What's Wrong with the World Comments

(22:40) Jeff Singer on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Jeff Singer
Date: Sep 8, 2010 10:40 PM
URL: http://www.frumforum.com

Steve P., Your visit here has been interesting. I suggest you hang around as I think your thinking will be...challenged...on a regular basis. Good anthropologists are now comfortable using genetic data, and if you are confortable with genetic data, you aren't going to freak out when someone says race: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/ To the extent most anthropologists don't like to use the concept of race, see Jake's comment from 8:53 AM. As for culture -- you say it's shaped by the environment. O.K. But what else does the environment shape that comes before culture? Oh yeah, genes. I could also really go off about your amusing comments concerning Mexican immigration and Mexico's problems, but I need to get the girls to bed. I did want to make one comment concerning sub-Saharan Africans and their ability to carry on English civilization. This question has already been answered in the negative -- for the details see the past 30 years of Rhodesian history.

(22:37) Andrew E. on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Andrew E.
Date: Sep 8, 2010 10:37 PM

Steve P., The important question to focus on is what the different races, as groups, are capable of. The white race is capable of Western culture/civilization. The other races--as races, not as various individuals here and there--are not, full stop. If we want America to maintain a lineage with Western civilization then it needs, at minimum, to have a large white majority (among other things such as a large Christian majority). How large? Very hard to know but I would say at least 80%.

(22:18) Tony on The Boy with the Black Brain

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:02:19 -0500

Author: Tony
Date: Sep 8, 2010 10:18 PM

Bill, I agree with you completely about the horrors foisted on us with the theory of "brain death". Nevertheless, I have a question that is perhaps more philosophical than practical: If the ultimate test of true "death" has to be a state that a person cannot "come back from" or be resuscitated from, then don't ALL incidents of miraculously coming back to life incidents that simply muddy the waters of what is naturally possible versus naturally impossible? Are there (at least theoretically ) possible cases where a person has indeed died, and God restored them to life by direct intervention, but the physical condition of their body during death was (to our limited capacity and knowledge) no worse off than some people who can in fact be resuscitated through natural efforts? We could not know enough to say with certainty that divine intervention took place, so we might not call it a miracle properly speaking, but divine intervention can still be real in such cases. And are there cases where we are on the borderline gray area of thinking that nature cannot reverse this state, and God steps in and brings them back to life. How could we ever sort out for sure what is really truly "natural powers cannot recover from this state" after such a miracle?

(21:15) Lydia on The Boy with the Black Brain

Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:02:19 -0500

Author: Lydia
Date: Sep 8, 2010 9:15 PM

Zach's case really is one that calls into question these diagnostic procedures, including some of the more sophisticated ones. Here is a post on the trouble with brain death diagnosis that fits well with your post, Bill: http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2008/06/serious_questions_about_brain.html

(21:12) Lydia on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Lydia
Date: Sep 8, 2010 9:12 PM

Maybe it's being a Protestant, Bruce, but honestly, I would be more inclined mentally to tell Fr. Irish to go pound sand than feel really upset about it. And if your Fr. John the Irishman also hesitates on abortion, I'd be outta there. Who needs it? Even as a Catholic you're allowed to find any valid mass in your area. Find one where they preach on, I dunno, the Real Presence or something other than racism, for goodness' sake. And then warn your daughters as you think fit about induction, the inner city view of women, and racial categories in dating.

(20:59) Steve P. on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Steve P.
Date: Sep 8, 2010 8:59 PM

