President John Adams Thanksgiving Day Proclamation

President John Adams Thanksgiving Day Proclamation

A DAY OF FASTING & HUMILIATION 1798
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, JOHN ADAMS

A PROCLAMATION As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him, but a duty whose natural influence is favorable to the promotion of that morality and piety without which social happiness can not exist nor the blessings of a free government be enjoyed; and as this duty, at all times incumbent, is so especially in seasons of difficulty or of danger, when existing or threatening calamities, the just judgments of God against prevalent iniquity, are a loud call to repentance and reformation; and as the United States of America are at present placed in a hazardous and afflictive situation by the unfriendly disposition, conduct, and demands of a foreign power, evinced by repeated refusals to receive our messengers of reconciliation and peace, by depredations on our commerce, and the infliction of injuries on very many of our fellow-citizens while engaged in their lawful business on the seas – under these considerations it has appeared to me that the duty of imploring the mercy and benediction of Heaven on our country demands at this time a special attention from its inhabitants.

I have therefore thought fit to recommend, and I do hereby recommend, that Wednesday, the 9th day of May next, be observed throughout the United States as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens of these States, abstaining on that day from their customary worldly occupations, offer their devout addresses to the Father of Mercies agreeably to those forms or methods which they have severally adopted as the most suitable and becoming; that all religious congregations do, with the deepest humility, acknowledge before God the manifold sins and transgressions with which we are justly chargeable as individuals and as a nation, beseeching Him at the same time, of His infinite grace, through the Redeemer of the World, freely to remit all our offenses, and to incline us by His Holy Spirit to that sincere repentance and reformation which may afford us reason to hope for his inestimable favor and heavenly benediction; that it be made the subject of particular and earnest supplication that our country may be protected from all the dangers which threaten it; that our civil and religious privileges may be preserved inviolate and perpetuated to the latest generations; that our public councils and magistrates may be especially enlightened and directed at this critical period; that the American people may be united in those bonds of amity and mutual confidence and inspired with that vigor and fortitude by which they have in times past been so highly distinguished and by which they have obtained such invaluable advantages; that the health of the inhabitants of our land may be preserved, and their agriculture, commerce, fisheries, arts, and manufactures be blessed and prospered; that the principles of genuine piety and sound morality may influence the minds and govern the lives of every description of our citizens and that the blessings of peace, freedom, and pure religion may be speedily extended to all the nations of the earth.

And finally, I recommend that on the said day the duties of humiliation and prayer be accompanied by fervent thanksgiving to the Bestower of Every Good Gift, not only for His having hitherto protected and preserved the people of these United States in the independent enjoyment of their religious and civil freedom, but also for having prospered them in a wonderful progress of population, and for conferring on them many and great favors conducive to the happiness and prosperity of a nation. Given under my hand the seal of the United States of America, at Philadelphia, this 23d day of March, A.D. 1798, and of the Independence of the said States the twenty-second.

By the President : JOHN ADAMS

The Electoral College and the End of Slavery

The Electoral College and the End of Slavery

Electoral College vs. Popular Vote

I have been hearing a lot this past week about how the Electoral College is outdated and we should just go by the popular vote. Most notably political supporters of Hillary Clinton say, “she won the popular vote, so let’s use that to make her President.” But there are a few problems with this idea. The most obvious being that changing the rules after the election is an intellectually corrupt idea.

The best analogy I heard is that the Cubs won the world series which was the best of 7 games. However, the Indians scored more runs during the series. Did the Indians really “win” the World Series? After all, they scored more total runs? Of course, we can’t say the Indians are the real winners because that is not how the rules of the 7 game series were set up. The Electoral College is like the 7 game series. The votes are like runs. The total vote only counts in each state and then each state is given a number of votes based on population. This means each state (like each game in the World Series) is equally valued regardless of how disproportionate the popular vote might be in any one state. Or think of it this way, Trump won the popular vote in 32 of 50 states.

