Category Archives: Race

Critical Race Theory: Jewish Privilege

In all the critical theory writing of male privilege, white privilege, cis-privilege, thin privilege, ability privilege, etc. there is one major highly privileged group that no one ever writes about: Jews. So today, I’m going to add my own addition to the critical theory canon: Jewish privilege.

I started thinking about Jewish privilege a month ago when one Michael Mark Cohen wrote a paean to the word ‘douchebag’. He called himself “a white, middle class male professor” who asks his students to shout white racial slurs at him. Oddly enough, this Jewish person is not insulted by others insulting white people, saying:

The point of this sanctioned spewing of hate speech is that none of these words can hurt me. Because I am an individual. I can choose to not be offended, not to be affiliated with any group and rest assured in my sense of self.

I think the more likely answer for why he is not offended is because Cohen is not white, but Jewish.  I’m sure if people started throwing out insults like ‘hebe’ or ‘kike’ which actually applied to Jews rather than ‘cracker’ or ‘honky’, which do not, Cohen’s reactions would be much different.

Either way, Cohen then goes and advocates for the othering of white males by applying a new racial slur against them.

This is just one example of Jewish privilege: to be able to pretend to be of another ethnic group when convenient and using this position to advocate racism against that ethnic group on major media sites (the essay appeared on Gawker) without fear of backlash.

****

Jews make up only about 2% of the population yet are vastly overrepresented throughout are cultural and governmental institutions. So, here’s a small list of Jewish privilege, feel free to contribute more in the comments:

Jews are very wealthy. The average Jew’s net worth is $372k (p. 187), almost three times higher than the average American’s ($135k). Almost half of Jews have income of over $100k, compared to 18% of the general population. The percentage of Jews with income under $30k is half that of the general population.

Jews are far more educated than the general populace (p. 56). 35% of Jews have a post-grad degree, three times as many as the general population. 59% of Jews have a college degree, over double the general population, while only 3% of Jews have not graduated high school, compared to 14% of the general population. 5.4% of college professors are Jewish (religion). Jews are heavily overrepresented at the Ivy League composing “21 percent of the enrollment at Ivy League schools (30 percent at Penn, 29 percent at Yale and 26 percent at Harvard).

Jews are heavily overrepresented in the legal system. Jews make up 33% of the Supreme Court. The protestant white majority have no Supreme Court justices representing them. I can’t find modern statistics of overall justices, but under Kennedy and Johnson 10% of judicial appointees were Jewish and I’m sure the proportion hasn’t changed too significantly since. They also make up 26% of the nation’s law professors and 30% of the Supreme Court clerks.

Jews are overrepresented in government. 6% of congress is Jewish; of that, 10% of the senate is Jewish. 13% (2/15) of the cabinet is Jewish.

Jews are heavily overrepresented in cultural creation industries. According to Ben Stein, 60% of important Hollywood positions are held by Jews, while every major studio chief is Jewish. Of the 8 major US media corporations, at least 3 of the CEO’s are identifiably Jewish from their wiki page, a few more could be JEwish but are not so identified.

Jews can present as either whites or Jews, allowing them to claim both minority or majority status as is convenient. This heavily obscures their Jewish privilege, as it is simply chalked up to white privilege. Quite often I found I had to use religion as a proxy for ethnicity because Jews were simply lumped in statistically with whites.

The privileges held by Jews dwarf those held by whites. I think critical race theorists should spend more time and effort studying this understudied area of privilege.

Are Slate and Amanda Hess Arguing for Lynching?

Feminists complain about street harassment all the time. I’ve never actually seen someone harass a woman on the street, I’ve never done it, and none of my friends have done it.  So, I’ve always been a bit skeptical, because if something is so common, why haven’t I ever even seen it occur before. A few women have told me a story or two of a random crazy person on the bus doing something harassing (ie. one man on a bus just sat himself in the lap of a girl I dated), so I knew harassment did occur, but were usually isolated events done by crazy people. I never believed it happened as omnipresently as feminists claim.

