New research confirms yet again what many Americans already knew: The divide between Left and Right in America is widening even further.
A post entitled “Don’t Bet On The Emergence Of A ‘Religious Left’” from the Public Religion Research Institute’s research director, Daniel Cox, highlights how the American Left is becoming less religious at a much faster rate than the Right.
Cox explains:
Nearly four in 10 (38 percent) liberals are religiously unaffiliated today, more than double the percentage of the 1990s, according to data from the General Social Survey. In part, the liberal mass migration away from religion was a reaction to the rise of the Christian right. Over the last couple decades, conservative Christians have effectively branded religious activism as primarily concerned with upholding a traditional vision of sexual morality and social norms. That conservative religious advocacy contributed to many liberals maintaining an abiding suspicion about the role that institutional religion plays in society and expressing considerable skepticism of organized religion generally. Only 30 percent of liberals report having a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in organized religion. Half say that religion’s impact on society is more harmful than helpful.
Of course, these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt, if one takes seriously the research in Rodney Stark’s 2015 book “The Triumph of Faith.” In the book, Stark – a sociologist at Baylor University – looks at the inherent flaws in a great deal of similar research and how its missed nuances skew the numbers away from a more accurate and detailed understanding of religious belief in the U.S.
But this research does indeed speak to an apparent truth to even the most casual observer: Religion on the Left is dying out. Furthermore, it also suggests that while organized religion on the American Right has also diminished over the past few years, the chasm between the faiths of the two poles of American political life is growing wider.
Even more, the philosophical frameworks in which we debate the issues of the republic are growing more and more different from each other, leading us to effectively talk past each other, not debate, on issues like religious freedom, marriage, abortion, and others.
It’s nearly impossible to deny that the Left is becoming not only less religious, but more anti-religious. A lot of this can be attributed to the fact that liberal churches have been dying for some time while conservative denominations thrive.
This divide is evident most of all in how political coalitions have changed over the years. Cox says “religious liberals who once operated in the center ring may now have to come to terms with working outside the spotlight,” and he appears to be right.
While the Democrat Party and the greater political Left used to have a space for religious progressives, this wiggle room has all but disappeared. One need only look at the remaining handful of pro-life Democrats in Congress or the dramatically altered landscape regarding conscience rights between the 1993 passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and today to get a glimpse of a much larger picture.
The other side of this is where religious conservatives should take the most heed. While the increasingly irreligious Left may be out of political power, at least until 2019, it has cultural cachet in spades. This will naturally prompt a different kind of public engagement paradigm from that seen in past generations – ones that Rod Dreher, Anthony Esolen, and R.R. Reno seek to outline in recent books – the former two of which I am still digesting.
One thing is certain: In the present and future political landscape, culture and community will indeed have to be the new watchwords of political engagement for those who still hold fast to the classical triad of the true, the beautiful, and the good.
One clear implication for both sides of the divide, however, is a need to return to the tenets of our original federal system.
We have never in recent memory been more divided in our worldviews as fellow citizens. Ironically, we have also never in recent memory been so in need of a federal system that allows for different societies in this union to govern themselves while debating issues that affect us in the public square, and we have never been farther from it. In an era of such contrast among fellow citizens, good fences are necessary to good neighbors; it’s high time we mended them. (For more from the author of “America’s House Is Divided Over Faith. What Can We Do About It?” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/person-clinic-cross-religion-54333.jpeg12881936Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-04-23 23:28:342017-04-23 23:28:34America’s House Is Divided Over Faith. What Can We Do About It?
The Christian religious liberty defense group Liberty Counsel sent a demand letter to the Hillsborough County Public Schools on Thursday to protest a lesbian activist teacher who allegedly banned some of her students from wearing Christian jewelry and turned her classroom into an intolerant, pro-LGBTQ propaganda zone.
Lora Jane Riedas, a math teacher at Riverview High School in Tampa, placed LGBT “rainbow” stickers on her students’ notebooks and decorated her classroom with décor that “blatantly promotes a pro-LGBT agenda,” according to the letter from Liberty Counsel attorneys Richard Mast and Mary McAlister to Hillsborough County schools Superintendent Jeff Eakins.
“I need you to take your necklace off,” Riedas allegedly said to one student wearing a cross necklace. The student, Liberty Counsel’s client, asked “Why?” Then Riedas refused to explain, stating “That’s disrespectful; you have to take it off,” according to the demand letter.
“Our client did not want to be disrespectful, so she took it off, but she felt bad because she felt she was being forced to deny her faith,” said the letter. “All of our clients are afraid to openly wear their cross necklaces in [Riedas’] class anymore.”
Riedas has prohibited at least three students from wearing Christian cross necklaces in her classroom, claiming they are “gang symbols,” according to the Liberty Counsel press release. One of the crosses, a tiny crucifix worn by Liberty Counsel’s ninth grade client, is less than an inch long. (Read more from “Lesbian Teacher Bans Cross Jewelry, Plasters Class With LGBT Propaganda” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/cross-1010748_960_720.jpg720960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-04-21 23:58:052017-04-23 02:24:54Lesbian Teacher Bans Cross Jewelry, Plasters Class With LGBT Propaganda
Harvard University is using tuition dollars to tell students that “there are more than two sexes” and that “gender is fluid and changing.” The school is also telling students gender can change daily —sometimes depending on what people choose to wear. If you disagree with those statements, you are promoting “systemic violence.”