Turning to the election strategies of 2016, neither candidate campaigned in such a way to win the popular vote. Both Trump and Clinton spent time in small states with small populations because that is how they strategized to win the Electoral College. If at the beginning of the election they knew the goal was to win the popular vote, then both candidates would have run a very different kind of election; set policies to attract the largest numbers of people, spent advertising dollars to appeal to large population blocks, and physically campaigned only in the largest cities.

I realize people are upset (and, for the record, I never endorsed Trump or Clinton), but suggesting that we should change the outcome of the election based upon a new set of rules that we invent after the election is over is both irrational and silly.

But what of the larger issue… is the Electoral College (EC) outdated and a bad system? Should the United States of America switch to a popular vote election for President?

An Imperfect System

First, I think everyone can agree that there is no perfect system, but to suggest the EC is bad in every way is an exaggeration that demonstrates a lack of any real understanding of the issue. The founders were rightly concerned with what they called the Tyranny of the Majority and implemented the EC to mitigate that concern.

The founders of our government were fully convinced that no despotism could be more intolerable than a pure democracy, where the majority had unrestricted power. Our national legislature is restricted within very narrow limits by the Constitution. It has not the political omnipotence of the Parliament of Great Britain, which can change the dynasty, abolish the peerage, or the church establishment, and model at pleasure the institutions of the country. Our Congress has no such power. Its authority is limited by a written Constitution. It is held in check by the distribution of power, and by the legislative authority being vested in two houses—the one composed of the representatives of the states without regard to their relative size or importance. In every way, therefore, that human wisdom could devise, the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority.

“Review of The State of the Country,” The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review XXXIII, no. 1–4 (1861): 24–25.

The founders hoped the EC would protect the rights of the minority from a majority only concerned with their own right. I defer to Mills on this issue,

“Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.”

John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty,” in The Harvard Classics 25: John Stuart Mill and Thomas Carlyle, ed. Charles W. Eliot (New York: P. F. Collier & Son, 1909), 206–207.

Alexander Hamilton warned of the dangers of electing a person who could campaign only to win the popular vote, but lack the ability to represent all people, from every diverse state in the union, equally.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1998).

So while the EC may have its flaws, I have yet to read any compelling argument from reason or history that supports the idea that a pure democracy would resolve those difficulties without creating a new tyranny of the majority.

An End to Slavery

Still, some argue, the EC has never in the 200+ years of American history shown itself to protect the minority from the majority. This, however, is not true. In fact, history shows that the Electoral College was a significant factor leading to the abolition of slavery. Lincoln won only 39% of the popular vote but was elected by an Electoral College landslide. Allen Guelzo and James Hulme write,

[I]t was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the electoral college. This, in large measure, was why Southern slaveholders stampeded to secession in 1860-61. They could do the numbers as well as anyone and realized that the electoral college would only produce more anti-slavery Northern presidents.

"Both Minnesota and Oregon become states during this election cycle which meant that the original 13 States controlled fewer than 50% of total Electoral Votes for first time. Lincoln received only about 39% of the popular vote in a divided nation on the brink of Civil War. The New Jersey Electors split their vote: 4 for Lincoln, 3 for Douglas; Douglas had won popular vote." —270towin.com

“Both Minnesota and Oregon become states during this election cycle which meant that the original 13 States controlled fewer than 50% of total Electoral Votes for first time.
Lincoln received only about 39% of the popular vote in a divided nation on the brink of Civil War. The New Jersey Electors split their vote: 4 for Lincoln, 3 for Douglas; Douglas had won popular vote.” —270towin.com

The EC has protected us from the Tyranny of the majority. The Confederate South, much like modern Leftists who reject Trump and Bush, saw Lincoln as “unjustly” elected because while he won the EC, he did not have the majority of votes.

“In November, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States by a sectional vote and upon strictly sectional issues. The platform of his party, upon which Mr. Lincoln stood, asserted that ‘the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom.’ It further declared that no legislative body could ‘give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.’ This claim ignored, or rather set at defiance, the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court, and indeed the personal liberty bills of many of the Northern States had already nullified that decision and the laws of which it was the interpretation.

