The confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor this week again brings up the fundamental issues of diversity and affirmative action. Regardless of what we think of the good judge
Few if any would argue that we do not need a certain degree of diversity. Paul certainly advocates that as he talks about the diversity of gifts. The question is to what extent is it necessary or advisable. Does it trump other values? That is what comes across to me as I read this blog and so much of the Christian left. Why has Sojo not objected to adding another Catholic to the court? Where's the diversity. Which kinds of things are important enough to be sure our courts, schools and workplaces are diverse? Is it race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or is it more? Do we need to be sure to have left-handed people represented because we know building and tools are designed for right-handed people? Do we need teenagers represented? I can go on to become more absued but will not.
The other point I would make is that you ignored the rest of Brooks' column. He also said, "Sonia Sotomayor will be a good justice if she can empathize with the many types of people and actions involved in a case, but a bad justice if she can only empathize with one type, one ethnic group or one social class." The implication that I hear made is that minority can do this but white males cannot.
"Our country is always at its best when diversity is not viewed as a problem to be overcome but as a strength to be celebrated."
--Straw man.
"This is the value of empathy that the president laid out as one of his requirements for a judge. "
--And you do realize that Sotomayor explicitly rejected this requirement, right?
Kyl: "Do you agree with (Obama) that the law only takes you the first 25 miles of the marathon and that that last mile has to be decided by what's in the judge's heart?"
Sotomayor: "No, sir. That's--I don't--I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging. I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge."
And later she states, "We apply law to facts. We don't apply feelings to facts."
These are the kind of statements that would get any conservative nominee torpedoed, but it's nice to see that she understands the problems with liberal jurisprudence.
While it is heartening for many to see a bi-racial man as president, and a soon to be Latina Justice, what will be more important is how racism will now be seen as an obstacle to minority groups' progress. Two people -- plus throw in Clarence Thomas if you can try not to wince -- who have overcome major obstacles to become American success stories. Will these people be seen as role models by those on the back of the bus I sometimes take and whose every other word would make many people shudder? Or, will some continue to say that the educational system is failing minority groups because the system is racist, not because the failing kids come from broken families? When dad goes off to hop in bed with another woman and father a child, and his original family suffers, will Obama still provide an inspiration to that father or his jilted wife and children? How long will excuses have to be made? We could line the Congress, White House and Supreme Court with minorities, but will it make a difference in the way some people decide to live their lives?
It's not so much an issue of race, as it is of class, but that doesn't bring in the dollars...
The law should be colorblind. Applying the law with empathy toward one group shows a lack of empathy toward another. The firefighters in Connecticut worked and studied hard, following the rules, and were shown neither empathy nor justice by Sonia Sotomayor. Let's drop this whole pretense of empathy. Just apply the law.
Jim
This is my first blog - this may not be the right spot to do this but I have a question. My niece attends Gordon College and was letting me look at your book. I was so grateful for what I read. I've been so torn between pro-life and
""Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me."
(Matthew 25:40) - that is voting Republican for the prolife and then listening to "axis of evil", "illegal alien rhetoric"...I am a teacher who has taught sweete pies from Mexico and Afghanistan - So your list was so much more my understanding of what Christians philosophy ought to be. Anyhow, i noticed that among the schools who had signed on there were no Catholic iinstitutions - Could you tell me why?
Racial, ethnic, cultural and intellectual diversity are good things and should be celebrated. The problem is when you get down into the specifics of certain affirmative action programs they end up discriminating against certain people based on their race. When one person is advanced because of their race, someone else automatically loses out because of their race. While Jim seems to argue that the country is better off despite this racial discrimination, I don't believe that the "needs of the many" outweigh the right of someone not to be racially discriminated against.
For those interested, I posted an article along similar lines on my blog this past week, at http://obamaandjesus.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-w... , looking at how her "wise latina" remark fits in with the need for affirmative action.
It's a grave danger to believe that, just because some individual successes, racism is dead in America. It is a pernicious evil, and must continue to be fought at all levels. We've heard this line since the days of Jackie Robinson. And if we'd listened to them in his day, we would never have achieved the Obama of today. We have just begun to fight.
In answer to your question, Yes. It *does* trump other values. Not all of them, but most. Because the Kingdom of God is not the Kingdom if we do not have that diversity. That's what Jesus was all on about. To Hell with the Church if she isn't advancing the Kingdom. (That's not cussing- I mean that literally.) Personally, I don't care about American values, or Post-Modern values. I care about Kingdom values, and the values of Jesus. The only value that trumps the diversity is perhaps love- but I say only perhaps.
Because the love we are called to is to love those who are different from us. This is the story of the Good Samaritan, and the First Genesis Story. We as individuals are not in the image of God, but "he created humanity in his image, male and female he created them". The image is *plural*, and within the relationship, and the relationship of difference- in that case of gender. And I say to you it is no love at all if it is the love of myself only, and the love of same.
So I'm wrong. There is *no* value which trumps that of diversity.
Few if any would argue that we do not need a certain degree of diversity. Paul certainly advocates that as he talks about the diversity of gifts. The question is to what extent is it necessary or advisable. Does it trump other values? That is what comes across to me as I read this blog and so much of the Christian left. Why has Sojo not objected to adding another Catholic to the court? Where's the diversity. Which kinds of things are important enough to be sure our courts, schools and workplaces are diverse? Is it race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or is it more? Do we need to be sure to have left-handed people represented because we know building and tools are designed for right-handed people? Do we need teenagers represented? I can go on to become more absued but will not.
The other point I would make is that you ignored the rest of Brooks' column. He also said, "Sonia Sotomayor will be a good justice if she can empathize with the many types of people and actions involved in a case, but a bad justice if she can only empathize with one type, one ethnic group or one social class." The implication that I hear made is that minority can do this but white males cannot.
We are called to love everyone. We are called to love those who are different from us, to walk a mile in another's shoes. The question is, how do we define what is "different" to begin with? Do whites really form a monolithic group to begin with? There are millions of 'whites' walking about planet Earth. Can we really lump all of them into one uniform entity? Might an upper middle class Asian and an upper middle class white actually have more in common than an upper middle class white and a working class white? Might an Asian musical theatre fan and a white musical theatre fan have more in common than a white musical theatre fan and a white rock music fan?