The office of BGLTQ Student Life has released a guide promoting delusions instructing students to “fight transphobia” and “get the facts about gender diversity,” Peter Van Voorhis reports for Campus Reform.
The guide, which was distributed to students on campus, declares that “there are more than two sexes” and that “gender is fluid and changing,” adding that someone’s gender identity “can be affirmed and/or expressed in many ways,” and can even “change from day to day.”
Yes, that’s right. As Voorhis reports, “the flyer tells students that ‘for many people—cis and trans—gender expression, identity, and self-understanding can change from day to day,’ noting that gender can be expressed through one’s ‘speech, mannerisms, clothing,’ and more.”
Gender identity can fluctuate daily now?
How are you supposed to write a law that protects against gender or sex discrimination if a person’s “gender identity” can change daily? James Madison might’ve said something important about “mutable” or constantly changing government and “incoherent” laws once.
Pointing out the land of confusion into which the LGBT-rights movement is forcing us to descend could get students into trouble, however.
As the flyer reads, “Transphobic misinformation is a form of systemic violence.” What your kids are being taught, at Harvard University and likely elsewhere, is that traditional understandings of the roles of men and women the distinctions between male and female are “violence.”
If you follow this line of thinking then when, for example, Jesus says in Matthew 19, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” — that’s violence.
Or, in Harvard’s terms, “Fixed binaries and biological essentialism, manifest in gendered language, misgendering someone, and the policing of trans bodies, threaten the lives of trans people.”
Some students are not happy their tuition dollars are being used to deny biological reality to make other students more comfortable with their mental delusions.
Campus Reform reports that several outraged students were upset school funds were used for this campaign, but declined to comment on for fear of “potential repercussions from the school.” One wonders if Harvard’s administration has paused to consider whether they are providing a safe space for students who think that men are men and women are women.
This is the sad state of affairs at colleges and universities. Traditional values are called violent. Mob violence to silence free speech is called justice. The same places that claim to create safe spaces for the liberal students are too dangerous for alternative points of view.
When will enough be enough? (For more from the author of “Harvard: Gender Changes Daily. Disagreement Is Violence” please click HERE)
What is the appropriate punishment for a high school student found on campus in possession of a water gun?
The Autauga County Board of Education, which covers communities near Montgomery, Alabama, decided that a 16-year-old girl with a water gun was in violation of the board’s firearms policy. So Sara Allena “Laney” Nichols received a one-year expulsion.
According to a report in the Montgomery Advertiser, Laney explained that she acquired the water pistol “as a joke” from a male classmate in a school hallway at Prattville High School.
The school’s security cameras captured footage of Laney holding the toy gun, but not of the male student holding it at any time. He received no punishment.
Laney said she put the water pistol in her backpack and then, the same day, on the back seat of her car in the school parking lot. It went unnoticed by the principal and school officials until a classmate reported to the administration a few days later that Laney had a gun.
Prattville High officials, following proper procedures, questioned Laney. She told them that the purported gun was really a water gun and was in her car, parked on school grounds, at that time. Confirming that Laney, in fact, possessed a harmless piece of plastic, school officials successfully cleared the threat.
Laney’s mother, Tara Herring, says her daughter got a 10-day suspension. Herring conceded that the black water pistol may have looked like a real gun at first glance, but is made of plastic and clearly distinguishable the second someone touches it.
That could have been the end of the story, but the school board decided to hand down a one-year expulsion for Laney’s violation of the Parent/Student Code of Conduct, which classifies possession of a weapon as a “major offense” punishable by expulsion.
The board’s Policy Manual prohibits students from possessing firearms on school grounds, including cars parked in the school lot. “Any student who violates this policy shall be expelled for a period of one year,” it says.
The Policy Manual, however, also provides that the superintendent of schools “may modify the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis.” Thus far, Superintendent Spence Agee has declined to comment on the incident, although if he has any common sense, he’ll modify this draconian penalty.
Also at issue is whether Laney’s water pistol even qualifies as a prohibited firearm under school board rules. The Code of Conduct broadly defines a firearm as an object that “is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive charge or by compressed air or by spring action.”
A water gun could fall under this broad definition of a firearm only if water qualifies as a projectile and the plastic toy uses compressed air or a spring mechanism to release it. Surely, the board did not envision a harmless water gun when it adopted its firearm prohibition.
The Policy Manual provides an even stricter definition by adopting the definition of a firearm provided by federal law (18 U.S.C. § 921). Under the statute, a “firearm” is “any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” Notably, not a water gun.
As the New Jersey State Supreme Court once reasoned, the statute is “talking about a real gun capable of discharging a projectile of some sort, not talking about a toy gun, not talking about a water gun, not talking about a plastic gun that can’t fire a projectile” (State v. Gantt (1986).
Laney’s water pistol is not a firearm under the adopted definition of Autauga County schools’ Policy Manual.
Education officials are understandably hypersensitive to threats of guns on campus, but the danger posed by real guns at school should not allow for a gross overreaction that could derail a student’s academic career.
Conflicting standards, overly broad definitions, and vague policies plague the criminal justice system with the possibility of absurd results. The same is happening here.
