Josh Benner

Category: Politics

  • Equality vs. Equity: Kamala sells impossible vision in ad


    Vice presidential candidate (and possible president, if the ticket wins), Kamala Harris shared an ad on her social media sites this weekend talking about equality vs equity.

     
    It’s a 50 second spot narrated by Harris which begins: “so there’s a big difference between equality and equity. Equality suggests how everyone should get the same amount. The problem with that, not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So if we’re all getting the same amount, but you started back there and I started out over here – we could get the same amount, but you’re still going to be that far back behind me. It’s about giving people the resources and the support they need, so that everyone can be on equal footing and then compete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.” 


    It’s the last sentence of that ad that’s especially noteworthy. “Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place?”

    I realize it’s a campaign ad. It’s pandering. 

    But really consider the logic of what she’s saying. The government cannot guarantee we all get to the same place because of the uniqueness of people. And the only way to even attempt to make such a thing happen would be for the government to control every aspect of life: education, industries, wages. 

    But even if that happened, we can’t all get to the same place. Because we’re different. Some people have better parents than others. You can’t guarantee equity in upbringing. Some people are more attractive than others, which attracts other attractive people. So you can’t guarantee equity in relationships and marriage. We don’t have equal genetics. Some of us are more prone to diseases or obesity. People have different skills, different interests. 

    Someone might say, “but it’s a great vision!” 

    No it isn’t. 

    She’s selling people an idea that the government should take care of every aspect of their lives. That isn’t a great thing for people. It’s dehumanizing. Because the ability to succeed, to take risks, to fail, to learn from failure and overcome adversity is part of what makes us human. Not some utopian vision of everyone having the same results in life. 

    It’s also hypocritical. She’s saying we should all get to the same place. Well she’s a vote away from being the vice president. She has the best healthcare a person can have. She has a big staff that tends to her. She has secret service protection.

    Reminds me of Orwell’s famous line from “Animal Farm” “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” 

    Thanks for reading! If you liked, please share :)

  • Research says white Christians have become less motivated to address racial injustice

    Research says white Christians have become less motivated to address racial injustice

    I saw an interesting article from Barna Research a few weeks ago titled “White Christians have become even less motivated to address racial injustice.”

    From the article:
    “One might assume that the events of 2020 have increased awareness of racial injustice in the United States and motivation to address it. But the story isn’t so straightforward, new Barna research (conducted in partnership with Dynata) suggests. Yes, there are signs the past year has clarified how Americans think about racial injustice—but that doesn’t mean they see the issue, or their role within it, with greater urgency. In the Church especially, there is a sense that people are doubling down on divides.”

    The article looks at a couple of data points. They polled different racial groups with the question “do you think our country has a race problem?” Across all respondents, 46% affirmed the statement, slightly higher than 43% of self-professing Christians. When broken down by race, 33% of white professing Christians affirmed that statement (a 7% drop from the same survey a year before).

    In another survey question, Barna asked self-professing Christians “how motivated are you to address racial injustice in our society.” In the survey, the number of white Christians who felt “not at all motivated” to address current issues doubled in the past year from 11% to 22% (compared to 3% of African American responders).

    I distinctly remember earlier in the summer when there were people who refused to call out the rioting and looting. In fact, there were those who justified it. People talked about this as a response to injustice because of all of the hurt and pain. There were people who wanted to compare the protests to the Boston Tea Party. We needed to tear down statues of Abraham Lincoln and Christopher Columbus. We needed to

    But all of this was counterproductive. Violence does not engender public sympathy. It turns people away. That’s why people are less likely to talk about these issues. Because Americans have seen months of looting, fires and destruction in major cities. We’ve seen dramatic increases in crime and murder rates in major cities. We’ve seen story after story of black children being killed in the crossfire of inner city violence without groups like BLM ever protesting those deaths. We’ve seen roughly a billion dollars in property damages this summer.

    Whose lives have all of this violence and destruction helped? Who has this advanced? Who has this empowered?

    We’ve seen a rise in police officers being shot.

    Americans have been lectured all summer from the media, from sports, from Hollywood, from music, from our education systems about how racist we all are.