My point is, race is a factor, but based on our own life experiences and contexts, how it comes into play in our lives varies widely. You don't even have to look outside of your own ethnic group (I often find the biggest differences can be found within a single ethnic group)-- or backyard-- to find someone so different, in need of someone to understand them. Often the ones we assume are the same are just as different. I realise we're talking in context of the law here, but in general I think we need to broaden what we think of as "diversity".
It's also a grave danger, especially to minority communities, to say that
racism is the only problem. Perhaps you heard what Pres. Obama had to say
to the NAACP about personal responsibility? He's got it right. The
problem with the racism trump card is there is nowhere to go once it's laid;
few people on this blog deny racism exists, but many want to deny that
there's a connection between poverty and personal responsibility in this
country. It's a two-way street. Otherwise, we won't get anywhere
travelling one way.
"Our country is always at its best when diversity is not viewed as a problem to be overcome but as a strength to be celebrated."
--Straw man.
"This is the value of empathy that the president laid out as one of his requirements for a judge. "
--And you do realize that Sotomayor explicitly rejected this requirement, right?
Kyl: "Do you agree with (Obama) that the law only takes you the first 25 miles of the marathon and that that last mile has to be decided by what's in the judge's heart?"
Sotomayor: "No, sir. That's--I don't--I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging. I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge."
And later she states, "We apply law to facts. We don't apply feelings to facts."
These are the kind of statements that would get any conservative nominee torpedoed, but it's nice to see that she understands the problems with liberal jurisprudence.
That's actually not been my experience in the comments of Sojourners. Rather, the exact opposite. There are a few people who come here and try to argue that racism is no longer an issue, and poverty is *only* about personal responsibility- e.g. blame the victims and the poor. Most, particularly the article authors, argue that the origins of poverty are very complex. Viv Grigg got it right in Companion to the Poor, with his exhaustive study of all terms for "poverty" in the OT and NT. Some words in the Hebrew/Greek refer to poverty from personal responsibility. Some refer to poverty from natural disaster. Some from an act of God. Some from social injustice. (The last is the bulk of the OT references.) And, in the NT, the introduction of the term as something self-chosen in order to more adequately follow God. Yet in all of this, there is a consistent theme- poverty that is not chosen is a grievous evil, that must be stopped, and injustice- consistently defined as oppression of the poor and dispossessed- is the furthest thing from the heart of God.
While it is heartening for many to see a bi-racial man as president, and a soon to be Latina Justice, what will be more important is how racism will now be seen as an obstacle to minority groups' progress. Two people -- plus throw in Clarence Thomas if you can try not to wince -- who have overcome major obstacles to become American success stories. Will these people be seen as role models by those on the back of the bus I sometimes take and whose every other word would make many people shudder? Or, will some continue to say that the educational system is failing minority groups because the system is racist, not because the failing kids come from broken families? When dad goes off to hop in bed with another woman and father a child, and his original family suffers, will Obama still provide an inspiration to that father or his jilted wife and children? How long will excuses have to be made? We could line the Congress, White House and Supreme Court with minorities, but will it make a difference in the way some people decide to live their lives?
It's not so much an issue of race, as it is of class, but that doesn't bring in the dollars...
Oh- found one. http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicks...
But I fail to see the relevance?
The law should be colorblind. Applying the law with empathy toward one group shows a lack of empathy toward another. The firefighters in Connecticut worked and studied hard, following the rules, and were shown neither empathy nor justice by Sonia Sotomayor. Let's drop this whole pretense of empathy. Just apply the law.
Jim
This is my first blog - this may not be the right spot to do this but I have a question. My niece attends Gordon College and was letting me look at your book. I was so grateful for what I read. I've been so torn between pro-life and
""Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me."
(Matthew 25:40) - that is voting Republican for the prolife and then listening to "axis of evil", "illegal alien rhetoric"...I am a teacher who has taught sweete pies from Mexico and Afghanistan - So your list was so much more my understanding of what Christians philosophy ought to be. Anyhow, i noticed that among the schools who had signed on there were no Catholic iinstitutions - Could you tell me why?
Really? What's the Trump Card?
I would hazard a guess that it's because we're using an English word and a concept from our own culture, and one must turn to a dynamic equivalent translation to see "God is Diversity" in the Bible. One could argue that this is the foundation of the Trinity, but of course, the word "Trinity" is famously never found in the Bible as well. So we are left with the concept of God as Diversity, but not the actual words, even in dynamic equivalent translation. Perhaps something could be found in that very Genesis passage I cited, where the dynamic equivalent meaning of the nature of God is found in our representation of him/her only in our multi-gender relationship with each other.
Racial, ethnic, cultural and intellectual diversity are good things and should be celebrated. The problem is when you get down into the specifics of certain affirmative action programs they end up discriminating against certain people based on their race. When one person is advanced because of their race, someone else automatically loses out because of their race. While Jim seems to argue that the country is better off despite this racial discrimination, I don't believe that the "needs of the many" outweigh the right of someone not to be racially discriminated against.
Oh- I meant to reply to this initially, but forgot. As to your Catholic comment, one could well argue that the importance of diversity is not in any given moment of time, but rather throughout all of history. Thus, since it is only more recently that Catholics have been on the Court, and of the 110 Justices, 91 have been Protestant and only 11 Roman Catholic (despite soon to be 6/9 Catholics and only 1 Protestant currently), justice would entail seating *only* non-Protestants for the foreseeable future.
Of course, similar reasoning would also look at no longer sitting white men at all for the next 50 years or so...
I saw what Ando meant I believe. . Much attention is being paid to diversity . Your comments saying we are to love those are different are true . Your example of the Good Samaritan is right on also . We are all related in the Kingdom of God , and each race and culture has a needed aspect in the Kingdom . But diversity is a word that has been used so much for artificial reasons the past 30 years . For example Judge Thomas , his race was not important because his value system and lens he looked out was very conservative . I saw the same thing happen to friends I know who had gay lifestyles and through Christ are living lives being straight . They received condemnation from their old crowds . So yes when i hear diversity and love , I understand , but I love the person who is black who is different or similiar, the gay person who is gay or straight . I think that is something Ando was speaking to , diversity means different things to different people , real diversity I believe is that we love the unloved . Sonia Sotomayor was a conservative and strict constructionalist , would we be speaking about loving her and diversity ? I hope so , but I doubt it unfortuantely . One day I hope to find a political Christian blog that would .