Slate has tried to prove that harassment exists omnipresently by a woman filming herself walking for 10 hours. Here’s a two-minute highlight video of the harassment. Watch it.

First, that’s 2 minutes from 10 hours, so unless a lot of harassment was cut out, that’s not as much as feminists complain about. The video claims 100+ incidents, so that’s about one incident per every six minutes, that’s more, but still not much.

Second, if we assume the video included the worst of the harassment, a safe assumption give the point of the video, the “harassment” seem rather insignificant. this “harassment” included people doing nothing but saying “Have a nice evening”, “God bless”, and “how are you this morning?”. So in other words, to acknowledge a woman’s existence is harassment. What did the 80 incidences not bad enough to appear in the video include, people saying ‘hello’?

If this is the best evidence of harassment feminists can dredge up, I still do not buy the feminist argument. In fact, this video is a strike against it.

****

The more interesting part of this video though is race. I counted the incidences in the video, and by my count there were 21 harassers (two incidences had two perpetrators). Of those, 10 of the harassers looked black, 5 looked white, 2 looked Hispanic, and in 4 incidences I could not identify the race (although, two sounded stereotypically black to me).

So, of the incidences where the race was known, black committed 10 of the 17 of the cases of harassment, about 60%. Also, the the most egregious harassments (she was followed twice and some yelled passed a first comment) were by blacks.

From this, it seems the major problem is not harassment from men in general, but harassment from urban black men in particular. This would explain why I’ve never witnessed it; there are very few urban blacks where I live. That the harassers are largely black is reinforced by the stereotypical ebonics name of the campaign the video is in support of, “Hollaback!”.

Also of interest is that only a couple harassers looked even remotely middle-class, the rest looked either working-class or welfare-class.

The target audience of Slate is middle-class white liberals with humanities degrees. These are not the type of people harassing the woman in the video. There is no point lecturing Slate readers on stopping harassment because Slate readers are not the ones harassing.

So, there seems to be no point to this article. Slate readers aren’t the ones doing the harassing and it’s not likely lower-class blacks will care about the moral protestations of middle-class white feminists.

The only reason I can think of to write this is to encourage white males to forcibly stop black men from harassing them. something which reminds me of the days when looking wrongly at a white woman was a lynching offence. It seems to me that Amanda Hess and Slate just inadvertently argued for society to resume lynching uppity blacks, or at least segregation to keep them off the streets white women might use. I think everybody involved needs to check their privilege.

Anyway, if you wish to donate to a campaign to stop uppity blacks from talking to white women, you can donate to Hollaback here.

****

It looks like between writing this and posting it, the implications of this video have become clear and Slate is doing damage control.

Victimization

Two recent controversies have shown a particular pathology of the left. The first is the fight over the Washington Redskins, and how the Redskins have lost their trademark for being disparaging. The second is the strong reaction of the left to Miss Nevada saying women should learn to defend themselves from rape.

First, the Redskins. Look at their logo:

Are those logos in any way disparaging or insulting?

No. The first shows a strong, proud man with a calm, dignified bearing, the second shows a a strong, proud warrior raring for action. Both are rather complimentary to Aboriginals.

I am part Norse, so the Vikings team has a mascot of my heritage.

Is this disparaging? No, because, as with the Redskins logo, he’s a strong, determined man. In fact, although I don’t follow NFL at all, my team(an extremely shallow allegiance) is the Vikings, simply because they are the Vikings, and they celebrate my heritage.

So the question is why do leftists think portraying Aboriginals as strong, proud men and celebrating their strength is disparaging?

****

Next we come to Miss Nevada. She stated a very sane and rational opinion:

But I think more awareness is very important so women can learn how to protect themselves. Myself, as a fourth-degree black belt, I learned from a young age that you need to be confident and be able to defend yourself. And I think that’s something that we should start to really implement for a lot of women.