The vote by which Mr. Lincoln was elected was a large minority of the popular vote—nearly one million—yet he had a considerable majority in the electoral college. In the Southern States he had no electoral ticket at all; and there, too, was food for grave thought. If, adhering to the mere forms of the Constitution, a man could be elected to the Presidency by a vote strictly sectional and upon one issue, avowedly sectional, why not upon any other, however regardless of the rights and interests of another section? Mr. Lincoln had three competitors for the office of President, and it has often been claimed that his opponents could have defeated him by combining upon a single candidate. This is a great error, and therein is the defect of the electoral system, and it was a threat to the Southern States. The Electoral College at that time consisted of 303 members, making 152 votes necessary to a choice. Mr. Lincoln received 180 votes in all, though in a minority of nearly a million in the popular vote. But in fifteen of the Northern and Western States, having 167 votes in the Electoral College, he had also clear majorities of the popular vote over the combined votes of the three opposing candidates; so in any case he would have had a majority of fifteen in the Electoral College even if there had been but one competitor. Examination of the official figures will prove the correctness of this statement.”

J. William Jones, ed., Southern Historical Society Papers, vol. 32, Southern Historical Society Papers (Medford, MA: Perseus Digital Library, n.d.), 279–280.

I have seen signs and tweets from today’s protesters calling for someone to assassinate Trump and petitions calling for the Electors to honor the popular vote and reject their Constitutional mandate. This idea is not new. Some people in Lincoln’s day plotted to overturn the results of the EC to ensure a pro-slavery Democrat could take over.

“A plan was unfolded to me last night by which the election of Lincoln by the Electoral College may be prevented, and a prominent Southern Senator put in his place, If I thought the plan at all feasible, I would give it now.–Perhaps I may do so to-morrow.”

Richmond Dispatch, The Daily Dispatch: 1860, Richmond Daily Dispatch (Richmond, Virginia: Perseus Digital Library, 1860).

And here details of the plot were outlined.

“(Washington, Dec. 12, 1860) The plan hinted at in my letter of day before yesterday, is, in brief, this: So to manage when the Electoral College declares Lincoln elected, that there shall not be acquirer of the Senate as required by law. Breckinridge having resigned his seat as President of the Senate, a President protem, is put in his place, and there being no legal election of President, the Senate declare the then occupant of the Chair to be the President of the United States for the next four years. This plan, it is said, requires only five Northern Senators to carry it into effect, and the name of the man who is to be elected President by this manœuvre has been mentioned to me. He would never consent to such a trick, nor would the people either of the North or South accept it. Therefore, I merely give it as a sample of the plots and intrigues now going on here.”

Richmond Dispatch, The Daily Dispatch: 1860, Richmond Daily Dispatch (Richmond, Virginia: Perseus Digital Library, 1860).

The Confederates despised the EC because it limited their ability to control the Election of Lincoln. Here, just like the protesters and rioters on the streets today, they dreamt of overthrowing the EC because it did not meet with their personal preference.

“(Washington Jan. 31, 1861) A lovely morning, and glorious news. Lincoln resolutely, inflexibly holds on to the Chicago platform.Not a jot, not a tittle of it will he abate, though all creation go to wrack. –This we have by telegraph, and I hope sincerely the news went South last night. Virginia has no excuse for remaining in bondage to the Abolitionists. Her submission must be flat, abject, complete. Nor can she hope to obtain any pretext for submission from the Peace Congress which meets here next Monday. The Republicans will have plenty of Commissioners of their own stamp on hand.–to block that game. The people of Virginia may as well make up their minds to back square down to the nigger equality Despot, or to join heart and soul with the South.

The private interview between a distinguished New York member and a no less distinguished Western Senator, which occurred last night, inclines me to the belief that there is something in the wind, probably in the nature ofcoup d’etat when the time for counting the vote of the Electoral College arrives. But the aforesaid Senators will hardly be a party to it.”

Richmond Dispatch, The Daily Dispatch: 1861, Richmond Daily Dispatch (Richmond, Virginia: Perseus Digital Library, 1861).