For those interested, I posted an article along similar lines on my blog this past week, at http://obamaandjesus.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-w... , looking at how her "wise latina" remark fits in with the need for affirmative action.
I agree- race, or cultural diversity is not the only thing. When you've got a guy like Thomas who works actively to oppress those of his culture, and is quite sexist to boot, there are other factors. It is a good wake-up that we shouldn't look *only* at the colour of the skin or cultural background, but also if they are working for or against the oppressed. But I think you're incorrect- were Justice Sotomayor a conservative, the Republicans would be talking about nothing else than that she was a latina woman, and therefore we should elect her, in order to be diverse (and it's rather convenient that she's also a conservative constructionalist.) And they'd be quite happy to have found a way to recoup the Hispanic vote.
It's a grave danger to believe that, just because some individual successes, racism is dead in America. It is a pernicious evil, and must continue to be fought at all levels. We've heard this line since the days of Jackie Robinson. And if we'd listened to them in his day, we would never have achieved the Obama of today. We have just begun to fight.
"When you've got a guy like Thomas who works actively to oppress those of his culture, and is quite sexist to boot, there are other factors. "
Hmmm , does not sound like your loving someone who has different ideas then you or is diverse at all my friend . But your right republicans used Gonzalles objections and played the Latino card when democrats brought up objections with him . I was just talking from a Christian lens that I thought Jesus wanted us to have . Your comments about Thomas oppresinng others made me think you did not get it , and really only love those who think like you . Do you see what i mean ? Thats a different view , I don't believe in any kind of jobs being given to anyone based on race . Not when the Klan did it , or when well intentioned people thought it would help correct injustices . But if i am wrong , its not my heart that is wrong , nor is it right to consider Judge thomas heart is wrong . His behavior you may disagree with , because if you believe affirmitive action is a good thing I would agree , Judge thomas is not someone you want in the Court . But I don't see democrats really any different in using race at times for advancement . Jesus was not about political advancement , you were speaking to Kindom Advancement and that is what i was speaking to .
Perhaps you can look at your comments and see why I might say to myself , ugggg , because your talking about loving people who are different , and because Thomas has different world views in what works and does not work , your comments promote a negative view of him personally . You did not see that ? Does because I believe Marriage being changed hurts all of us make me ant i gay ? Or that affirmitive action actually is morrally wrong and in the long run hurtfull and causes a delay in real discrimination solving , do these things make my heart anti God , no , perhaps my behavior is wrong , and thus debating with your ideas I welcome , debating about my motives is a no no .
Mick
In answer to your question, Yes. It *does* trump other values. Not all of them, but most. Because the Kingdom of God is not the Kingdom if we do not have that diversity. That's what Jesus was all on about. To Hell with the Church if she isn't advancing the Kingdom. (That's not cussing- I mean that literally.) Personally, I don't care about American values, or Post-Modern values. I care about Kingdom values, and the values of Jesus. The only value that trumps the diversity is perhaps love- but I say only perhaps.
Because the love we are called to is to love those who are different from us. This is the story of the Good Samaritan, and the First Genesis Story. We as individuals are not in the image of God, but "he created humanity in his image, male and female he created them". The image is *plural*, and within the relationship, and the relationship of difference- in that case of gender. And I say to you it is no love at all if it is the love of myself only, and the love of same.
So I'm wrong. There is *no* value which trumps that of diversity.
Grace, when you attack someone and call them "friend" in the same sentence, that also doesn't sound like love.
One person can't be diverse. By definition.
Pointing out how someone attacks the disenfranchised, or minorities, or women, is not not loving them. Indeed, that is love itself.
Grace, Christ calls us to point out injustice. We should never back down just because the person doesn't agree with us on some points.
Affirmative Action is really beside the point when you are harassing your employees.
Affirmative Action isn't about correcting past wrongs- as the article above so well shows.
Yes Grace, you are correct, Democrats use race to advance themselves. That's why I don't align myself with the Democrats, but with the Kingdom. If we cease to be prophetic, we as Christians no longer have a mission. We need to be prophetic as much in the next eight years as we should have been in the past eight years.
Grace, I read your comments here, and many other places, and usually I don't respond because...well...they seem to lack grace. It is difficult to come here and read someone who is judging and assaulting me with words. I don't get civility, courtesy, or respect from you, nor do I feel like you extend the benefit of the doubt.
I never said or suggested that your beliefs about marriage makes you anti-gay. That's a strawman. Nor did I say that about affirmative action.
But so you may understand- no, one should never stop pointing out injustice because you think it would be contrary to love. It is part of love. And if the world view of someone is to kill everyone, then, yes, I will object to it. (Reductio ad absurdum) And in Justice Thomas' case, when his world view is to oppress, I will object to that too. And when his actions result in hurt for women, I will object to that, and say he was wrong, and that that was a sin.
I at no point questioned your motives, though I would have every right to, I suppose, if I knew them. Your response to me did nothing but question my motives. Actually, there wasn't much question there. Just judgment.
Arthur, I see very little hope for the world this side of the return
of Christ, which prophetically seems to be moving ahead with speed.
Regardless of how "right" we make things thru democracy or any system,
human beings (including myself) are fallen beings because of sin and,
as Jesus pointed out, are "evil," which is why each of us needs to be
born again. Regardless of how "right" we make things short term, evil
manages to wiggle its way back into the mix. Our country, in my
opinion, is rapidly disintegrating morally and economically.
Discouraging. I try to walk in the power of the Holy Spirit and be
used by God in my interactions, but I don't see a bright future for
mankind apart from the Second Coming.
Arthur, I see very little hope for the world this side of the return
of Christ, which prophetically seems to be moving ahead with speed.
Regardless of how "right" we make things thru democracy or any system,
human beings (including myself) are fallen beings because of sin and,
as Jesus pointed out, are "evil," which is why each of us needs to be
born again. Regardless of how "right" we make things short term, evil
manages to wiggle its way back into the mix. Our country, in my
opinion, is rapidly disintegrating morally and economically.