In this case, Agee should yield to reason, if not compassion, and use his discretion to modify the expulsion or yield to the statutory definition of a firearm to reduce the level of Laney’s offense.
Laney’s family has hired a lawyer and is threatening to sue if the school board does not act to remove the “scarlet letter E” (expulsion) from Laney’s record. It should not take a lawsuit to determine that a water pistol is not a firearm.
A 16-year-old girl deserves more from America’s public education system than a one-year expulsion for possession of a water gun. (For more from the author of “The Insane Punishment a School Gave a Teen Over a Water Gun” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/water-gun-308292_960_720.jpg720960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-04-20 19:43:162017-04-20 19:43:16The Insane Punishment a School Gave a Teen Over a Water Gun
One of the more forgettable comedies of 2011 was Cameron Diaz’s farce, Bad Teacher. It wasn’t actually funny. Its efforts at wild irreverence seemed desperate and strained. The sequence that led me to hit Stop and eject the DVD was this one: Diaz was working against her will as a teacher in a high school. Hung over and apathetic, she over and over again blew off giving a lecture. Instead, she popped in a movie of dubious relevance and left the kids to watch it as she napped.
That didn’t make me chuckle. It made me livid. I’ve had some amazing teachers, and a few really bad ones. I know how important the devoted ones can be. They can change your life. And the rotten ones do grave harm. A highly educated person who’s being paid to pass on his learning to you sends a message. If he takes the material seriously, he teaches you it’s important. If he shrugs and waves it off, young impressionable people get that message too: This topic is so bogus, not even the teacher cares about it.
I still remember with bitterness a cynical high school religion teacher. His blasé, sarcastic attitude toward core Christian doctrines made my teenage blood boil. I learned he later went off to peddle suburban homes. I hope he took them more seriously.
Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark: Bad Teacher
Which brings us to the Catholic Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey, Joseph Tobin. Recently boosted by Pope Francis to cardinal, Tobin will be one of the tiny group voting on who the next pope will be. He leads a flock of millions, in the New York metro area, with a major Catholic university, Seton Hall right in his city. In fact, Seton Hall is one of the small group of Catholic schools which have seen a resurgence of Catholic identity. That depends in large part on Tobin’s good will. Which is really a shame for Seton Hall. Because like Cameron Diaz’s character in the movie, Tobin is a bad teacher.
The role of a bishop is first and foremost as a teacher. His authority in his diocese is similar to the pope’s over the whole church. He’s considered an heir of the apostles. He is meant to do for (let’s say) Newark what St. James did for Jerusalem: serve as the primary evangelist of the faith of Jesus.
On crucial moral issues, Tobin is snoozing through the class. In this he is like far too many bishops around the world. Worst is that that faction of bishops which Pope Francis seems to favor and promote: social justice activists, who go way beyond the church’s actual teaching on political issues in fashion with the left. But on topics that might bother Caesar, or anger elites, they shrug and go back to sleep. Or worse, with a wink and a nod they give aid and comfort to the enemies of our faith.
Gay Activists at the Cathedral
The man who called Tobin’s abuses to our attention is Joseph Sciambra. Once sunk so deep in the homosexual lifestyle that he acted in pornographic films, Sciambra was granted the grace to escape. Now he bares his soul and braves the scorn of angry activists, defending the Gospel’s teaching on chastity and repentance. If I had to name one person alive today whom I expect someday to be canonized a saint, Sciambra would be that man. On his blog, Sciambra reports that Cardinal Tobin is sponsoring the following event:
An LGBT Pilgrimage and Mass to the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, New Jersey. According to a flyer for the event, the Pilgrimage and Mass are taking place: “With the blessings and best wishes of His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Tobin, C.Ss.R., Archbishop of Newark …”
Mass will be offered by Rev. Francis Gargani, C.Ss.R. Gargani frequently offers retreats to LGBT Catholics, one of which was advertised by the gay-affirmative Open Hearts GLBT Ministry located at St. Patrick – St. Anthony Church in Hartford, Connecticut. The Open Hearts group recently read a book which celebrated the “Queer Christ.” According to a description for the retreat:
Through ritual prayer, reflective input sessions, shared discussion, personal time for prayer and quiet, and social gatherings, this retreat offers a special opportunity for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons to celebrate their identity and deepen their experience of community in the living God.
Not a word about chastity or repentance. Sciambra dug deeper and learned about the organizers of the event. They work closely with pro-gay activists who reject Christian moral teaching outright. And Tobin is hosting them at his own cathedral.
Silencing Faithful Priests
But don’t let it be said that Tobin is always asleep at the switch. When it comes to enforcing conformity with liberal politics, his diocese swings into action. As LifeSiteNews reported:
The Archdiocese of Newark says it will crack down on an outspoken pro-life priest after a hit piece on a local news site against him.
On Wednesday, NJ.com published a scathing article about posts made by Father Peter West on his Facebook page.
The article says West “has repeatedly railed against Muslims,” voiced “strong support for the president’s travel ban” and “assailed millennials as ‘snowflakes’,” among other accusations.
The article suggested the priest has violated the Johnson Amendment by being so political on Facebook and worried that West’s “withering attacks … run counter to the statements and philosophies of his own leader, Newark Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin, and his ultimate boss, Pope Francis.”