You are all mean! I feel drunk with power. I just took away everyone's freedom. Honestly I think that trivializes p.c. We are talking about people's careers being destroyed, not people feeling bad because someone called them mean or called them names. Andrew: I see. Then no I don't agree with you. Did you really find an anthropologist who said that culture (meaning those aspects of human culture that differ from one human culture to another not supposed universals) is a product of one's race, that it is transmitted genetically? I wonder how he would explain the changes in racially homogeneous cultures over a few decades. Would he say it's due to genetic evolution that occurred during that time? I'd check that guy's credentials, frankly. Honestly I'm sure I am on solid ground in saying that all but an insignificantly miniscule fraction of anthropologists (if even that many, like I say I wonder if the anthropologist you got your information from was bona fide) would say that culture (again, meaning those aspects of culture that differ from one society to another or that change in time over a period of centuries or generations, not supposed universals) is transmitted through environment, not genes. And I also am sure I am on solid ground in saying they say it because they think it's true not because of P.C. fear. That's just one of those things that anthropologists will agree on. Of course immigration can (and does!) change our culture but if immigration destroys our culture it will be a case of another culture or other cultures, transmitted in the ordinary way by parents and peers and education, etc.--not genetically--overwhelming ours. It won't be a case of racial change per se.

(20:15) Bruce on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Bruce
Date: Sep 8, 2010 8:15 PM

But not to worry. We ONCE got Father John to say that abortion is evil. Of course he won't stand up to the abortionists in Church ("No man's gonna tell me what to do with MY body") but he sure jumps on the "racists."

(20:13) Bruce on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Bruce
Date: Sep 8, 2010 8:13 PM

Yes Lydia, cause objecting to being called "racist" and "un-Christian*" (you conviently chose to emphasize the petty word I used - "mean") for holding the same belief towards multi-culturalism and multi-racialism that prior to the 1960s almost everyone held is similar to two lesbos shacking up and complaining about moral objections to their sodomy. People call you "racist" and my priest Father John says racial discrimination (which includes deciding you'd only marry a white girl or politely objecting to Tyrone or Chong-Lee or Paco courting your daughter-as Father will be happy to confirm) is "EVIL" (in a REALLY loud,booming Irish voice). If the Church is somehow neutral on race then why are almost all Christians anti-racists? Isn't "un-Christian" pretty close to being definded out of Christianity?? Don't pretend Christians don't compel this sort of thing or are somehow neutral when they use this sort of language. You can write what you want but I don't care much for being talked to in the way you did.

(19:39) Andrew E. on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Andrew E.
Date: Sep 8, 2010 7:39 PM

Steve P., It is fairly clear to me that the implications of solid anthropological and genetic science suggest overwhelmingly that the restoration of something like the national origins immigration quota system put in place during the 1920's is the minimum political action required if the American nation and culture is to be saved and preserved (assuming that is even still possible at this point). Is this what Bruce and others are saying? I don't know but I think any American conservative should be saying it.

(18:49) Lydia on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Lydia
Date: Sep 8, 2010 6:49 PM

Oh, come, Bruce. If everybody is unfree because he gets called "mean" for some things he might want to do, then none of us is free. Pull up your socks, for goodness' sake! That sounds like liberal whining to me, "Waaaaah! I'm not free to live with my girlfriend if people are going to call me _immoral_ for doing so!"

(18:33) Bruce on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Bruce
Date: Sep 8, 2010 6:33 PM

You're legally free to do what you want but when you're called "mean" and "un-Christian" by fellow Christians and of course the ubiquitous "racist" (which in newspeak has the same function today that "n_gg_r" once did-see Jim Kalb's essay) that's not exactly "free to chose." Wierd because Jeff seems to suggest that Christianity is neutral towards this thing.

(18:23) Steve P. on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Steve P.
Date: Sep 8, 2010 6:23 PM

Andrew, Then we have that in common. I'm also interested in what anthropologists think. I would add that while I'm interested I'm also skeptical. You may have misunderstood what I was saying because, as I indicated once Bruce frankly stated his position, is that in order to understand what I was saying you need to understand what the people I was responding to (Bruce and MARoberts) were saying. I don't want to write a danged book here to explain carefully and in detail what I think about race, science, etc. Who cares what I think anyway? I was just reacting to some of the things that MARoberts Bruce said. As for your apparent concern that the speech, academic freedom, and very livelihood of anthropologists (and many other academics) has been limited and continued to be threatened by the forces of political correctness, I share that concern. Do you want me to interact further with anything you've said? If you think I've been cavalier about the subject, all I can say is that I often say things in a way that is so precise and that in a way that might almost perversely seem to undercut my own deeply-felt beliefs that I am misunderstood (because people generally expect a broader brush and a more rhetorically persuasive approach). Or to put it another way I often become perversely interested in particular trees even when the forest is what I ought to be concerned about.