Discouraging. I try to walk in the power of the Holy Spirit and be
used by God in my interactions, but I don't see a bright future for
mankind apart from the Second Coming.
Nonkimono,
Unfortunately, we are all trained to think "abstractly" about these issues, instead of "concretely". Every person in this society is coming from concrete and specific historical and socio-economic circumstances. Institutions have played a part in creating inequality, and they must play a part in correcting the wrongs. Slavery was an institution. To counteract centuries of destruction by that instution, instutional affirmative action must be applied. For example, where did all the capital produced by slave labor go? Was it returned to the "freed" slaves? Or did the social and economic relations remain essentially the same? "Freedom" and "justice" on paper are meaningless without concrete changes in social and economic relations. And the privileged class NEVER gives up their privileges until they are forced to do so.
I don't believe the Bible can be used to support or argue against any point of view because it is so self-contradictory--the "values" represented in the Bible range from outright conquest and genocide to "love your enemy". Having said that, there IS one clear thread in the Bible which speaks to social justice: over and over again, the rich are condemned, and the poor are vindicated. And over and over again, some form of violence is advocated or promised as part of God's plan to establish justice--sometimes human-on-human violence directed by God, and sometimes direct violence from God. My point is this: the Biblical witness includes (though is not limited to) a call to social justice which involves force/violence.
We are called to love everyone. We are called to love those who are different from us, to walk a mile in another's shoes. The question is, how do we define what is "different" to begin with? Do whites really form a monolithic group to begin with? There are millions of 'whites' walking about planet Earth. Can we really lump all of them into one uniform entity? Might an upper middle class Asian and an upper middle class white actually have more in common than an upper middle class white and a working class white? Might an Asian musical theatre fan and a white musical theatre fan have more in common than a white musical theatre fan and a white rock music fan?
My point is, race is a factor, but based on our own life experiences and contexts, how it comes into play in our lives varies widely. You don't even have to look outside of your own ethnic group (I often find the biggest differences can be found within a single ethnic group)-- or backyard-- to find someone so different, in need of someone to understand them. Often the ones we assume are the same are just as different. I realise we're talking in context of the law here, but in general I think we need to broaden what we think of as "diversity".
It's also a grave danger, especially to minority communities, to say that
racism is the only problem. Perhaps you heard what Pres. Obama had to say
to the NAACP about personal responsibility? He's got it right. The
problem with the racism trump card is there is nowhere to go once it's laid;
few people on this blog deny racism exists, but many want to deny that
there's a connection between poverty and personal responsibility in this
country. It's a two-way street. Otherwise, we won't get anywhere
travelling one way.
That's actually not been my experience in the comments of Sojourners. Rather, the exact opposite. There are a few people who come here and try to argue that racism is no longer an issue, and poverty is *only* about personal responsibility- e.g. blame the victims and the poor. Most, particularly the article authors, argue that the origins of poverty are very complex. Viv Grigg got it right in Companion to the Poor, with his exhaustive study of all terms for "poverty" in the OT and NT. Some words in the Hebrew/Greek refer to poverty from personal responsibility. Some refer to poverty from natural disaster. Some from an act of God. Some from social injustice. (The last is the bulk of the OT references.) And, in the NT, the introduction of the term as something self-chosen in order to more adequately follow God. Yet in all of this, there is a consistent theme- poverty that is not chosen is a grievous evil, that must be stopped, and injustice- consistently defined as oppression of the poor and dispossessed- is the furthest thing from the heart of God.
Oh- found one. http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicks...
But I fail to see the relevance?
Really? What's the Trump Card?
I would hazard a guess that it's because we're using an English word and a concept from our own culture, and one must turn to a dynamic equivalent translation to see "God is Diversity" in the Bible. One could argue that this is the foundation of the Trinity, but of course, the word "Trinity" is famously never found in the Bible as well. So we are left with the concept of God as Diversity, but not the actual words, even in dynamic equivalent translation. Perhaps something could be found in that very Genesis passage I cited, where the dynamic equivalent meaning of the nature of God is found in our representation of him/her only in our multi-gender relationship with each other.
Oh- I meant to reply to this initially, but forgot. As to your Catholic comment, one could well argue that the importance of diversity is not in any given moment of time, but rather throughout all of history. Thus, since it is only more recently that Catholics have been on the Court, and of the 110 Justices, 91 have been Protestant and only 11 Roman Catholic (despite soon to be 6/9 Catholics and only 1 Protestant currently), justice would entail seating *only* non-Protestants for the foreseeable future.
Of course, similar reasoning would also look at no longer sitting white men at all for the next 50 years or so...
I saw what Ando meant I believe. . Much attention is being paid to diversity . Your comments saying we are to love those are different are true . Your example of the Good Samaritan is right on also . We are all related in the Kingdom of God , and each race and culture has a needed aspect in the Kingdom . But diversity is a word that has been used so much for artificial reasons the past 30 years . For example Judge Thomas , his race was not important because his value system and lens he looked out was very conservative . I saw the same thing happen to friends I know who had gay lifestyles and through Christ are living lives being straight . They received condemnation from their old crowds . So yes when i hear diversity and love , I understand , but I love the person who is black who is different or similiar, the gay person who is gay or straight . I think that is something Ando was speaking to , diversity means different things to different people , real diversity I believe is that we love the unloved . Sonia Sotomayor was a conservative and strict constructionalist , would we be speaking about loving her and diversity ? I hope so , but I doubt it unfortuantely . One day I hope to find a political Christian blog that would .
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
Few if any would argue that we do not need a certain degree of diversity. Paul certainly advocates that as he talks about the diversity of gifts. The question is to what extent is it necessary or advisable. Does it trump other values? That is what comes across to me as I read this blog and so much of the Christian left. Why has Sojo not objected to adding another Catholic to the court? Where's the diversity. Which kinds of things are important enough to be sure our courts, schools and workplaces are diverse? Is it race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or is it more? Do we need to be sure to have left-handed people represented because we know building and tools are designed for right-handed people? Do we need teenagers represented? I can go on to become more absued but will not.
