Support This Website! Shop Here!

Friday, April 13, 2007

The New Racists

Don Imus has been in the news lately. His remarks about a women’s college basketball team have been correctly attacked as racist, he has lost his job, he has been – dare I use the term? – blacklisted.

Now, while no one has endorsed what he said, neither has anyone asserted that his remarks actually caused real or lasting damage to anyone. No one on the basketball team is alleging that the remarks have made it impossible for her to play or complete her college classes. No one is alleging fiscal or emotional harm.

But what if Imus’ remarks had caused lasting harm? What if the derogatory statements caused so much turmoil that it actually reduced the team’s ability to play basketball, or reduced the players’ ability to complete their education?

What would we do if we discovered that engaging in certain kinds of conversation actually harmed the young lads and ladies who were taught that conversational style? Conversely, what would we do if we discovered that engaging in certain kinds of conversation actually improved the lives of the young men and women who engaged in it?

Well, that’s a rhetorical question. You see, we know what kinds of conversation harm people and what kinds help people, so we promote the ones that damage them and denigrate the ones that assist them.

Researchers at Long Beach University in California have demonstrated that the scholarship gap between white students and persons of color is easily bridged: just get all students involved in a faith community.

According to William Jeynes, professor of education at California State University, Long Beach, examination of data gathered in the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) demonstrates that “Religious faith and intact and stable family units are two resources that enable youth of color to achieve at the same levels of white students.”

He found that the quality of the school has essentially no effect on learning ability. Rather, the driving forces were family stability and religious fervor. The more religiously active the family, the higher the academic scores. The entire academic “race gap” can be explained in terms of religion and family structure.

Indeed, highly religious minority students actually outperformed the aggregate of white students in certain academic areas, such as their desire to take college placement courses and their likelihood in being left behind a grade in school.

Viewed in this light, we can see that atheism is simply a form of racism.

This is actually not surprising. Atheists tend to be eugenicists, which is to say, they tend to be racists. Christians do not wish to “breed a race of thoroughbreds”, as Margaret Sanger urged. American Christians may have enslaved blacks, but English Christians, and subsequently American Christians, were also at the forefront of the abolition movement. Catholic Christianity invented the orphanage, the university and largely invented the hospital. Because Christians who live Christian Faith care for the well-being of every man, Christians improve every man. Contrast this to the atheists, who simply write off large segments of humanity as insufficiently well-endowed by genes or circumstance, unworthy of the social resources necessary to maintain them.

For a logically consistent atheist, altruism enables mediocrity. There are people whose best will never even approach adequacy; investing resources into these people is a dead loss from an atheistic economic perspective.

The Christian economy of value strenuously denies this. Every person has intrinsic worth because God, who alone knows the value of all things, has loved that person into existence and continues to love and maintain that person in existence for all eternity. The widow’s mite is worth more than the whole treasury of the Temple. The best that the least among us produce is worth more than anything the intellectual elite can manufacture.

Therein lies the source of the problem: the intellectual elites instinctively know this. Just as a bully harasses his victims as a way of denying his own inadequacies, so the elites harass religious belief precisely because it completes what they cannot complete.

Insofar as the intellectual elites insist on destroying students’ faith, they destroy students’ futures. But it is better that other human lives be destroyed than that any atheist be forced to face his own weakness or be forced to acknowledge a power greater than himself.

America’s elites natter on about racism, they project racism onto everyone they encounter, because they are racists. They are too narrow-minded to believe that other people may not think as they do, may not value the same things they value.

To a mind that cannot see beyond the skin, the minds that can see beyond skin, the persons who can see the image of the living God dwelling within, these people are the greatest danger. The schools must be stripped of this knowledge, men and women cannot be allowed to learn these truths, for if they do, society as we know it will be destroyed.


Steve said...

Well said Steve

Jordan Potter said...

"The entire academic 'race gap' can be explained in terms of religion and family structure. . . Viewed in this light, we can see that atheism is simply a form of racism."

Those are golden words, Steve. You've cut right to the heart of the matter. Bravo!

Jon N said...

"Atheists tend to be eugenicists"

Wow that is such an evident "fact". All three of the atheists i personally know believe in equality of all men

Where exactly did you pluck this extremely well thought out, profound and not-madeup-to-suit-your-agenda tidbit of knowledge from?

Roni said...

Jon N,

Do all three of the atheists you know oppose abortion in the case of fetal deformity, e.g., Down's syndrome?

Do any of them support euthanasia?

Jordan Potter said...

Indeed, I know several atheists, and they all believe in prenatal genocide. They also claim to believe in the equality of all men, without noticing the logical inconsistency in their thinking.

But then if their thinking were consistent, they wouldn't be atheists, would they?