    So yes, its’ not a shock that some people are less likely to address these issues given the destruction that has come forth from the radical movements who are beating the drums the loudest. And this is a point which many thoughtful people have brought up which is that this summer is creating greater racial divides not helping to heal racial divides.

    I believe the these poll numbers will continue to trend in that direction.

    We’ve seen calls to defund police in democrat controlled cities. Meanwhile, all of these efforts disproportionately harm inner cities and disproportionately harm black communities. All of this works against public support. We see increases in violence and destruction. There have been young black children all over the country who have been killed in the cross-fire of inner city violence, without a word from BLM. And I think a lot of people feel like black communities are being used as political pawns to advance an agenda.

    As far as why many Christians are less likely to discuss these matters, I think there’s also the concern that the movement is ultimately supporting an ideology which is contrary to the world view of Christianity and find it unsavory and difficult to support. Critical race theory, which is the overarching ideology behind much of the current racial discussion in our culture, is popular on the political left. Modern liberalism and socialistic policies are influenced by Marxist thought, while religious people tend to be more conservative (not exclusively, but religious people are more likely to be conservative than liberal). So what we are left with is a discussion that is controlled by the left and where religious peel on the right have several areas of disagreement. All that to say: it’s not at all surprising that white Christians are less likely to talk about racial injustice.

    Is it because we’re all racist or prejudiced? The cultural Marists would say yes. Which feeds into this vicious cycle of diminishing interest in discussing these matters. Interest will continue to wane in the face of radicalism.

    Thanks for reading! Make sure to like, comment, and subscribe!

  • Amy Coney Barrett and the anti-religion of the left

    Amy Coney Barrett and the anti-religion of the left

    This weekend, President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Coney Barrett is a judge on the 7th circuit court of appeals in Chicago, a law professor at Notre Dame, and a former clerk for former justice Antonin Scalia. She’s also a mother of seven and a devout Catholic and her faith has come into question in regards to her potential SCOTUS rulings.

    This isn’t new for Coney Barrett. During her senate hearings to be on the 7th circuit court in 2017, several democrat senators questioned her faith. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked Coney Barrett if she considered herself an “Orthodox Catholic.” Diana Feinstein (D-CA) stated “Whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”

    Her Catholic faith is already coming into question again as her October confirmation hearings rapidly approach. Numerous articles have been written about Coney Barrett’s affiliation with an ecumenical, Charismatic Movement called People of Praise which drew comparisons to the Handmaid’s Tale. On MSNBC, they made it a point to reference the group in a graphic during her nomination. ABC incorrectly claimed that People of Praise inspired the Handmaid’s Tale novel (now TV series). The Guardian wrote about the “authoritarian structure” of People of Praise. And there have been other attacks. And there will be more.

    But it’s interesting.

    Joe Biden is a “practicing Catholic,” as we’re told. He’s spoken many times about his faith. So is House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Once upon a time, Nancy Pelosi who once talked about her faith and said “My favorite word is the word, is the word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the word. We have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the word.”

    Major political players who talk about their faith. And the vast majority of democrats in American politics claim a religious affiliation. But it’s Amy Coney Barrett who’s faith must seriously come into question. And the reason for that is because, unlike many of the democrats in congress, she lives it out. Someone who actually has sincere religious convictions terrifies the liberal elites. Because Christian ethics and teachings go against so much of the platform of the DNC.

    My point is not to judge the faith of Biden or Pelosi or anyone else in politics. But I will question the actions of leaders who support things which are totally contrary to the teachings of their faith.

    Thanks for reading! Make sure to like, comment, and subscribe!

  • Megachurches, televangelists among churches who received loan money

    Megachurches, televangelists among churches who received loan money

    American Catholic Churches received roughly $1.4 billion dollars in government bailout money as part of . Megachurches like Chicago’s Willow Creek and Harvest Bible Chapel, First Baptist Church of Dallas, and Life.church from Oklahoma all received millions of dollars. Televangelists like Joyce Meyer, Jim Bakker, and Jimmy Swaggart also received federal money.