The other point I would make is that you ignored the rest of Brooks' column. He also said, "Sonia Sotomayor will be a good justice if she can empathize with the many types of people and actions involved in a case, but a bad justice if she can only empathize with one type, one ethnic group or one social class." The implication that I hear made is that minority can do this but white males cannot.
Few if any would argue that we do not need a certain degree of diversity. Paul certainly advocates that as he talks about the diversity of gifts. The question is to what extent is it necessary or advisable. Does it trump other values? That is what comes across to me as I read this blog and so much of the Christian left. Why has Sojo not objected to adding another Catholic to the court? Where's the diversity. Which kinds of things are important enough to be sure our courts, schools and workplaces are diverse? Is it race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or is it more? Do we need to be sure to have left-handed people represented because we know building and tools are designed for right-handed people? Do we need teenagers represented? I can go on to become more absued but will not.
The other point I would make is that you ignored the rest of Brooks' column. He also said, "Sonia Sotomayor will be a good justice if she can empathize with the many types of people and actions involved in a case, but a bad justice if she can only empathize with one type, one ethnic group or one social class." The implication that I hear made is that minority can do this but white males cannot.
"Our country is always at its best when diversity is not viewed as a problem to be overcome but as a strength to be celebrated."
--Straw man.
"This is the value of empathy that the president laid out as one of his requirements for a judge. "
--And you do realize that Sotomayor explicitly rejected this requirement, right?
Kyl: "Do you agree with (Obama) that the law only takes you the first 25 miles of the marathon and that that last mile has to be decided by what's in the judge's heart?"
Sotomayor: "No, sir. That's--I don't--I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging. I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge."
And later she states, "We apply law to facts. We don't apply feelings to facts."
These are the kind of statements that would get any conservative nominee torpedoed, but it's nice to see that she understands the problems with liberal jurisprudence.
"Our country is always at its best when diversity is not viewed as a problem to be overcome but as a strength to be celebrated."
--Straw man.
"This is the value of empathy that the president laid out as one of his requirements for a judge. "
--And you do realize that Sotomayor explicitly rejected this requirement, right?
Kyl: "Do you agree with (Obama) that the law only takes you the first 25 miles of the marathon and that that last mile has to be decided by what's in the judge's heart?"
Sotomayor: "No, sir. That's--I don't--I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging. I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge."
And later she states, "We apply law to facts. We don't apply feelings to facts."
These are the kind of statements that would get any conservative nominee torpedoed, but it's nice to see that she understands the problems with liberal jurisprudence.
While it is heartening for many to see a bi-racial man as president, and a soon to be Latina Justice, what will be more important is how racism will now be seen as an obstacle to minority groups' progress. Two people -- plus throw in Clarence Thomas if you can try not to wince -- who have overcome major obstacles to become American success stories. Will these people be seen as role models by those on the back of the bus I sometimes take and whose every other word would make many people shudder? Or, will some continue to say that the educational system is failing minority groups because the system is racist, not because the failing kids come from broken families? When dad goes off to hop in bed with another woman and father a child, and his original family suffers, will Obama still provide an inspiration to that father or his jilted wife and children? How long will excuses have to be made? We could line the Congress, White House and Supreme Court with minorities, but will it make a difference in the way some people decide to live their lives?
It's not so much an issue of race, as it is of class, but that doesn't bring in the dollars...
While it is heartening for many to see a bi-racial man as president, and a soon to be Latina Justice, what will be more important is how racism will now be seen as an obstacle to minority groups' progress. Two people -- plus throw in Clarence Thomas if you can try not to wince -- who have overcome major obstacles to become American success stories. Will these people be seen as role models by those on the back of the bus I sometimes take and whose every other word would make many people shudder? Or, will some continue to say that the educational system is failing minority groups because the system is racist, not because the failing kids come from broken families? When dad goes off to hop in bed with another woman and father a child, and his original family suffers, will Obama still provide an inspiration to that father or his jilted wife and children? How long will excuses have to be made? We could line the Congress, White House and Supreme Court with minorities, but will it make a difference in the way some people decide to live their lives?
It's not so much an issue of race, as it is of class, but that doesn't bring in the dollars...
The law should be colorblind. Applying the law with empathy toward one group shows a lack of empathy toward another. The firefighters in Connecticut worked and studied hard, following the rules, and were shown neither empathy nor justice by Sonia Sotomayor. Let's drop this whole pretense of empathy. Just apply the law.
The law should be colorblind. Applying the law with empathy toward one group shows a lack of empathy toward another. The firefighters in Connecticut worked and studied hard, following the rules, and were shown neither empathy nor justice by Sonia Sotomayor. Let's drop this whole pretense of empathy. Just apply the law.
Jim
This is my first blog - this may not be the right spot to do this but I have a question. My niece attends Gordon College and was letting me look at your book. I was so grateful for what I read. I've been so torn between pro-life and
""Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me."
(Matthew 25:40) - that is voting Republican for the prolife and then listening to "axis of evil", "illegal alien rhetoric"...I am a teacher who has taught sweete pies from Mexico and Afghanistan - So your list was so much more my understanding of what Christians philosophy ought to be. Anyhow, i noticed that among the schools who had signed on there were no Catholic iinstitutions - Could you tell me why?
Jim
This is my first blog - this may not be the right spot to do this but I have a question. My niece attends Gordon College and was letting me look at your book. I was so grateful for what I read. I've been so torn between pro-life and
""Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me."
(Matthew 25:40) - that is voting Republican for the prolife and then listening to "axis of evil", "illegal alien rhetoric"...I am a teacher who has taught sweete pies from Mexico and Afghanistan - So your list was so much more my understanding of what Christians philosophy ought to be. Anyhow, i noticed that among the schools who had signed on there were no Catholic iinstitutions - Could you tell me why?
Racial, ethnic, cultural and intellectual diversity are good things and should be celebrated. The problem is when you get down into the specifics of certain affirmative action programs they end up discriminating against certain people based on their race. When one person is advanced because of their race, someone else automatically loses out because of their race. While Jim seems to argue that the country is better off despite this racial discrimination, I don't believe that the "needs of the many" outweigh the right of someone not to be racially discriminated against.