The feminists freaked out.

Here’s one example that really shows the absurdity of this condemnation: a male feminist condemns a man who teaches women to protect themselves from rape as a misogynist, while at the also praising someone who raped children.

So why do leftists think that teaching women to be strong and to protect themselves is misogynistic?

****

The answer to both of these is the same, the words ‘disparaging’, ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, etc. are not used for their literal definition, they are used merely for their exo-semantic meaning of ‘bad’. They carry the same semantic meaning as a pack of monkeys pointing and hooting.

The words don’t mean much in themselves, but the reason for the pointing and hooting is what’s important.

The left needs women and minorities to remain victims.

If one points the Aboriginal back to his heritage, the proud brave, independent, strong, and free, the impoverished and beaten-down Aboriginal on the reservation may look at his life and ask, “Why are we so broken, so dependent, when our ancestors were so strong, so proud?”

If a young woman learns to protect herself and avoid drunkenness, she won’t have need of the rape hysteria of feminists. If she learns self-responsibility and takes control of her own life, she won’t need feminism and its war against personal responsibility at all.

This is what the leftists fear. They fear Aboriginals might decide to get off the reservation, that women will stop feeling victimized, that blacks will leave the welfare plantation, etc. Leftists need people to feel like victims so they will cry to others, ie. the government, for help.

The leftists strategy is and always has been to expand the state. Victims are dependent on the state, they need the state to protect them, to provide for them. If leftists run out fo victims, they no longer have the cover they need to continue expanding the state.

Leftists hate the Redskins because they need Aboriginals to feel victimized and to not be able to remember the proud warriors and leaders their ancestors were. They hate women protecting themselves, because a confident self-realized woman does not need the state to protect her and provide for her.

Without victims the state is unneeded; without those who make their livings in the victim- and welfare-industrial complexes would not have such cushy jobs.

Leftists need victims to continue their long march.

Christian Ethno-Nationalism

Earlier this week, Anissimov, Avenging Red Hand, and Anti-Democracy Blog got into a Twitter discussion around Christians and ethno-nationalism. At one point, Mike asked about a write up on Christianity and ethno-nationalism, so, it looks like this is turning to race week here, as I’ll give some thoughts.

First, Mike is right in that Christianity is universalist egalitarianism, but he uses it in the wrong sense. Christianity is universalist egalitarianism in a metaphysical sense, but not in a physical sense. It is universal in that the church is a universal brotherhood of all Christians; it is egalitarian in that all men will have to give an accounting before God and God will favour no nation.

But even metaphysically, the accounting is not equal. Each person is given a varying amount in life (in talents, wealth, ability, etc.) and will judged based on how he used those talents. “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”

The Bible is clear that people are inherently unequal, and each will give an accounting before God, where his life and works will be tested based upon how he used what blessings he was given in life.

The story of the Tower of Babel indicates that God purposely made it so that all people were not of the same language and nation.

So, yes, it Christianity is universalist egalitarianism, but metaphysically so, not physically so.

****

Next we come to racism.

Hating someone because of their race is simply non-Christian. We are to love our neighbours as ourselves and a neighbour is anyone you come across in need regardless of race or ethnicity, as demonstrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

While hatred is disallowed, truthful stereotypes of racial groups are accepted in the Bible. As St. Paul himself wrote, “One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.”

Non-truthful stereotypes, bearing false witness against your neighbour, is definitely unChristian, but “racism” consisting of truthful stereotypes and generalizations are acceptable to Christians (either that or you have to accept that the Word is sinful).

Having a love or preferring your own race and ethnicity is also acceptable. Again, we turn to Paul who writes, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”

When it comes to close family, Paul is vehemently unmistakable, “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

Paul shows a strong natural affinity for his own people and demands a strong affinity for close family.

Jesus himself showed a natural affinity for his own people and was not concerned about racially insensitive remark.