    Theologically, I have issues with churches taking federal loans for several reasons. It sets a bad precedent. I don’t think a church should depend on federal money to operate. Yes, this is an extreme situation and all sorts of private businesses also received loan money to help protect employees. Churches should have some money already in savings for an emergency situation. Also, people were still able to financially give money to their churches during the pandemic. But this is also the fault of the government for making loan money available to churches. Of course there would be churches who would take the money.

    Over 10,000 churches and religious organizations received funds in the paycheck protection program.

    Some of the Catholic dioceses who are receiving money had previously had to pay out settlements in the wake of sexual abuse scandals. Churches like Willow Creek and Harvest have both been rocked by scandals as Willow’s pastor stepped down amid sexual misconduct allegations in 2018 and Harvest fired their pastor in 2019 in the wake of vitriolic comments coming to light when he was already on leave due to various allegations of ministerial abuses. For those churches, it strikes me similarly to bankrupt states wanting federal bailouts for issues that existed long before covid.

    For televangelists who received money, many of them live lavishly. Jim Bakker who went to prison for fraud associated with his ministry in the 1980s was sued earlier during the Coronavirus outbreak for selling a bogus “cure” for the disease. His church took hundreds of thousands in loan money. Televangelist Joyce Meyer is worth millions of dollars and her ministry reported having $12 million at the end of last year but received between $5-10 million in the federal loan. Again, I blame the government for giving that money just as much as I blame these huge ministries for receiving it.

    Yes, it should be understood that the vast majority of churches who received money are not megachurches and do not have scandals. I have no doubt that some really were in need of help.

    But I also feel like this undermines the spiritual issues of churches and funding. If a church cannot afford to operate, either their members are not supporting the ministry of the church, which is an issue a church needs to address; or it means that a church is trying to do too many things. But the answer should not be federal loan programs, pandemic or not.

    Thanks for reading! Please like, comment, share, and subscribe.

  • Writer calls some depictions of Jesus racist and calls for their destruction

    It was only a matter of time. Activist and writer Shaun King has taken aim at images and sculptures which depict Jesus as white. 

    On Twitter, King said: 

    Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down. They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been. In the Bible, when the family of Jesus wanted to hide, and blend in, guess where they went?EGYPT!
    Not Denmark.
    Tear them down.

    There are a few issues with that. For starters, in Matthew 2, when Joseph and Mary take the newborn Jesus from Bethlehem to Egypt, it was not because they would “blend in.” They left their territory to go outside the jurisdiction and influence of Herod, so he’s wrong on that front. 

    King is also making the absurd argument that art which depicts Jesus as white is ALWAYS an example of white supremacy. 

    The roots of Christian art go back a long way. There are artistic depictions of Jesus which go back to the early centuries of the church. Hundreds of years. 

    And across cultures, throughout the centuries, people have often depicted Jesus as looking like them. European art depicted a European Jesus, Japanese Christian art depicted a Japanese Jesus, Ethiopian Christian art depicted an Ethiopian Jesus. 

    King assumes the worst and calls it an example of white supremacy. Isn’t it possible that you have centuries of artists who had no idea what Jesus looked like, who didn’t have the internet, or TV, or photos and who didn’t always necessarily know what an Israelite would have looked like and that the artist just painted what they knew? That strikes me as the more reasonable conclusion. And artists in earlier generations influenced the artists of later generations. King says that depicting Jesus as white has always been an example of white supremacy.

    Are other cultures also being cultural supremacists when they depict Jesus within their own cultural context? 

    Who is King to assume the motives of centuries of artists? 

    King later doubled down on that Tweet: 
    Yes. All murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends should also come down. They are a gross form white supremacy. Created as tools of oppression. Racist propaganda. They should all come down.


    Is the key to a better and more tolerant world to tear down the past and destroy art? To erase history? In the last few weeks, too many people are becoming too accepting of censorship as if that’s going to bring us to utopia. Should we also burn books, Shaun? 

    I’m not disputing that a European looking Jesus is historically inaccurate. And over the years, I’ve become more and more uncomfortable with artistic depictions of Jesus in any format. But that doesn’t mean the mob should be able to dictate what churches and museums can depict. 

    King has made a mockery of himself with this ridiculous argument. 

    Thanks for reading! I welcome your comments. Please like, share, and subscribe.