Because the majority is not always right, we need the Electoral College to preserve the rights of the minority. It may seem convenient in our modern context to reject the EC in favor of the popular vote, but remember this majority only vote will not always run in your favor. If you lived in the South, would you have accepted slavery just because the majority of people accepted it? Lincoln did not win the “popular” vote in the South, but the EC guaranteed he would become president and help end slavery.The issue at hand is the EC and is there a “better” way. Other than your opinion, you have not made any argument why a majority vote would be an improvement. I

The issue at hand is the EC and is there a “better” way. Other than political opinion, I have not read any transcendent argument why a majority vote would be an improvement. I am loath to embrace such a significant change without a strong argument rooted in both reason and history. Until that time comes, it seems the Electoral College is still the best possible system in a flawed and broken world.

“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana

Elections, Fear, and the Loss of Empathy

Elections, Fear, and the Loss of Empathy

If I could sum up the response to the 2016 Presidential election, it would be fear. The rhetoric from the candidates, their surrogates, and the media has fostered a culture of fear that has led to terrible violence. Some voted out of fear for what a President Clinton would do to destroy their life. Some voted out of fear for what a President Trump would do to destroy their life. Too many of us voted out of fear.

In an effort ameliorate fear and elevate empathy, I offer the following posts from two very different people; each one giving their unique perspective on the elections. My goal is not 100% agreement. My goal is to foster meaningful dialogue. The only way we can overcome the irrationality of fear is to look each person with whom we disagree as humans beings. Human beings made in the image of God. Human beings who have fears. Human beings trying to make the best of a bad situation. Their choices may not be your choices, but that does not make them evil or racist or stupid… it just makes them human. If our starting point begins with respect for the dignity of each individual, maybe, just maybe, we can turn fear into something positive.

The Morning After...

By: Stan

I made an effort to speak to all of my closest friends yesterday via telephone, email, or facebook chat. I woke up, unhappy with the election results, but with a huge grin on my face. Unhappy that because of this election there are significant losses to come in climate change, science, and social progress, but excited to find out “why?” America has spoken, and we must pay attention. We must find out why the country feels the way it does. Burdened with a bit of a hangover from attending the election “party” at Brooklyn Bowl last night, I jumped out of bed at 7am and couldn’t wait to spend the next two hours at my favorite local coffee shop. I couldn’t wait to talk to the owners, baristas, two random, teary-eyed customers and anyone else I had the opportunity to listen to.

My opinion tonight was that most liberals came off as sore losers, licking their wounds in disbelief. I’m totally fine with that, my goal was to hear what they thought, not judge it. After all, this is all part of being an American, and a New Yorker. I have to say I am quite displeased with what I heard during this incredibly flawed experiment. I kept hearing things like “Sexist” “Misogynist” “Racist” “I’m moving to Canada.” These explanations, although common, are not what I see as the primary motivators of why America overwhelming gave control of the Presidency, House, and Senate to Republicans. I will try to address each of the common “excuses” below, and finally offer what I believe are the most likely explanation for the human behaviors, of not just the American election, but all elections in modern western democracies that have taken place this year.

Almost all the females I spoke with stated Hillary lost because of her gender. I heard “women can’t get ahead” talk of non-Louvre “glass ceilings.” Other females, friends and strangers alike went off on tangents such as “women can’t get jobs” “the wage gap” and “women who negotiate are treated unfairly.” Really? Again, the question is: why did America vote overwhelmingly Republican? More specifically America voted for a man who has NO EXPERIENCE in politics, spent almost NO MONEY on his campaign, and very little effort on “strategy.” Yet many women are suggesting, the explanation for this is a conspiracy against women?

Yet many women are suggesting, the explanation for this is a conspiracy against women?

  • A country where Hillary won the popular vote, is entirely made of misogynists?
    A country where the CEO’s of Hewlett Packard, Pepsi Cola, and Yahoo are all female?

This country hates women?

  • The first female campaign strategist to win a Presidential election ever was in charge of Team Trump.
    231 women ran for office in this year’s election, 89 got elected. That is the most ever.

Yet America hates women?