(18:18) al on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: al
Date: Sep 8, 2010 6:18 PM

A few thoughts from adam Smith, "As it is this disposition [to truck, barter, and exchange] which forms that difference of talents, so remarkable among men of different professions, so it is this same disposition which renders that difference useful. Many tribes of animals acknowledged to be all of the same species derive from nature a much more remarkable distinction of genius, than what, antecedent to custom and education, appears to take place among men. By nature a philosopher is not in genius and disposition half so different from a street porter, as a mastiff is from a greyhound, or a greyhound from a spaniel, or this last from a shepherd's dog. Those different tribes of animals, however, though all of the same species, are of scarce any use to one another.... Among men, on the contrary, the most dissimilar geniuses are of use to one another; the different produces of their respective talents, by the general disposition to truck, barter, and exchange, being brought, as it were, into a common stock, where every man may purchase whatever part of the produce of other men's talents he has occasion for..." Other considerations are just in the way.

(18:17) Knotts Berry Farm on Per Capita Public* Health Care Spending...

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:58:19 -0500

Author: Knotts Berry Farm
Date: Sep 8, 2010 6:17 PM
URL: http://hubpages.com/hub/Knotts-Berry-Farm

sometimes i wonder why people allow all the spam, i mean, these people have no life or something. why do you keep spamming, is it like, some sort of hack or something?

(16:45) CJ on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: CJ
Date: Sep 8, 2010 4:45 PM

Phantom @ 3:18, Jeff has a knack for doing that, doesn't he? I deleted the post I was working on and will just co-sign his comment @ 4:15. No, I'm not free to choose social seperation for myself and mine. Sure you are (unless you run a place of so-called "public accommodation") but others are free to disapprove of your decision and voice that disapproval. You are free to have a white wife, exclusively white friends, etc. However, you cannot have permanent, institutional separation of the races without infringing the rights of those who don't share your beliefs.

(16:37) Jeff Culbreath on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Jeff Culbreath
Date: Sep 8, 2010 4:37 PM
URL: http://culbreath.wordpress.com

We'd have to do grave immorality and injustice to 20 million people so entertaining the idea is pure nonsense. We HAVE to become Mexico North. There is no injustice in deporting people (apart from legitimate refugees) who have crossed our borders illegally, if done in a timely manner before families are created and roots established. I'm convinced we need some deportations, but it's a complicated problem. I'm offline for awhile ... cheers.

(16:32) Bruce on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Bruce
Date: Sep 8, 2010 4:32 PM

No, I'm not free to choose social seperation for myself and mine.

(16:30) Andrew E. on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Andrew E.
Date: Sep 8, 2010 4:30 PM