He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.”(Matthew 15:24-28 ESV)

The Christian is allowed, but not commanded, to commit the “racist” actions of truthful generalization and loving their own kin preferentially, and is commanded to preferentially care for his own relatives. The Christian is not allowed to hate his neighbour or commit evil against him because of his race or ethnicity.

****

I will address Galatians 3, as someone always brings that up whenever race or ethnicity is mentioned.

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. (Galatians 3:23-29, 4:1-2 ESV)

What Paul is obviously referring to, when “neither Jew nor Greek” is not ripped entirely out of context for ideological purposes, is that all Christians are heirs to the promise of salvation given through faith. It is a metaphysical claim concerning our salvation and equality in Christ’s covenant. It is not a physical claim that all ethnic differences are now entirely meaningless and everybody is equal in every earthly way.

With that objection taken care of, we continue on.

****

The Israelite state of the Old Testament was very strongly ethno-religious. Inter-ethnic/religious marriage was forbidden, as was religious tolerance. Although, whether this was just religious or both religious and ethnic is debatable. Although later, it is confirmed that Jews marrying other races is a sin detestable before God. On the other hand, other inter-racial marriages such as Ruth and Boaz were viewed positively. People born of a forbidden union were forbidden from the Lord’s assembly.

As far as I know, there is no talk of inter-racial/inter-ethnic marriage in the New Testament.

So, as far as I can tell there is no real prohibition on miscegenation, but neither is there an encouragement of it.

****

The sojourner is mentioned many times in the Old Testament, usually positively. Sojourners, foreigners who lived among the Israelites, are not to be oppressed or wronged, are to be given fair justice, and they are sometimes lumped in with the poor. They are also to keep the same laws and be subject to the same punishments.

Sojourners were allowed to be treated differently in some ways. They could be charged interest and could be kept perpetually as slaves as well.

On the other hand, the state is to enforce the rule of law, people can not be allowed to violate the law and the law should not be violated.

So, any immigrants a nation does have should be treated well, judged fairly, and subject to the law, but a nation and its rulers has the right to create and enforce its own immigration laws.

****

Finally, we come to war. God is not a pacifist, as He often called for wars, quite often wars of extermination in the Old Testament. Jesus never condemned war as a concept either, He never really talked about the ethics of war at all but rather He seemed to like Roman soldiers. On the other hand, calls to peace in the general are common, so Christians can not just go declaring war for any reason. Most Christians accept some form of Just War theory derived from Biblical principles, but I’m not going too deep into that because it is tangential.

Mike specifically asked if Christians would kill their co-religious for their co-ethnics.

A Christian can righteously be a soldier and fight, even in a pagan or non-Christian army, as shown by the almost-always positive appearances of Roman soldiers in the New Testament or by David’s mercenary service for the Philistines. Assuming a just war, the Christian could easily fight for his co-ethnics, even if some on the other side may be Christian.  So Christians can fight for both Christian and non-Christian nations.

As for fighting for a non-Christian nation against a Christian nation, in David’s story Philistine leaders prevent him from having to choose between fighting for Philistine against Israel, or turning on Israel, and, as far as I remember, it is not dealt with elsewhere, so it is never made clear what the proper choice would be. I would say this would generally fall under just war theory. If the non-Christian nation has a just cause for war, there would be no problem.

Although, if the non-Christian nation did not have a just cause, I’m unsure. I doubt it would be held against the individual soldier as long as he fought honorably and justly, even if for an secular nation in an unjust war.

The question has less to do with who-whom and more is the cause just.

I’ll just say, that if NATO goes to war against Russia, I’ll probably fight only if I’m drafted.

****

Mike also mentioned meekness, I will simply direct him to Simon Grey who wrote on meekness recently. To summarize, meekness does not mean weakness, it means strength constrained and directed through discipline.