James Goodness, a spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Newark, told NJ.com that the archdiocese is “concerned about Father West’s comments and actions, and will be addressing them according to the protocols of the Church.”
….
West is … vocally supportive of Catholic moral teaching on his social media. He has 8,494 Facebook followers. More than 200 people have signed a recently-launched petition asking the Archdiocese to condemn the “false, inaccurate” hit piece on him.
West said his posts about radical Islam were made “on what you might say are feminist grounds.”
He said he was troubled by “the fact that they don’t treat women as equals, that one man can have up to four [wives], that a woman is treated as an article of property, that in many of these Muslim countries, they practice female genital mutilation.”
“Eat My Sheep”
Why were gay activists invited to Newark’s cathedral? Why was a faithful New Jersey priest silenced for taking sane stances on social media? Is Tobin catering to social justice leftists while kicking moral conservatives to the curb?
That’s what you call a bad teacher. (For more from the author of “New Jersey Cardinal Welcomes Gay Activists to His Cathedral” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Rainbow_flag_and_blue_skies-1.jpg20003008Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-04-19 20:29:572017-04-19 20:29:57New Jersey Cardinal Welcomes Gay Activists to His Cathedral
It’s getting rather difficult to write headlines and lede paragraphs for these sorts of things, since the same tripe keeps bubbling up over and over from the septic tanks of the American academy.
A college president must profess that freedom of speech is oppressive and objective truth is all a “myth,” according to the demands of an open letter from a group of students at one California college.
It has been over a week since conservative scholar Heather Mac Donald was chased off the campus of Pomona College by the illiberal ilk of the same whiny thugs who mobbed Charles Murray at Middlebury College earlier this year.
“This is not just my loss of free speech,” Mac Donald told Fox and Friends afterwards. “These students are exercising brute force against their fellow students to prevent them from hearing me live.”
A few days prior to the incident, the university’s outgoing president, David Oxtoby, sent an email that reiterated the college’s commitment to “the exercise of free speech and academic freedom.”
Now, with all the trappings of a modern-day witch-burning, a trio of underclassmen graduating in 2019 and 2020, along with some 20-plus signatories, have demanded that Oxtoby formally recant in the form of a revised email “apologizing for the previous patronizing statement, enforcing that Pomona College does not tolerate hate speech and speech that projects violence onto the bodies of its marginalized students and oppressed peoples …”
The letter was first reported by the Claremont Independent, an independent student paper at the Claremont Colleges. According to the outlet’s story on Monday, the signatories have demanded a response by Tuesday, April 18.
But the recant is not enough for Pomona’s heretic hunters; These kids want some scalps. They are demanding that Pomona College and the Claremont system “take action against the Claremont Independent editorial staff for its continual perpetuation of hate speech, anti-Blackness, and intimidation toward students of marginalized backgrounds.”
Such tittles, of course, are all typical battle streamers one should aspire to accrue when writing anything that drifts slightly right of center on a college campus these days.
Most of the eight-paragraph letter remainder reads as a semi-coherent mini-screed articulating what appear to be this month’s most recent intersectionalist shibboleths. For those of you who may not be familiar with the latest liberty-hating campus fad-philosophy, Andrew Sullivan has a worthwhile synopsis at New York Magazine.
“On the surface, it’s a recent neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity — such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. — but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power,” he explains. “It is operating, in Orwell’s words, as a ‘smelly little orthodoxy,’ and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion,” the enforcement of which is reminiscent of New England Puritanism.
But it gets better. As if the entire exercise were not rich enough, the authors of intersectional bull then turn their attention to the concept of truth.
“Your statement contains unnuanced views surrounding the academy and a belief in searching for some venerated truth,” the letter continues.
“Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity, and wielded a dichotomy of ‘subjectivity vs. objectivity’ as a means of silencing oppressed peoples. The idea that there is a single truth–’the Truth’–is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain. This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny.”
One wonders how often the professors who indoctrinated these kids have asked them to cite their sources. I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same Enlightenment, because it sounds like they have a philosophical movement focused on human liberty and empirical truth confused with a weird racist version of Marvel Comics’ Luke Cage.
There are two great ironies here. The first one is that those doing this disparaging of the concept of a universal truth as being “deeply rooted in the Enlightenment” don’t realize how being free to pursue that truth without coercion is itself an Enlightenment principle, or that the rejection of this liberty is typically what leads to real oppression. [See: Fascism, Stalinism, Maoism, Sharia supremacism, etc.] If freedom hurts your feelings, I don’t really know where else to send you, since you clearly also can’t handle true oppression.
The concept of an objective truth isn’t rooted in one philosophical movement; Rather, philosophy itself is rooted in the search for truth, which is rooted in human nature. The difference between those who believe in ‘oppressive’ Enlightenment concepts like free speech and those who don’t is that the former are far more likely to engage in debate than brute-force tactics and toddler-esque demands.
The second irony here is that the letter goes on to espouse a metanarrative of history right after disparaging the concept of objective truth altogether. That’s a flag on the play. You don’t get to call a narrative absurd — or have the audacity to make someone recant their beliefs — when just a moment before you removed the framework that lets you claim one set of beliefs is greater than another. A freshman logic class should remedy this.