Racial, ethnic, cultural and intellectual diversity are good things and should be celebrated. The problem is when you get down into the specifics of certain affirmative action programs they end up discriminating against certain people based on their race. When one person is advanced because of their race, someone else automatically loses out because of their race. While Jim seems to argue that the country is better off despite this racial discrimination, I don't believe that the "needs of the many" outweigh the right of someone not to be racially discriminated against.
For those interested, I posted an article along similar lines on my blog this past week, at http://obamaandjesus.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-w... , looking at how her "wise latina" remark fits in with the need for affirmative action.
For those interested, I posted an article along similar lines on my blog this past week, at http://obamaandjesus.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-w... , looking at how her "wise latina" remark fits in with the need for affirmative action.
It's a grave danger to believe that, just because some individual successes, racism is dead in America. It is a pernicious evil, and must continue to be fought at all levels. We've heard this line since the days of Jackie Robinson. And if we'd listened to them in his day, we would never have achieved the Obama of today. We have just begun to fight.
It's a grave danger to believe that, just because some individual successes, racism is dead in America. It is a pernicious evil, and must continue to be fought at all levels. We've heard this line since the days of Jackie Robinson. And if we'd listened to them in his day, we would never have achieved the Obama of today. We have just begun to fight.
In answer to your question, Yes. It *does* trump other values. Not all of them, but most. Because the Kingdom of God is not the Kingdom if we do not have that diversity. That's what Jesus was all on about. To Hell with the Church if she isn't advancing the Kingdom. (That's not cussing- I mean that literally.) Personally, I don't care about American values, or Post-Modern values. I care about Kingdom values, and the values of Jesus. The only value that trumps the diversity is perhaps love- but I say only perhaps.
Because the love we are called to is to love those who are different from us. This is the story of the Good Samaritan, and the First Genesis Story. We as individuals are not in the image of God, but "he created humanity in his image, male and female he created them". The image is *plural*, and within the relationship, and the relationship of difference- in that case of gender. And I say to you it is no love at all if it is the love of myself only, and the love of same.
So I'm wrong. There is *no* value which trumps that of diversity.
In answer to your question, Yes. It *does* trump other values. Not all of them, but most. Because the Kingdom of God is not the Kingdom if we do not have that diversity. That's what Jesus was all on about. To Hell with the Church if she isn't advancing the Kingdom. (That's not cussing- I mean that literally.) Personally, I don't care about American values, or Post-Modern values. I care about Kingdom values, and the values of Jesus. The only value that trumps the diversity is perhaps love- but I say only perhaps.
Because the love we are called to is to love those who are different from us. This is the story of the Good Samaritan, and the First Genesis Story. We as individuals are not in the image of God, but "he created humanity in his image, male and female he created them". The image is *plural*, and within the relationship, and the relationship of difference- in that case of gender. And I say to you it is no love at all if it is the love of myself only, and the love of same.
So I'm wrong. There is *no* value which trumps that of diversity.
We are called to love everyone. We are called to love those who are different from us, to walk a mile in another's shoes. The question is, how do we define what is "different" to begin with? Do whites really form a monolithic group to begin with? There are millions of 'whites' walking about planet Earth. Can we really lump all of them into one uniform entity? Might an upper middle class Asian and an upper middle class white actually have more in common than an upper middle class white and a working class white? Might an Asian musical theatre fan and a white musical theatre fan have more in common than a white musical theatre fan and a white rock music fan?
My point is, race is a factor, but based on our own life experiences and contexts, how it comes into play in our lives varies widely. You don't even have to look outside of your own ethnic group (I often find the biggest differences can be found within a single ethnic group)-- or backyard-- to find someone so different, in need of someone to understand them. Often the ones we assume are the same are just as different. I realise we're talking in context of the law here, but in general I think we need to broaden what we think of as "diversity".
We are called to love everyone. We are called to love those who are different from us, to walk a mile in another's shoes. The question is, how do we define what is "different" to begin with? Do whites really form a monolithic group to begin with? There are millions of 'whites' walking about planet Earth. Can we really lump all of them into one uniform entity? Might an upper middle class Asian and an upper middle class white actually have more in common than an upper middle class white and a working class white? Might an Asian musical theatre fan and a white musical theatre fan have more in common than a white musical theatre fan and a white rock music fan?
My point is, race is a factor, but based on our own life experiences and contexts, how it comes into play in our lives varies widely. You don't even have to look outside of your own ethnic group (I often find the biggest differences can be found within a single ethnic group)-- or backyard-- to find someone so different, in need of someone to understand them. Often the ones we assume are the same are just as different. I realise we're talking in context of the law here, but in general I think we need to broaden what we think of as "diversity".
It's also a grave danger, especially to minority communities, to say that
racism is the only problem. Perhaps you heard what Pres. Obama had to say
to the NAACP about personal responsibility? He's got it right. The
problem with the racism trump card is there is nowhere to go once it's laid;
few people on this blog deny racism exists, but many want to deny that
there's a connection between poverty and personal responsibility in this
country. It's a two-way street. Otherwise, we won't get anywhere
travelling one way.
It's also a grave danger, especially to minority communities, to say that
racism is the only problem. Perhaps you heard what Pres. Obama had to say
to the NAACP about personal responsibility? He's got it right. The
problem with the racism trump card is there is nowhere to go once it's laid;
few people on this blog deny racism exists, but many want to deny that
there's a connection between poverty and personal responsibility in this
country. It's a two-way street. Otherwise, we won't get anywhere
travelling one way.
That's actually not been my experience in the comments of Sojourners. Rather, the exact opposite. There are a few people who come here and try to argue that racism is no longer an issue, and poverty is *only* about personal responsibility- e.g. blame the victims and the poor. Most, particularly the article authors, argue that the origins of poverty are very complex. Viv Grigg got it right in Companion to the Poor, with his exhaustive study of all terms for "poverty" in the OT and NT. Some words in the Hebrew/Greek refer to poverty from personal responsibility. Some refer to poverty from natural disaster. Some from an act of God. Some from social injustice. (The last is the bulk of the OT references.) And, in the NT, the introduction of the term as something self-chosen in order to more adequately follow God. Yet in all of this, there is a consistent theme- poverty that is not chosen is a grievous evil, that must be stopped, and injustice- consistently defined as oppression of the poor and dispossessed- is the furthest thing from the heart of God.