****

In sum, to the Christian, religion comes before ethnicity. Ethno-nationalism is not commanded, except possibly for the Israelites, but ethnicity and ethno-nationalism can still be part of a Christian worldview as long as they do not overtake religion. Any ethno-nationalism has to be out of love for your own, not hate of the other and even so, one can not be unjust to the other. Immigration is not commanded and a country has the right to make and enforce its own laws, but any immigrants allowed in have to be treated properly. As far as I know, miscegenation is generally not written of, except Israelites couldn’t marry non-Israelites. A Christian can fight for whomever they wish assuming the war is just. If it is not, then the question is less clear.

If I missed something, please tell me in the comments.

Black Enlightenment

It is well-documented that blacks commit more crime, score lower on tests measuring intelligence, and generally rank lower on most major indicators of life success in the US than the white majority. There is likely a strong genetic component to these differences. The new book, A Troublesome Inheritance, has recently brought racial genetics to the fore. (Book ordered and in the reading queue).

Some will some deny this reality, some will take this as an opportunity to hate,  and others use it to tout the moral superiority of whites or the moral inferiority of whites. All are wrong responses.

Instead, we should examine the situation so that we can sympathize with the other and address reality for the betterment of all.

The simple fact is blacks and whites evolved in different environments. Whites generally evolved in northern climates where cold winters and the resulting lack of foodstuffs was the gravest danger, blacks generally evolved in warm climates of plenty where the greatest dangers were the flora and fauna.

While I am not an expert on the issue, it stands to reason people in these differing environments would evolve differently. Foresight and preparation are the most important attributes for combating winter; quick reaction and physicality were the most important attributes for avoiding and combating dangerous animals. If we look at rates of success today, we see whites more successful in areas requiring planning and foresight, blacks more successful in areas involving reaction and physicality.

Blacks had/have a biology and culture adapted for their particular environment.

HBD has a series of posts out-breeding and manoralism indicating how long a process of evolution and culture (evolution and culture work together, influencing each other) it took for Europeans adapt to their civilizational environment. Even after centuries of adaptation whites still have difficulty making modernity work.

Blacks have not had this multi-century process of biological and cultural evolution adapting them towards our modern civilization, yet those living in Western countries have been thrown into an environment for which they are not fitted. Those blacks living in African countries have had the traditional cultures and environment they are adapted for destroyed by meddling whites bringing them civilization, “freedom”, and “democracy”, generally for the worse of blacks.

The proper response to blacks is not hate, it is not to take on a sense of arrogant supremacy, it is not to force blacks into a culture and environment for which they are not adapted, it is not to destroy the culture into which they have been forced, but rather it is to take compassion on them, recognize that they are not adapted for for Western civilization and stop trying to force it on them.

In Africa, whites should stop meddling in African affairs. They should end both humanitarian and military interventions and leave Africans to their traditional ways. We should stop trying to force our culture, our civilization, and our ideas on people for whom it was not created for. Those whites living in Africa should segregate themselves from blacks and vice versa, leaving each to pursue their own governance and culture.

In Western countries, we should recognize that whites and blacks are adapted to different cultures and environments and instead of forcing clashes between them to the detriment of both, we should allow blacks and whites to go their separate ways and pursue their own cultures (where they want to).

There are two primary ways in which this could be done:

Subsidiarity: This would allow local racial groups to each pursue the culture and society to which they were most adapted, while still maintaining current major political structures.

Patchwork: Blacks (or various groups of blacks) could be given a fair and proportional-to-population allotment of land in which to build their own independent nation free from the influence and meddling of whites.

Profaning the Cathedral’s Gods

Something interesting pointed out by Nydwracu on Twitter that I think deserves a bit more of a mention than a retweet.

Buzzfeed (webcache) has a listicle (ie: an intellectually absent presentation of stolen images) of facts about swearing on Twitter. The second and third charts have a list of offensive words. Such words as fuck, pussy, shit, ass, retard, and bitch are simply stated in the graph, but nigga and cunt are spelt n***a and c**t.