Claims like these are best met with philosopher Roger Scruton’s famous quip: “A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.” (For more from the author of “If Freedom Hurts Your Feelings, College Crybabies, Watch out for This Truth Grenade” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/F1_grenade_travmatik_com_02_by-sa.jpg8001200Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-04-18 17:09:432017-04-18 17:20:16If Freedom Hurts Your Feelings, College Crybabies, Watch out for This Truth Grenade
The nationwide search is over for Steve Stephens, the man who police said killed Robert Godwin, Sr. and posted a video of the crime on Facebook. After a brief pursuit Tuesday by Pennsylvania State Police, Stephens shot and killed himself. His death comes less than a day after Godwin’s children offered a remarkable testament of forgiveness and love to the man accused of killing their father.
“I just want him to know that God loves him,” Godwin’s daughter Tonya Godwin-Baines told CNN. “We love him. Yes, we’re hurt, but we have to forgive him because if we don’t forgive him, the Bible says your Heavenly Father won’t forgive you.”
He Lived What He Taught
Robert Godwin, Sr., 74, lived what he taught, his children said. “The one thing I would take away the most from my father is he taught us about God,” said Godwin-Baines. “How to fear God. How to love God. And how to forgive. Each one of us forgives the killer. The murderer.” “We want to wrap our arms around him,” she added.
“My dad would be really proud of us, and he would want this from us, and he would say, ‘Tonya, forgive him, because they know not what they do.’”
But even through the horror and hurt, Godwin wanted her father’s killer to know that God loves him. “I just would want him to know that even in his worst state, he’s loved, you know, by God, that God loves him, even in the bad stuff that he did to my dad. And that he has some worth while, even though he’s gonna have to go through many things to get better, there’s worth in him.”
She added, “As long as there’s life in him, there is hope for him too. I do believe that.”
Godwin said that the killer was a “sick individual,” but she held no hard feelings toward him because she knows God. “If I didn’t know Him as my God and my Savior, I could not forgive that man. And I feel no animosity against him at all. Actually, I feel sadness for him. I do.”
Godwin-Baines spoke to the killer directly in an interview with FoxNews. “To the young man who murdered my daddy, I ask that you please surrender. I forgive you, and love you but most importantly, God loves you. God can heal your mind and save your soul. PLEASE!”
Pennsylvania State Police posted on Twitter Tuesday morning that Stephens had committed suicide after a brief chase. Although Stephens had boasted on Facebook about having committed a dozen murders, no other victims have been found and Cleveland officials said Stephens had no prior criminal record.
(For more from the author of “Children of Murdered Man Extended Forgiveness to Father’s Killer Hours before His Suicide” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Desperate-Sad-Mourning-Tears-Woman-Depression-Cry-1006102.jpg541960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-04-18 16:54:372017-04-18 16:54:37Children of Murdered Man Extended Forgiveness to Father’s Killer Hours before His Suicide
In early March Thomas J. Brenner broke the story: “Hundreds of Marines investigated for sharing photos of naked colleagues.” In a force of more 181,000 Marines, the number of participants is miniscule: .0046%. Yet feminists are pushing a damaging false narrative: that this crass behavior is typical of male Marines. In fact, such disgraceful actions run contrary to standards of conduct and leadership that we Marines learn from boot camp on.
There’s more. It turns out that this scandal includes every military branch. But only the Marines are being singled out in the media. Why? Maybe because the other services didn’t protest integrating women into their combat units. We did.
Outraged feminists don’t care so much about victimized women as they do about compliance. Sign on to their “gender-free” vision or pay the price. Now they’re using the scandal as a battering ram. The prize? Their long-standing goal of integrating boot camp and tripling the number of women in the ranks of the Marines.
Sexualized Society
First, the obvious. Sharing other people’s private photos and posting ugly commentary is shameful. Participants should be penalized. But 99.9954 percent of Marines, most of them male, did not and would not behave this way. They are the rule. The offenders are the exception.
The photos have various sources. In one of the worst cases, a female Marine’s photo was taken (fully clothed in uniform) without her consent. Then someone shared it, along with her personal info, and obscene commentary. The male responsible had already been kicked out of the Corps by the time this scandal even went public.
By contrast, most of the other photos in this case were uploaded and shared by women themselves on social media. Then a few men copied and re-shared them. In other cases women shared private photos by phone with boyfriends who later exploited them. “Sexting” is now prevalent from the halls of Congress (thank you Anthony Weiner) to our college campuses. So are “sexy selfies.” Leftists have pushed for the military to look just like society. Congratulations. Now it does. The scandal is a gross symptom of our highly sexualized society in the digital age. It’s not a reflection of accepted Marine behavior. Maybe it’s also a distorted reaction to our modern culture’s lie: that the sexes are the same, so women are interchangeable with men.
Codes of Conduct
The military long had the latitude to punish abuses like the photo scandal under the category of conduct unbecoming. Or at least it used to. Standards of conduct are long gone now. Social engineers want the military is to be just as sexually liberated and expressive as the rest of society. As the Center for Military Readiness points out:
Section 654, Title 10, the 1993 law that the Senate repealed in the 2010 lame duck session, used to recognize that the military is a “specialized society” with unique requirements that are: “characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, which would not be acceptable in civilian society.”