Jon N said...

This may surprise you a lot, but two of my friends (as well as me although im agnostic) are very anti-abortion for very different reasons you might think.
Whereas a Christian may believe the unborn child's life is sacrosanct, they believe it is also sacred simply because they believe it is the only chance at life it will have.
I may have sounded a bit high and mighty in my last post, but I am just trying to get people to avoid the kind of massive sweeping statement shown in the above article. You don't have to believe in God to think abortion is morally wrong.


Jon said...

I just read your post again, to answer your second question, Im pretty sure we (myself included) all believe euthenasia is appropriate for those in pain who truly want to die on their own terms.
I think euthenasia though is a loaded term, it conjurs up instances of children and the mentally ill being disposed of, when I use it to mean a person making an informed decision to spare themselves (and their families) pain.


Roni said...

Well, let's define euthanasia - is it permissible for someone to actively hasten his own death by taking actions which he primarily intends to end his own life?

That's the definition of euthanasia I'm using.

It is not licit to intentionally take anyone's life, not even your own.

Jordan Potter said...

"You don't have to believe in God to think abortion is morally wrong."

No, you don't. In fact, Steve Kellmeyer has elsewhere written that he was opposed to abortion even when he was an atheist.

"I am just trying to get people to avoid the kind of massive sweeping statement shown in the above article."

Steve said, "Atheists tend to be eugenicists." How is that a massive sweeping statement? He did say all atheists are eugenicists. Rather, he referred to a tendency, and one that quite natural goes hand in hand with an atheistic point of view.

Jon N said...

Jordan P,

If its going to come down to interpretation of language then we are probably going to have to agree to disagree. But please think hard, I think we can agree on the word eugenisist being negative, it represents someone with abohorrent views.
And tendency? Come on, that makes one imagine that the majority of aetheists think that way which is nonesense! The sentence this writer used was a massive sweeping statement, furthermore it was intellectually bankrupt and based on their own prejudice rather than real-world knowledge.

"quite naturally goes hand in hand with an atheistic point of view"

And you yourself managed it as well

Jon N said...


You have defined suicide. Euthansia is dependent on the fact that the person dying does not have the physical ability to take action, they rather are only able to request it. Previously decades ago it encompassed involuntary euthanasia as well, which is outright murder, but the word is now accepted to imply consent.

And to answer your last point, that is where we differ strongly. It is everyones right to do with their life as they wish. I would leave the decision up to them, as we (touch wood) can't imagine being in such pain that we cannot even end it ourselves

Steve Kellmeyer said...


First, why is "eugenicist" negative? If there is no God, then why wouldn't some people have greater intrinsic value than other people? It's no more negative to be a eugenicist than it is to be a horse or dog breeder who culls the runts.

Two, if it is everyone's right to do with their own body as they wish, then I should be able to sell myself into slavery. Indeed, consensual cannibalism is not a problem, right?

Patrick said...

Considering that eugenics, prior to WWII, had the same "scientific consensus" that global warming has today I am unsure how it can be considered horrific. Indeed, euthanasia is completely consistent with eugenic philosophy - extinguish the weak. Unless, of course, we were to say that there is something horrific in any taking of a human life. That's the only way to stay logically consistent.

Jon N said...

Hi, this is veering very far away from my original point which was simply that I think it is wrong to tar a certain belief (that there is no God) by coupling it with racism and eugenics with arguments pulled out of thin air.

A eugenisist IS negative, due to the fact their views must incorporate a believe in the inferiority (and therefore undeserving of life) of some humans (ie. those with mental disorders or other "flaws") over others.
And steve the slippery slope argument is such a fall back I don't know where to begin. Some troubled individuals (such as the man you refer to) will do whatever they want with their bodies.
Im not sure how mentioning him can be applied to this, infact it is very illogical to compare this to euthanasia. A person in severe pain and terminal illness who needs assistance ending their life is not the same as someone with sexual desires that involved being eaten!

Please stop twisting the word "euthanasia". It does not mean "extinguish the weak".

Thanks for the chat but i think all of us are probably too strong in our beliefs to reach a conclusion.

Patrick said...

"Please stop twisting the word "euthanasia". It does not mean 'extinguish the weak'."

Actually, it's a statement of fact. If there is nothing weak about an individual, the killing of another person is considered murder. Is it "twisting" to state in an unambiguous way, in a way that there is no question of definition? If you can point out how it is not targeting weakness, I'd love to hear it.

Jordan Potter said...

Given the fact that the two most powerful atheist regimes, the U.S.S.R. and Maoist China, were and are major proponents of abortion and population control, it's obviously pretty safe to safe that "atheists tend to be eugenicists." It's not painting with a broad brush, but is measured and cautious.