That's actually not been my experience in the comments of Sojourners. Rather, the exact opposite. There are a few people who come here and try to argue that racism is no longer an issue, and poverty is *only* about personal responsibility- e.g. blame the victims and the poor. Most, particularly the article authors, argue that the origins of poverty are very complex. Viv Grigg got it right in Companion to the Poor, with his exhaustive study of all terms for "poverty" in the OT and NT. Some words in the Hebrew/Greek refer to poverty from personal responsibility. Some refer to poverty from natural disaster. Some from an act of God. Some from social injustice. (The last is the bulk of the OT references.) And, in the NT, the introduction of the term as something self-chosen in order to more adequately follow God. Yet in all of this, there is a consistent theme- poverty that is not chosen is a grievous evil, that must be stopped, and injustice- consistently defined as oppression of the poor and dispossessed- is the furthest thing from the heart of God.
Oh- found one. http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicks...
But I fail to see the relevance?
Oh- found one. http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicks...
But I fail to see the relevance?
Really? What's the Trump Card?
I would hazard a guess that it's because we're using an English word and a concept from our own culture, and one must turn to a dynamic equivalent translation to see "God is Diversity" in the Bible. One could argue that this is the foundation of the Trinity, but of course, the word "Trinity" is famously never found in the Bible as well. So we are left with the concept of God as Diversity, but not the actual words, even in dynamic equivalent translation. Perhaps something could be found in that very Genesis passage I cited, where the dynamic equivalent meaning of the nature of God is found in our representation of him/her only in our multi-gender relationship with each other.
Really? What's the Trump Card?
I would hazard a guess that it's because we're using an English word and a concept from our own culture, and one must turn to a dynamic equivalent translation to see "God is Diversity" in the Bible. One could argue that this is the foundation of the Trinity, but of course, the word "Trinity" is famously never found in the Bible as well. So we are left with the concept of God as Diversity, but not the actual words, even in dynamic equivalent translation. Perhaps something could be found in that very Genesis passage I cited, where the dynamic equivalent meaning of the nature of God is found in our representation of him/her only in our multi-gender relationship with each other.
Oh- I meant to reply to this initially, but forgot. As to your Catholic comment, one could well argue that the importance of diversity is not in any given moment of time, but rather throughout all of history. Thus, since it is only more recently that Catholics have been on the Court, and of the 110 Justices, 91 have been Protestant and only 11 Roman Catholic (despite soon to be 6/9 Catholics and only 1 Protestant currently), justice would entail seating *only* non-Protestants for the foreseeable future.
Of course, similar reasoning would also look at no longer sitting white men at all for the next 50 years or so...
Oh- I meant to reply to this initially, but forgot. As to your Catholic comment, one could well argue that the importance of diversity is not in any given moment of time, but rather throughout all of history. Thus, since it is only more recently that Catholics have been on the Court, and of the 110 Justices, 91 have been Protestant and only 11 Roman Catholic (despite soon to be 6/9 Catholics and only 1 Protestant currently), justice would entail seating *only* non-Protestants for the foreseeable future.
Of course, similar reasoning would also look at no longer sitting white men at all for the next 50 years or so...
I saw what Ando meant I believe. . Much attention is being paid to diversity . Your comments saying we are to love those are different are true . Your example of the Good Samaritan is right on also . We are all related in the Kingdom of God , and each race and culture has a needed aspect in the Kingdom . But diversity is a word that has been used so much for artificial reasons the past 30 years . For example Judge Thomas , his race was not important because his value system and lens he looked out was very conservative . I saw the same thing happen to friends I know who had gay lifestyles and through Christ are living lives being straight . They received condemnation from their old crowds . So yes when i hear diversity and love , I understand , but I love the person who is black who is different or similiar, the gay person who is gay or straight . I think that is something Ando was speaking to , diversity means different things to different people , real diversity I believe is that we love the unloved . Sonia Sotomayor was a conservative and strict constructionalist , would we be speaking about loving her and diversity ? I hope so , but I doubt it unfortuantely . One day I hope to find a political Christian blog that would .
I saw what Ando meant I believe. . Much attention is being paid to diversity . Your comments saying we are to love those are different are true . Your example of the Good Samaritan is right on also . We are all related in the Kingdom of God , and each race and culture has a needed aspect in the Kingdom . But diversity is a word that has been used so much for artificial reasons the past 30 years . For example Judge Thomas , his race was not important because his value system and lens he looked out was very conservative . I saw the same thing happen to friends I know who had gay lifestyles and through Christ are living lives being straight . They received condemnation from their old crowds . So yes when i hear diversity and love , I understand , but I love the person who is black who is different or similiar, the gay person who is gay or straight . I think that is something Ando was speaking to , diversity means different things to different people , real diversity I believe is that we love the unloved . Sonia Sotomayor was a conservative and strict constructionalist , would we be speaking about loving her and diversity ? I hope so , but I doubt it unfortuantely . One day I hope to find a political Christian blog that would .
I agree- race, or cultural diversity is not the only thing. When you've got a guy like Thomas who works actively to oppress those of his culture, and is quite sexist to boot, there are other factors. It is a good wake-up that we shouldn't look *only* at the colour of the skin or cultural background, but also if they are working for or against the oppressed. But I think you're incorrect- were Justice Sotomayor a conservative, the Republicans would be talking about nothing else than that she was a latina woman, and therefore we should elect her, in order to be diverse (and it's rather convenient that she's also a conservative constructionalist.) And they'd be quite happy to have found a way to recoup the Hispanic vote.
I agree- race, or cultural diversity is not the only thing. When you've got a guy like Thomas who works actively to oppress those of his culture, and is quite sexist to boot, there are other factors. It is a good wake-up that we shouldn't look *only* at the colour of the skin or cultural background, but also if they are working for or against the oppressed. But I think you're incorrect- were Justice Sotomayor a conservative, the Republicans would be talking about nothing else than that she was a latina woman, and therefore we should elect her, in order to be diverse (and it's rather convenient that she's also a conservative constructionalist.) And they'd be quite happy to have found a way to recoup the Hispanic vote.