To make it more interesting, if you look at the original report both nigga and cunt are spelt out normally, which means that Buzzfeed specifically and purposefully went out of its way to censor those specific words.

You can tell what our society holds profane and holy by what words are unspeakable.

I am interested in how cunt gained so much greater exosemantic negativity than pussy or bitch. I would guess it’s because cunt is generally used against women exhibiting negative masculine behaviours, while pussy is generally used against men exhibiting negative feminine behaviours and bitch is generally used for either the same purposes as pussy or against women exhibiting negative feminine behaviours.

I guess its acceptable to call out effiminate men and misbehaving women, but not masculine women.

****

On a completely unrelated note, here’s something too big for tomorrow’s Lightning Round or Twitter, but not worth its own post. I ended up at the race realism page on something grossly mistitled RationalWiki (thanks, HBD Chick) and found this far too amusing not to point out

Adaptation to environments, including social environments, through natural and sexual selection is the linchpin of evolution. Remembering this means knowing why scientific racism is ridiculous. To argue that races or ethnic groups differ innately in intelligence, however defined, is exactly equal to an assertion that intelligence has proven less adaptive for some people than for others. This at minimum requires an explanation, a specifically evolutionary explanation, beyond mere statistical assertion; without that it can be assumed to be cultural bias or noise. Since most human intelligence is in fact social intelligence — the main thing the human mind is built for is networking in human societies — this would require this social evolutionary arms race to have somehow stopped.

It isn’t often someone so thoroughly destroys their own argument within three sentences. Thank you RationalWiki, you amused me for a minute.

For those who don’t see it, intelligence (measured through IQ) /= social intelligence.

To Mark Shea and Commenters

Mark Shea derides Dark Enlightenment with a bit of snark and sarcasm.

As socially maladjusted jerks always do, they trumpet their moral repulsiveness as a mark of “courage” and declare anybody who holds to actual Christian beliefs about the moral evils of racism are part of something called “The Cathedral” (an amorphous bogeyman compact of designated enemies critical of racialism).

I would like to point out the morally repulsive words of a few socially maladjusted jerks:

I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie; my conscience joins with the holy Spirit in bearing me witness that I have great sorrow and constant anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and separated from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kin according to the flesh. They are Israelites; theirs the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.

And behold, a Canaanite woman of that district came and called out, “Have pity on me, Lord, Son of David! My daughter is tormented by a demon.” But he did not say a word in answer to her. His disciples came and asked him, “Send her away, for she keeps calling out after us.” He said in reply, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But the woman came and did him homage, saying, “Lord, help me.” He said in reply, “It is not right to take the food of the children and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Please, Lord, for even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from the table of their masters.” Then Jesus said to her in reply, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.” And her daughter was healed from that hour.

One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, “Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons.” That testimony is true. Therefore, admonish them sharply, so that they may be sound in the faith,instead of paying attention to Jewish myths and regulations of people who have repudiated the truth.

When will Mark Shea and his followers rise up and condemn this evil? How dare these people love their own race and call other races dogs and liars.

****

Also, some of his commenters have commented on the evils of autocracy. I would like to point out the evil words of these same evil people on autocracy:

Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

They came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion. You do not regard a person’s status but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or should we not pay?” Knowing their hypocrisy he said to them, “Why are you testing me? Bring me a denarius to look at.” They brought one to him and he said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They replied to him, “Caesar’s.” So Jesus said to them, “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.’ They were utterly amazed at him.

When will Mark Shea and his commenters condemn these evil authoritarians?

****

I left a comment simply posting the Bible verse locations, then a sarcastic comment along the lines of: “How dare that that wicked, wicked Jesus and infernal Paul say those things?”

It seems either the Bible or sarcasm are not allowed there. Given that half of Mark’s post was sarcasm and/or snark, I’ll guess the former.