In other words we stopped holding our military to more stringent standards than civilians. So where is “the line” now? We’ve torn down the old, higher standards of conduct — which once protected women. Yesterday this case would have been open and shut. Today it is not. The military is no longer allowed to be a “specialized society” requiring higher ethics of its members. Military women now must shower with transgender men-in-transition. They must share tents with men in the field. That is not an invasion of privacy. But posting a photo your ex-girlfriend shared with you is? The new “standard” is arbitrary.
While sharing private photos was certainly conduct unbecoming, here’s a newsflash: so is taking nude or pornographic photos of yourself and sharing them. But we’re recruiting from Generation Sexy Selfie. Women are degrading themselves energetically without any help from men. The Russians now have a trove of the racy photos, but they didn’t have to hack to get them. They can go to sites like Instagram’s “Curves ‘n Combat Boots.” There military ladies post shots of themselves in side-by-sides in uniform and out, clothing optional.
3rd-Wave Feminism Manifest
For several decades now, feminists have encouraged women to be open and free with their sexuality. We have sexy selfies, annual “slut week” on college campuses and vagina costumes to show for it. (And more unplanned pregnancy than ever.) But such behavior doesn’t empower women. It just encourages them to degrade themselves. Then when that doesn’t make them happy either, they learn to blame it on men. Feminist dogma doesn’t protect or empower young women. It just gives them a megaphone after they’ve been victimized.
Feminists forbid the tools of self-protection that could prevent abuses. Modesty, self-respect and collective social mores used to protect young women from men who are exploitative. But now we’re not allowed to give out obvious advice, like: Sexy selfies can’t be misused if you don’t take them and share them. And: If you don’t want to be considered a sexual object, first don’t objectify yourself. Advising abstinence is totally out of the question. That’s retrograde and sexually repressive. Such life advice is being skewered as “accepting the masculinist culture.”
In 2014, Miss USA Nia Sanchez was asked what young women could do to fight sexual assault. Her answer (as a fourth degree black belt) was that they should learn martial arts to better protect and defend themselves. For such common-sense advice she received a huge backlash from feminists. They claimed that she was victim-blaming. Similar backlash is frequent against those advocating gun ownership for women. Women shouldn’t have to protect themselves. Bad men should just … stop being bad. But that no more equips women for the dangers they may face than trusting criminals to follow gun laws. There will always be criminals and leftist regulations are notoriously inept at stopping them.
Young military women are being pushed into a minefield of close-quarters personal contact with men in their sexual prime. Rank structure and intense combat training further complicate things. But we’ve stripped women of the age-old tools that could help them navigate it. Instead they’re convinced to depend on government bureaucracy to protect them. Big Brother will punish forbidden speech. It will force men to treat them equally. Pass enough policies, and suddenly it will be problem-free for 20-year-old women and men to share tents in the field. Fighting attackers is presumably what these women will be doing in combat units. But instead of teaching them to protect themselves proactively, we’re urging them to use their voices to resist the “patriarchy.” That won’t help in the field against ISIS.
Oft-Used Tactics
Back in the 1990s Senator Pat Schroeder used the Tailhook scandal to push combat pilot jobs for women. The Navy’s annual celebration was notoriously debauched with men and women participating equally, until sexual assault occurred. The year of the scandal two women were assaulted but the number was grossly exaggerated. A witch hunt ensued for the sake of the same “masculinist culture” purge. Thousands were punished for the actions of a few — even men who weren’t there and had nothing to do with the event. Schroeder said opening the pilot jobs would stop scandals like Tailhook and give women the respect they deserve. The fact that it didn’t work just means there’s (perpetually) more work to be done.
More recently, a 2013 exposé claimed to have discovered 26,000 military sexual assaults in the previous year. Feminists used that study to … open ground combat units to women. When the public heard the astronomical number, the outcry was naturally immediate. The actual number of sexual assaults that year, however was only 3,374. The researchers got the much higher number by inferring it, via a ratio, across the military population. To get those numbers, they included everything from actual rape to “unwanted contact,” and again inferred many unreported cases. The total also included assaults that had occurred before the victim was even serving in the military, a Pentagon practice since 2008 in its annual reporting.
Inflating the numbers didn’t help the victims, nor did it prevent future crimes. The rate of sexual assaults had actually increased some five percent by 2016. Advocates for coed combat units used this baseless narrative: Women are assaulted more when they are barred from the toughest units. So the cure is to have more women in all military jobs. The public outcry simply provided a tool to push for their desired policy. With more women than ever in the military, we’re still waiting for rates of assault to drop. Instead they keep climbing.
Now in 2017, the Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Robert Neller was contrite before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand derided him for letting such behavior “fester” and not doing enough to eradicate “sexual violence” in the force. He had already condemned it in no uncertain terms as antithetical to Marine Corps standards and ethos. The investigation is ongoing and dozens have been punished so far. He has encouraged victims to come forward so that perps can be held accountable. (They can report to other women in the ranks if they prefer.) He demanded support for victims, forbade retaliation against them, and reformed social media policy to include criminal action for cyberbullying. As during Tailhook, common-sense changes and punishing the few participants will not be nearly enough for Gillibrand and her radical cadre.