"When you've got a guy like Thomas who works actively to oppress those of his culture, and is quite sexist to boot, there are other factors. "
Hmmm , does not sound like your loving someone who has different ideas then you or is diverse at all my friend . But your right republicans used Gonzalles objections and played the Latino card when democrats brought up objections with him . I was just talking from a Christian lens that I thought Jesus wanted us to have . Your comments about Thomas oppresinng others made me think you did not get it , and really only love those who think like you . Do you see what i mean ? Thats a different view , I don't believe in any kind of jobs being given to anyone based on race . Not when the Klan did it , or when well intentioned people thought it would help correct injustices . But if i am wrong , its not my heart that is wrong , nor is it right to consider Judge thomas heart is wrong . His behavior you may disagree with , because if you believe affirmitive action is a good thing I would agree , Judge thomas is not someone you want in the Court . But I don't see democrats really any different in using race at times for advancement . Jesus was not about political advancement , you were speaking to Kindom Advancement and that is what i was speaking to .
Perhaps you can look at your comments and see why I might say to myself , ugggg , because your talking about loving people who are different , and because Thomas has different world views in what works and does not work , your comments promote a negative view of him personally . You did not see that ? Does because I believe Marriage being changed hurts all of us make me ant i gay ? Or that affirmitive action actually is morrally wrong and in the long run hurtfull and causes a delay in real discrimination solving , do these things make my heart anti God , no , perhaps my behavior is wrong , and thus debating with your ideas I welcome , debating about my motives is a no no .
Mick
"When you've got a guy like Thomas who works actively to oppress those of his culture, and is quite sexist to boot, there are other factors. "
Hmmm , does not sound like your loving someone who has different ideas then you or is diverse at all my friend . But your right republicans used Gonzalles objections and played the Latino card when democrats brought up objections with him . I was just talking from a Christian lens that I thought Jesus wanted us to have . Your comments about Thomas oppresinng others made me think you did not get it , and really only love those who think like you . Do you see what i mean ? Thats a different view , I don't believe in any kind of jobs being given to anyone based on race . Not when the Klan did it , or when well intentioned people thought it would help correct injustices . But if i am wrong , its not my heart that is wrong , nor is it right to consider Judge thomas heart is wrong . His behavior you may disagree with , because if you believe affirmitive action is a good thing I would agree , Judge thomas is not someone you want in the Court . But I don't see democrats really any different in using race at times for advancement . Jesus was not about political advancement , you were speaking to Kindom Advancement and that is what i was speaking to .
Perhaps you can look at your comments and see why I might say to myself , ugggg , because your talking about loving people who are different , and because Thomas has different world views in what works and does not work , your comments promote a negative view of him personally . You did not see that ? Does because I believe Marriage being changed hurts all of us make me ant i gay ? Or that affirmitive action actually is morrally wrong and in the long run hurtfull and causes a delay in real discrimination solving , do these things make my heart anti God , no , perhaps my behavior is wrong , and thus debating with your ideas I welcome , debating about my motives is a no no .
Mick
Grace, when you attack someone and call them "friend" in the same sentence, that also doesn't sound like love.
One person can't be diverse. By definition.
Pointing out how someone attacks the disenfranchised, or minorities, or women, is not not loving them. Indeed, that is love itself.
Grace, Christ calls us to point out injustice. We should never back down just because the person doesn't agree with us on some points.
Affirmative Action is really beside the point when you are harassing your employees.
Affirmative Action isn't about correcting past wrongs- as the article above so well shows.
Yes Grace, you are correct, Democrats use race to advance themselves. That's why I don't align myself with the Democrats, but with the Kingdom. If we cease to be prophetic, we as Christians no longer have a mission. We need to be prophetic as much in the next eight years as we should have been in the past eight years.
Grace, I read your comments here, and many other places, and usually I don't respond because...well...they seem to lack grace. It is difficult to come here and read someone who is judging and assaulting me with words. I don't get civility, courtesy, or respect from you, nor do I feel like you extend the benefit of the doubt.
I never said or suggested that your beliefs about marriage makes you anti-gay. That's a strawman. Nor did I say that about affirmative action.
But so you may understand- no, one should never stop pointing out injustice because you think it would be contrary to love. It is part of love. And if the world view of someone is to kill everyone, then, yes, I will object to it. (Reductio ad absurdum) And in Justice Thomas' case, when his world view is to oppress, I will object to that too. And when his actions result in hurt for women, I will object to that, and say he was wrong, and that that was a sin.
I at no point questioned your motives, though I would have every right to, I suppose, if I knew them. Your response to me did nothing but question my motives. Actually, there wasn't much question there. Just judgment.
Grace, when you attack someone and call them "friend" in the same sentence, that also doesn't sound like love.
One person can't be diverse. By definition.
Pointing out how someone attacks the disenfranchised, or minorities, or women, is not not loving them. Indeed, that is love itself.
Grace, Christ calls us to point out injustice. We should never back down just because the person doesn't agree with us on some points.
Affirmative Action is really beside the point when you are harassing your employees.
Affirmative Action isn't about correcting past wrongs- as the article above so well shows.
Yes Grace, you are correct, Democrats use race to advance themselves. That's why I don't align myself with the Democrats, but with the Kingdom. If we cease to be prophetic, we as Christians no longer have a mission. We need to be prophetic as much in the next eight years as we should have been in the past eight years.
Grace, I read your comments here, and many other places, and usually I don't respond because...well...they seem to lack grace. It is difficult to come here and read someone who is judging and assaulting me with words. I don't get civility, courtesy, or respect from you, nor do I feel like you extend the benefit of the doubt.
I never said or suggested that your beliefs about marriage makes you anti-gay. That's a strawman. Nor did I say that about affirmative action.
But so you may understand- no, one should never stop pointing out injustice because you think it would be contrary to love. It is part of love. And if the world view of someone is to kill everyone, then, yes, I will object to it. (Reductio ad absurdum) And in Justice Thomas' case, when his world view is to oppress, I will object to that too. And when his actions result in hurt for women, I will object to that, and say he was wrong, and that that was a sin.
I at no point questioned your motives, though I would have every right to, I suppose, if I knew them. Your response to me did nothing but question my motives. Actually, there wasn't much question there. Just judgment.