Steve P asks: OK, Andrew, do YOU think that anthropologists have found races IN THE SENSE that Bruce uses the word? Please read everything Bruce said and think about what geneticists and anthropologists say about human differences before you answer. I'm not that interested in what Bruce thinks but I am very interested in what good anthropologists think. This from the Introduction to Putnam's Race and Reason: Biological scientists seldom find themselves writing an introduction to what is essentially a study of a social problem. However, the problem in this instance is of such great importance from both the scientific and social standpoints, and the two are so closely interrelated, that we cannot dissociate ourselves from the task. Our professional interest lies in the scientific foundations on which Mr. Putnam rests his thesis. We are in complete accord with what he has to say concerning these foundations. We agree with his balanced presentation of genetic and environmental factors in the area of both racial and individual biology. We believe they deserve this sharp reappraisal in the light of current problems in the world at large. We can also confirm Putnam’s estimate of the extent to which non-scientific, ideological pressures have harassed scientists in the last thirty years, often resulting in the suppression or distortion of truth. The intrusion of political thought into the social and anthropological sciences which has occurred on a massive scale during this period, has been a very great disservice to scientific investigation and to the guidance which scientific work and its conclusions ought to be able to render to human society. Man must be guided by science, but scientific thought must not be moulded to preconceived political ideas. We, as signatories to this introduction, although we may differ over some aspects of genetic, biological, anthropological and sociological theory, believe that statesmen and judges today frequently take positions based upon an inadequate knowledge of the facts so far as they relate to the nature of man. Therefore, we have no hesitation in placing on record our disapproval of what has been all too commonly a trend since 1930. We do not believe that there is anything to be drawn from the sciences in which we work which supports the view that all races of men, all types of men, or all ethnic groups are equal and alike, or likely to become equal or alike, in anything approaching the foreseeable future. We believe on the contrary that there are vast areas of difference within mankind not only in physical appearance, but in such matters as adaptability to varying environments, and in deep psychological and emotional qualities, as well as in mental ability and capacity for development. We are of the opinion that in ignoring these depths of difference modern man and his political representatives are likely to find themselves in serious difficulties sooner or later. Whatever may be said for or against minor or detailed points made by the author of this book, we feel that it deserves the serious attention of both scientists and public men wherever racial problems exist. The facts in it cannot much longer be ignored. It probes to the core of an abscess, yet does so with a healing touch. There is logic and common sense in these pages; there is also inescapable scientific validity. R. Ruggles Gates, M.A., Ph.D., D.Sc., LL.D., F.R.S. Henry E. Garrett, Ph.D., D.Sc. R. Gayer Of Gayer, M.A., D.Phil., D.Pol.Sc., D.Sc. Wesley C. George, MA., Ph.D.

(16:15) Jeff Culbreath on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Jeff Culbreath
Date: Sep 8, 2010 4:15 PM
URL: http://culbreath.wordpress.com

According to both secular AND contemporary Christian society, I'm not free to choose social seperation. That's correct. Because choosing social separation for Bruce also means imposing social separation on everyone else. Some things you just have to deal with. Sorry. If my wife dies and I remarry, I can't use "white" as a criteria. I can't politely object to Tyrone or Paco courting my daughter.So while you act like the existence of distinct peoples (presumably as accidents as opposed to something deliberate) is Ok in Christianity, even the mildest action to promote the existence of distinct peoples is deemed un-Christian. I have no beef with people who include race in their basket of marriage considerations, nor does the Catholic Church. I did the same thing, and I'm interracially married. The problem for Christians is adopting a worldview of racial determinism, which is not only false but is a recipe for an immensely frustrating life.

(16:00) Bruce on Race and the Church

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:57:29 -0500

Author: Bruce
Date: Sep 8, 2010 4:00 PM

Jeff @ 2:43 That's one reason why I qualified my statement with "in principle." "By any means necessary" is not part of my vocabulary. I'd certainly like to see the North American continent divided up. I have no idea if this could be achieved without grave acts of immorality. Your argument is the same one used by those who say we can't do anything about illegal immigration. We'd have to do grave immorality and injustice to 20 million people so entertaining the idea is pure nonsense. We HAVE to become Mexico North. Permananent and institutional seperation worked for 400+ years until the 60's. Part of this was based on slavery and laws but part of this was based on social attitudes that are now taboo. According to both secular AND contemporary Christian society, I'm not free to choose social seperation. If my wife dies and I remarry, I can't use "white" as a criteria. I can't politely object to Tyrone or Paco courting my daughter. Don't believe me? Ask a Christian. It's "mean", "un-Christian", "contrary to the Gospel" etc. So while you act like the existence of distinct peoples (presumably as accidents as opposed to something deliberate) is Ok in Christianity, even the mildest action to promote the existence of distinct peoples is deemed un-Christian. Well you can't have it both ways. If I can't do things to promote the existence of white people, then the Gospel says that the existence of white people is illegitimate.