to be thicker skinned than this. They should consider that those who mock Christianity most fiercely are often the ones who are most desperately seeking Christ. They should recognize that the only time Jesus ever publicly critiqued the prevailing culture (despite the rampant greed, hedonism, and sexual immorality that prevailed throughout the Roman Empire, including Palestine) was when He criticized his own religious leaders. And they should avoid giving offense except under specific and truly compelling circumstances.

As for the Yale administration, I think that they were well within their bounds to send the warnings. Even if this kind of behavior could have once been dismissed as "childish exuberance", nowadays, the rise of smart phones means that pretty much everything will be in the public record for years. I was a graduate student at the University of Michigan when they canceled the once-famous "Naked Mile" because outsiders had begun uploading photos and videos to the Internet. Similarly, Yale is within its rights to warn students against doing something that, for example, could be held against them when they apply for a job or run for public office long after they've grown out of such foolishness.

Scott Shaver said...

I will be sixty in July. Hardly a spring chicken Christianne. Pastored 20 years in 4 different churches, two degrees from NOBTS. Who are/were your "teachers" and where do you come up with some of this dribble you write?

Scott Shaver said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott Shaver said...

Thank God for an "underbelly" that can see through the hype, misrepresentations and virtue signaling of "leaders" who have lost their moorings.

Christiane said...

As to 'feelings' and 'emotions' and 'reason', I have always understood these characteristics of the human person in the sense of being 'integral' . . . 'working together'as parts of a whole person

I know myself that deep grief for the loss of a beloved family member can affect one's physical health. There is an INTEGRITY to a human person that is a functioning 'whole' where all the characteristics of that person are inter-connected. It is in this 'integrity' that the Holy Spirit is able to tweak the human conscience to alert all of our kind when we are faced with decisions. Our consciences are our guides to do what is good and avoid what is evil. In this way, we are 'guided' but not 'controlled', in that we retain a 'free will' that is also a part of our dignity as a human person and a part of our 'integrity'. When people are 'conflicted', and must make decisions in situations where they are pulled in different directions, this is when the 'integrity' of their humanity is most deeply felt:
they WANT to do what is right in the core of their being, but they struggle to know the way forward and they will seek the guidance of their consciences and they will use their reason and hopefully, they will consult the Church's teachings, and above all, they will PRAY for guidance from the Holy Spirit.. . . . . in the end, a decision that has considered all these areas will be far more in tune with the whole integrity of a human person acting in good faith with good intent. It is the INTEGRITY of the human person that enables him/her to be 'response-able' for his/her decisions.


"Human dignity is secure only when the spiritual, psychological, emotional, and bodily INTEGRITY of the person is respected as a fundamental value."

Christiane said...

Hello Scott Shaver,
thank you for responding . . . I was thinking you were younger, but I do realize that is not the case now that you have shared your personal information about your age. Sorry if I inadvertently offended you.

Life is a great teacher. Experience in living life gives us a wisdom that books cannot impart. That was my thinking, and I hope you will excuse my thoughtlessness in commenting, as I did not wish to insult anyone.

As for that 'underbelly', I fear for them, for their mental and emotional well-being, because I know that over time, the behaviors that they show to others will worsen to the point where harm will come: to their targets, to those who 'used' their negativity, and also they will be harmed. The 'harbored' maliciousness destroys the one who harbors it eventually. Sure, I worry about them. I cannot understand why some Christian leaders 'use' these troubled people to attack those they disagree with. This is a great concern, yes. Particularly when a member of that 'underbelly' has publicly blogged that they are subject to deep depression and they have not been able to find help for their suffering.

Christian leaders need to be aware that 'using' such tormented beings to target 'the others' they see as 'enemies' is NOT wise or compassionate for ANYONE concerned:
it will back-fire on the leaders AND the 'underbelly' individuals these leaders 'used'.
It's a real problem that people cannot avoid examining and confronting in the light of Christ.

Scott Shaver said...

Christianne,with all due respect, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about with this last post. There was nothing "inadvertent" about the condescension in your previous comment. It was intentional and would have come off as condescending even if I was a young sprout of 18 or 19. Your kind of virtue signaling along with the race-baiting and eschewed logic of a handful of other "prominent" clerics makes me thankful for many of the views and perspectives coming from the "underbelly".

Scott Shaver said...

In fact, the older I get the more I've learned to be less influenced by feelings so I can be more receptive to things like truth and actual facts. Feelings over truth and facts is one reason (IMO) why American culture has become so divided and hypersensitive about everything from politics to race, religion, and ethics.

Christiane said...

Hello Scott Shaver,

No problem. My intention was this: that with life experience, wisdom comes . . . although sometimes painfully.

Rex Ray and I are of the same generation (I think he's a bit older) and we disagree on just about everything,
but I applaud his right to speak his mind and express things through his own viewpoint. I can't imagine a world where anyone could deprive him of this right to his own mind and opinions, and he certainly is someone who a gifted writer of stories filled with humor and pathos and the absolute joy of living.

As to yourself, I have not intended to 'insult' you, no. But I have no 'control' over your reaction to what I wrote, and that's okay. You are very much entitled to see what I wrote through your own lens and I am at peace with it, 'cause I know I meant no ill intent towards you.

Scott Shaver said...

Not offended by you Christianne, my skin is a little thicker than that. My point is the hypocrisy of an individual who constantly writes about "vicious attacks", "underbellies","doing no harm in word or deed" while using condescension and broad-brush villifications of Christians with whom you find yourself in disagreement. Likewise, I am "at peace" with responding to your comments as I have.

Scott Shaver said...

To be honest, I wouldn't be offended by the less than flattering caricature of the red-faced preacher. Like all caricatures, it is an exaggerated representation of something that exists in reality

Scott Shaver said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rex Ray said...

Hi, Christiane,

It’s been said, In youth we learn; with age we understand.

I’m 86, and old enough to know better than going down my slide on something equivalent to a bicycle resulting in a fractured back nine months ago.

Hey! I’ll bet for everything we disagree on, I can name two that we agree on. :)

For starters, I like your comments, your search for truth, and your graceful heart.

Anonymous said...

Political Correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners-George Carlin