Marines Are Punished for Wanting All-Male Combat Units
This is all about punishing the Marines for their original sin: Requesting that their combat units remain all-male. It was backed by mountains of peer-reviewed scientific data and common sense for effective warfighting. Even so, the Marines must atone. They must meet feminist demands by integrating Marine Corps boot camp and nearly tripling the number of females in the ranks. Those demanding this even say separate boot camps are the reason for all this misogyny.
Forget the fact that separate boot camps have produced superior Marines with much less distraction and bad conduct than coed boot camps. The Air Force and the Army have both had boot camp sex and rape scandals. Forget the fact that other branches have more women because they’re far less physically demanding. Opposition to integrating the combat arms is now being redefined as misogyny itself. It’s a bully’s tactic to achieve compliance without complaint.
Gen. Neller hasn’t defended the vast majority of Marines who are not part of this scandal, but I will. I served with great guys and came out of the Marines and deployment to Iraq unscathed. Thousands of other women across the military had the same experience. I never had reason to worry that a naked picture of me would end up with jeers online because there are none. I never worried that I’d regret last night’s debauchery with my Marine brothers because there was none. I followed a straightforward formula of maintaining boundaries, not flirting and not getting drunk with the guys socially. It was amazingly effective. I enjoyed the respect of my peers and a great enlistment. Such habits won’t prevent every instance of assault, but they go a long, long way to avoiding them. But we can no longer teach such mores without silly accusations of victim-blaming. And we are now pursuing policies that put women at greater risk in our military.
If there’s a culture of misogyny, then feminist ideology is the culprit. It fails young women and fails to reduce men’s abuse of them. Throwing more women at the problem won’t solve it. To think so is the definition of insanity: repeating what has been done before and expecting different results. Feminists won’t be accountable for their policy and ideological failures. They’ll just blame them on men. (For more from the author of “Feminists, Media Lay Undue Blame on Marines for Photo Scandal” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/Seal_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps.svg_.png20232000Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-04-18 16:49:052017-04-18 17:21:53Feminists, Media Lay Undue Blame on Marines for Photo Scandal
Already, the working mother of three has been called “anti-feminist.” Writing for TIME Monday, Komisar says she’s a feminist, but “child-centric.”
“I strongly believe that women and men should have equal opportunities and choices,” Komisar writes. “I also believe that both women and men, whether they work or not, should put their children first in every way.”
Rising Levels of Anxiety and Depression
Komisar’s insights come from working as a psychoanalyst, social worker and parent guidance expert for over 25 years.
“In my practice I was seeing an epidemic level of children with emotional problems related to the absence of mothers,” she told Fox News. The emotional problems appeared in one in five kids and included anxiety, depression, aggression and ADHD. A child’s chance for such problems increase when their mother returns to work after a short maternity leave, Komisar said.
But not all women can afford to stay home for three years after their child is born. This is something Komisar understands.
It’s not about working or not working, she said of Being There. “It’s a book about prioritizing your children to the best of your ability in the first three years.”
“The first three years are what we call the critical period of brain development,” she said. “By three years old 85 percent of your right brain, or social-emotional brain, is developed.”
She also noted that “you can be there physically, but not emotionally … Being emotionally present means putting away your distractions.”
Pressured to Prioritize Work
But many women feel pressured to prioritize work over children.
Last month Australian columnist Sarrah Le Marquand suggested it be illegal for moms to stay home. The Atlantic published a series last year exploring in part the struggle working mothers face in deciding what to prioritize. Women like Sheryl Sandberg continue to push hard for women to run half of the world’s companies, viewing anything short of the 50/50 goal as a sign of sexism. This is despite the fact that millennials embrace a more traditional family structure. The Washington Post also reported married mothers’ participation in the labor force hasn’t grown since the 90s.
“I dream of a society where women aren’t asked to put their careers before all else at the risk of stunting their own potential,” Komisar writes.
She is glad that today’s women have more choices to pursue careers than previous generations. “But having choices means not that we should, but that we can, if we want to.”
“You may never become a chief executive if you choose to make your family your first priority, and that’s a loss,” she writes. “But sacrificing the chance to create a close relationship with your children is a loss, too.”
Moms and Dad: Both Important, but Different
Komisar told Fox News that while both moms and dads are critical to nurturing their children, “they’re not exactly the same.”
That’s because men and women react differently to oxytocin. Oxytocin is the “love hormone” the brain releases when caring for one’s children.
“For women it makes them more empathic and sensitive nurturers,” she said. “For men it makes them more playful, and it makes them encourage their children to be resilient.”
“Life is long, and you have many, many years to work and be ambitious and make money,” Komisar told Fox News. “You only have a few years to have that great influence on your children.” (For more from the author of “Parenting Coach Urges Mothers to ‘Prioritize’ Children in New Book” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/mother-1245764_960_720.jpg639960Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-04-17 22:18:382017-04-17 22:18:38Parenting Coach Urges Mothers to ‘Prioritize’ Children in New Book
Bill Nye may not be a scientist. But he used to play one on TV. Now he is an honorary co-chair and speaker for the “March for Science” in Washington D.C. and elsewhere on April 22.
The choice of Nye as one of the faces of the March is revealing. March organizers have paid lip service to critical thinking and “diverse perspectives” in science. However, Nye is a good example of someone who promotes science as a close-minded ideology, not an open search for truth.