Certainly there is work to be done for women in the U.S., but compared to what? America in 2016 isn’t perfect, but there is no perfect system. Europe and Scandinavia are more progressive than us on social fronts, but they have small homogenous populations that all share very similar backgrounds and world views. America is 320 million unique individuals held together by nothing more than a story of Paul Revere’s ride, The Constitution, and that old guy with wooden teeth who had a hellish winter camping trip in Pennsylvania. It’s important for us to be critical of the U.S. and to strive for the progressive societies of Germany, and Sweden, but we cannot attribute the rebuke of the Democratic party, and Hillary’s loss to America being made up of sexists.

The next major response I have heard, read, and witnessed is the new game of “blame white people for everything.” Every time we don’t get the result we want “It’s racist.” Again unless you have clear evidence of that. That is not likely the motivation. I saw friends and acquaintances post “f*ck white people” “white people can die” on Twitter. Really? That is how you explain this election? The country that overwhelmingly elected Barack Obama twice is entirely made up of “racists?” We appointed the first Latina Supreme Court Justice, the first Latina senator, the Black Female Senator, and the first ever openly LGBT governor this year. Yet America’s more racist than ever? The constant attack on “white people” and “white males” is regressive, and hypocritical. It’s committing the act we liberals claim to hate most- judging large swaths of people based on things they cannot help- their heritage and sex. They also happen to be the largest group of individuals in the country, so it’s easy enough to bash 70% of the population, make excuses, and say they only reason they have anything is because it was given to them. This is false, incredibly divisive, and morally unacceptable. “Racism” and “F*ck white people” are not an explanation for the 2016 election results. They aren’t an explanation for anything, they’re just lazy excuses. Perhaps the explosion of social justice warriors, safe spaces, anti-white, and anti-male rhetoric is part of the reason the entire country that wasn’t on a coast or part of a large city voted for Trump.

You cannot explain the choices of this many Americans as “racist” “whites” “white men.” So although you’ll get points from other commiserating liberals, you get none from any self-respecting rational adult. Clinton lost because less people voted for her in crucial states. In Detroit, 80,000 registered democrats did not vote for her, she lost Michigan by a total of 12,000 votes. Compared to Obama, fewer women, fewer Hispanics, fewer Blacks, and fewer 18-29 yr old voters turned out for Hillary. Hundreds of thousands of would-be Democrat voters cast ballots for third-party candidates or wrote in other candidates names. It is not that angry straight white males showed up in droves- total voter turn-out was lower than 2012, and 2008- it is that Democratic voters did not show up for Hillary Clinton.The constant attack on “white people” and “white males” is regressive, and hypocritical. It’s committing the act we liberals claim to hate most- judging large swaths of people based on things they cannot help- their heritage and sex. They also happen to be the largest group of individuals in the country, so it’s easy enough to bash 70% of the population, make excuses, and say they only reason they have anything is because it was given to them. This is false, incredibly divisive, and morally unacceptable.

“Sexist” “Racist” “Misogynist” These terms just can’t be used to explain ALL human behavior. A pretty effective strategy I am guided by this principle, ”If one is not certain that malice was the motivation, what are the other more straightforward, and therefore more likely reasons for these results?”

Today, the day after the election, we live in same exact America that gave you marriage equality, the patient protection act, the affordable care act, progress on science, climate change, carbon emissions, Iraq, Afghanistan, Justice Sotomayor, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders. Bernie was a self-proclaimed socialist, and he came incredibly close to being the Democratic candidate. You don’t get to condemn the America that provided all these liberal successes, and progresses over the past eight years as being made up entirely of misogynist racist, sexist Nazi war criminals.

You are hypocritical for harshly critiquing the very system that gave you eight years of what you wanted the very instant it provides what you deem to be unsatisfactory results. Think of the conservatives last week who said “the system is rigged” when they assumed they would lose. Yet those same conspiracy theorists got everything they wanted through the simple act of voting. Is the system still rigged? Today we complain about the electoral college, campaign finance, and the “money in politics.” The same electoral college gave you eight years of Obama, and “Citizens United” has benefitted Obama and Hillary more than any other candidates in history. One’s political party losing can’t be explained by “the system is rigged” any more than President Trump can be explained away by “racism.”