He attacks those who disagree with him on climate change or evolution as science “deniers.” He wouldn’t even rule out criminal prosecution as a tool. Asked last year whether he supported efforts to jail climate skeptics as war criminals, he replied: “Well, we’ll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail the guys from ENRON?”
Real science encourages debate. It doesn’t insist that scientists march in lockstep. Or that they speak with one voice. In fact, scientists disagree on far more issues than the March organizers admit.
Models Vs. Evidence
Take global warming. Many marchers will wear their belief in climate change on their sleeves. On their signs, too. They, like Nye and others who claim to speak for science, equate belief in man-made climate disaster with science itself. If you disagree, you’re “anti-science.”
Yet there are strong reasons to doubt the so-called “consensus” on warming. But the popular media rarely cite them.
From 1890 to 1990, records show only a .45 degree C rise in global temperature as measured from near-surface thermometers around the Earth. Yet about 75 percent of the increase occurred before World War II, while most of the increase in human produced greenhouse gases occurred after World War II. So, human industrial activity doesn’t really correlate with the main effect of interest. Meanwhile, after a few warmer than usual years in the early 1990s, global temperatures have flat-lined. They show no net increase over the last two decades.
Most warmists’ models have predicted steep rises. But these models don’t match the real global temperatures collected after the fact. So why believe the dire predictions that those same models make about future temperatures before the fact?
Bill Nye, Al Gore, and former President Obama have said we must accept what “the scientists” say. To listen to the skeptics would be to reject “settled science.” But skeptics of extreme warming include many top scientists: physicists, biologists, earth and atmospheric scientists like Richard Lindzen (MIT), Freeman Dyson and William Happer (Princeton), Roy Spencer (University of Alabama, formerly NASA), John Christy (Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama), and Matt Ridley (DPhil, Oxford). How strong can the “consensus” be if such stars of science question the idea?
What About Neo-Darwinism?
But let’s say widespread agreement did exist on the question. Has such an agreement served as an error-free guide to truth in the past? The history of science says no.
Here’s another scientific issue to ponder. Nye claims the evidence for evolution is “Undeniable.” That’s how he put it in the title of his recent book. By “evolution” he means textbook neo-Darwinism. So the case for evolution is “undeniable”? In truth, many leading scientists, including evolutionary biologists, reject neo-Darwinism. Many biologists now doubt the creative power of random mutation with natural selection. But that is the core idea of the theory.
This past November I attended a conference of the prestigious Royal Society of London. The meeting was called to address this problem. Speaking first, biologist Gerd Müller listed the “explanatory deficits” of neo-Darwinism. He said those include its failure to explain the “origin of biological complexity” and the origin of major morphological “novelties.” It also doesn’t predict their abrupt appearance in the fossil record.
Other biologists echo his concerns. They argue that mutation and selection can account for “the survival, but not the arrival of the fittest.” That is, minor, but not major, changes in the history of life.
I say more on this in my book Darwin’s Doubt. For instance, neo-Darwinism fails to explain the origin of the new genetic information needed to build new forms of life.
Our own experience with computer code helps to explain why. Random changes to the digital characters in a section of functioning software code will degrade the information in a program and destroy its function. That will happen long before those changes can generate a new program or operating system. Yet, neo-Darwinists invoke just such random changes to the characters in the genetic text to explain where new genetic information comes from. Mathematicians who know biology say “not a chance.”
What Do You Mean By “Evolution”?
In any case, the textbook examples of natural selection and random mutations do not involve creating new genetic information. Many biology texts tell about the famous finches in the Galápagos Islands whose beaks have waxed and waned in shape and length over time. These books also recall how moths in England got darker and lighter as levels of industrial pollution changed. Darwinists present such cases as knockdown evidence for evolution. But that depends on what you mean by “evolution.”
That term has many meanings. “Evolution” can refer to anything from minor change within the limits of a gene pool to the creation of wholly new genetic information and structures.
Yet, as a host of biologists have argued in recent papers, small-scale “micro-evolutionary” changes can’t explain large-scale “macro-evolution.” Mostly, micro-evolution (such as changes in color or shape) just uses pre-existing genetic information. But the large changes needed to build new organs or whole body plans need entirely new sources of information. This explains the growing doubts about the power of natural selection and random mutation.
It also explains why many biologists are seeking new theories of evolution. As yet, though, nothing like a consensus is emerging.
March for Conformist Science
Don’t expect Nye or the others “marching for science” to breath a word about any of this. And that’s a shame. A real “March for Science” would celebrate scientific puzzles, disagreements, and competing ideas rather than fear them.
Just ask Italian philosopher of science Marcello Pera. In his book The Discourses of Science, he writes that science advances as scientists argue about how to interpret the evidence. They can only do that, though, if they are free to challenge established ideas and advance new ones.
Those who truly want to support science should defend the right of all scientists — including dissenters — to express their views. Those who stigmatize dissent do not protect science from its enemies. Instead, they subvert the process of scientific discovery they claim to revere. (For more from the author of “Bill Nye: The Perfect Talking Head for a March against Science” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/1024px-Bill_Nye.jpg6831024Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2017-04-16 23:06:052017-04-16 23:06:05Bill Nye: The Perfect Talking Head for a March against Science