So what is the underlying reason? Our election followed the emotional trend of all modern western democracies this year. Merkel’s party lost by a landslide in Germany. The U.K. voted for Brexit. Does that mean that those entire countries are made of sexist, racist misogynist a**hole boogiemen too? Or is there another way to explain these behaviors?

Why does this trend in voting exist? People are afraid. They feel uncertain about their jobs. About their basic needs to provide for their families. They feel terrified of Islamist Extremism and the Arab worldview. None of that is sexist, racist, or “Islamophobic.” It’s just human. We are by nature emotional, and tribal creatures. It’s in our DNA, and millions of years of evolution ensure it is not going away anytime soon. Before you jump to conclusions, emotions are not always bad. They are incredibly effective at protecting us from harm. They do this in a much faster way than our higher order cortical functions. Always sad, upset, and anxious about your relationship? Your limbic system is creating pain to show you, that this experience is not beneficial for you. You get a knot in your stomach every time you have to interact with a particular teacher or coach? Maybe that isn’t the best mentor for you. Emotions are an intelligent way for humans to survive.

Hillary Clinton did not lose because of sexism, racism, misogyny or any other ridiculous whiny excuse. She lost because she was a candidate with a tragic flaw- she’s unable to galvanize large groups of people emotionally.

For those of you who don’t know, I started my career as a research scientist developing drugs for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, but now I spend my time crafting marketing campaigns for luxury brands in New York City. I have spent time on the brand teams of Krug Champagne, Glenmorangie, Ardbeg, BMW, and Bushmills as well as many others. Believe it or not, what I love about this job, and where it overlaps with my neuroscience background is the understanding of people, their behaviors, and motivations. Following is the most simple explanation I have for the U.S. election results in the form of an email from me to my Brand Director and C.M.O. this morning.
_________________
The U.S. Election and Marketing…

Hey All,

It’s important for us to remember, the candidate with the largest financial support ever in the history of politics, an incredibly well thought out strategy- Hillary spent her entire life preparing to run for President- failed b/c she was unable to galvanize humans emotionally.

The candidate with zero political experience, who spent less money than any major candidate before him, and who only had one policy- “make voters emotional” – wins the Presidency, House, and Senate handily.

Humans are emotional, tribal creatures. Any marketing strategy that does not resonate on these levels is a waste of time and money 😀

What are your thoughts on the election?

Moving forward from here...

By: Liz

I am a 4th generation American born, but I was still a Chinese child in an all white town less than an hour away from San Francisco during the Vietnam war. I grew up being called, a Chink, a Jap, a Commie, a yellow skinned Chinaman who eats dogs, and various other things. This is all by 1st grade. I’ve visited some small MidWest towns during college where people had never seen an Asian and would point and gawk or approach me and touch me (without asking) because they were so curious or shocked to see a “yellow” person. I went to graduate school in the 1990’s in Houston where I had college educated classmates who would cross to the other side of the road if they saw a Black person. I had classmates who openly used the N word. I had classmates who thought interracial relationships were biologically wrong. Just last night I had a white male older colleague make a dumb ass comment to me about having a “Sugar Daddy”. Yes, sexism is alive too. Thankfully I’ve never had anyone shout or throw something at me.

These stories of post-election racism are so sad and unfortunate and awful. And it’s sad that there is a segment of society that feels this kind of belief and behavior is acceptable. I hope I can convey this properly and my thoughts aren’t misconstrued, but, respectfully, I have to kind of disagree with the conclusion that “If you voted for Trump, you encouraged this.” I think it’s really sad that a parent is teaching her child to be racist. I think social media is partly to blame for the uncensored behavior and fueling the awful beliefs of a lot of people despite Trump. Facebook and Twitter and all have made it easy for anyone to say and do so many things without thought or repercussions. I don’t think most people think it’s okay to punch another person, but young people see it so often in the media or social media that their young minds normalize it. Sadly, yes, the fixation on his awful racist unfiltered behavior has made a lot of people feel it’s okay to behave this way too. But, sadly, some people behave this way anyway. But I know a lot of non-racist people who voted for him, and they weren’t voting to encourage racism. I don’t think the majority who voted for him believe it’s okay to be racist. Many of them were voting against corruption, against the ridiculous rising costs of healthcare, or are really mad that their manufacturing/tech job went overseas.But I know a lot of non-racist people who voted for him, and they weren’t voting to encourage racism. I don’t think the majority who voted for him believe it’s okay to be racist. Many of them were voting against corruption, against the ridiculous rising costs of healthcare, or are really mad that their manufacturing/tech job went overseas.

But I know a lot of non-racist people who voted for him, and they weren’t voting to encourage racism. I don’t think the majority who voted for him believe it’s okay to be racist. Many of them were voting against corruption, against the ridiculous rising costs of healthcare, or are really mad that their manufacturing/tech job went overseas. My high school and college Ethnic studies have educated me the history of new ethnic groups into America and the blame and racism by the general population that goes along with it (my Irish Catholic high school history teacher wisely used the immigration of Irish Catholics as an example so as to not offend anyone). A lot of blame is directed towards minority/Asian/Latino groups at the loss of the majority/white jobs.

My high school and college Ethnic studies have educated me the history of new ethnic groups into America and the blame and racism by the general population that goes along with it (my Irish Catholic high school history teacher wisely used the immigration of Irish Catholics as an example so as to not offend anyone). A lot of blame is directed towards minority/Asian/Latino groups at the loss of the majority/white jobs. But it’s the large employers who offer lower pay so that either they fire the majority to hire

But it’s the large employers who offer lower pay so that either they fire the majority to hire cheaper minority or overseas labor or the majority “American” won’t take that job as the pay is beneath them. No, this isn’t all of racism, but it’s part of it.Lisa, considering you and Jeff are from the MidWest, I’m sure you know many who voted for him and I’m sure you don’t think they are all racist. A lot of people are tired of the establishment. I don’t think anyone who voted for Mrs. Clinton voted for corruption or big money. And a lot of people really loved Mr. Clinton but I’m sure a lot of people look the other way at his own personal behavior. A lot of people are tired of the establishment. I don’t think anyone who voted for Mrs. Clinton voted for corruption or big money. And a lot of people really loved Mr. Clinton but I’m sure a lot of people look the other way at his own personal behavior.Yes, I was stunned and I cried my eyes out at the election results. I fear for myself and my children and our country. My healthcare costs are supposed to go down, but under his stated policies and the GOP legislative

Yes, I was stunned and I cried my eyes out at the election results. I fear for myself and my children and our country. My healthcare costs are supposed to go down, but under his stated policies and the GOP legislative majority my taxes will go up. I see corporate America trying to take my small business away from me. My friend is the manager and lead recruiter for a large corporation coming into CA that will threaten my profession and my small business (and he’s still my friend).For myself, now that the shock has worn off, I choose to pray and have hope. I tacitly accept the process. I pray that we all will have hope and will work together to try to change our Society to be

For myself, now that the shock has worn off, I choose to pray and have hope. I tacitly accept the process. I pray that we all will have hope and will work together to try to change our Society to be a better place.

Ok. I’m done with my ramblings. Thanks for listening.

 

[SERMON] Fearless Faith – Psalm 49

A sermon from Reunion Church by Joe Miller, Elder — Psalm 49. The message is titled, “Fearless Faith.”

In this election, many people voted out of fear and the many people now fear the results. This message from Psalm 49 offers “Fearless Faith” as God’s Divine antidote.

Gender Identity and Divine Dignity

Gender Identity and Divine Dignity

This clip is from my graduate course on Christian Ethics and Leadership at Southern California Seminary. In this segment, I discusses the importance of treating the lost as human beings, created in the image of God with a Divine dignity, and in need of the cross of Christ for healing.

In addition to my other videos and posts on this issue, a good starting point for understanding this topic is Dr. Nancy Pearcey’s book, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality

 

Pin It on Pinterest