Advertisement

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

My Prediction Come True: Reaction to Sandy Hook “Racist”

posted by Jack Kerwick

One week ago, on the heels of the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that left 20 children and six adults dead, I made a prediction on my Facebook wall.  Sooner than any of us would like, I predicted, the national mourning that this event has beckoned forth will be regarded by some as the function of racism.

The victims of the mass murder at Sandy Hook were white.  Moreover, they were, as the left would have referred to them had they not been slaughtered, “the children of privilege.”  The Sandy Hook School is a prestigious institution in an affluent, and predominantly white, area.  Indeed, most of Sandy Hook’s students are doubtless the offspring of just those people—Americans making over $250,000 annually—who our President has spent the better part of his term castigating for failing to pay their “fair share” of taxes.

Advertisement

But now, along with the rest of the nation, he sheds tears over these dead white bodies.  Furthermore, he leaves the White House to travel to—of all places!—a prayer service inConnecticut from which he makes a televised address to the country.

Now, none of this would be objectionable if the daily killing of black “children” in “inner city” neighborhoods throughout the land elicited a similar outpouring of concern and attention.  However, no such luck.  You see, when black kids are routinely murdered, no one cares.

This is the line I saw coming.  And this is the line that I first heard yesterday on Sean Hannity’s radio program, and today heard repeated on a local radio station in the Philadelphia,Pennsylvania area. (Incidentally, I also predicted that Sean Hannity would be among the first to give it coverage).

Advertisement

Granted, to my knowledge, no public figure—no politician, celebrity, or professional racial activist—has yet to exploit Sandy Hook in quite this way.  Yet on the December 20th broadcast of Hannity’s show, a regular black caller named “Levi” said that while he does indeed feel for the deceased and their loved ones in Connecticut, he is frustrated that no one appears to care about the suffering that black children daily have to endure.

The black listener that contributed to the discussion on “Power 99” this morning, however, wasn’t nearly as diplomatic. He said that since “no one cares” about the killing of black children, he didn’t care a lick about the deaths of the 20 white children for whom the nation now grieves.  The black hosts of the morning show, as well as at least one other black caller, took him to task for his absence of empathy.  But they agreed with him that there is a racial double standard, and, thus, they claimed to “understand” his position.

Advertisement

There are two things of which we can all be certain. 

First, there are plenty of Americans, blacks, certainly, but white leftists as well, who think this way.  Second, very soon now, a professional race shyster with a microphone and a camera will be screaming from the rooftops the very same thing that these obscure black callers uttered on a couple of radio shows.

In a sense, but only in a sense, there is some truth to this sentiment. It is obviously, painfully, disgracefully true that black “inner city” communities throughout the country are virtual combat zones.  It is also true that, just as it is the residents of any and every other community the world over that are ultimately responsible for the condition of those communities, so too does the responsibility for the desolate condition of black communities fall squarely upon the shoulders of their residents. 

Advertisement

This, though, we can’t say.  When blacks say it, they are derided as “sell outs,” “race traitors,” and “Uncle Toms.”  When whites say it, they are charged with—what else?—“racism.”

Most people, and especially whites, either remain silent on the issue of black pathology, like criminality, or contrive transparently preposterous explanations for it: “racism,” “poverty,” Democratic politicians, “a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow,” and a host of other fashionable—and groundless—“root causes.”

The Land of  Make Believe is often preferable to the real world, and it is always safer.  But as we fortify the former, the latter only deteriorates further.

There is another point that needs to be addressed. 

Advertisement

Most of the black “children” to whose deaths Americans are allegedly indifferent are themselves murderous thugs.  They are not children between the ages of five and ten years of age.  They are gun-toting, gang-banging teenagers.  To be sure, this doesn’t warrant indifference.  It is nothing less than an unadulterated scandal that this state of affairs ever could have been permitted to emerge in the United States of America.  As such, it deserves that we deal with it—truthfully.

Still, it is just dishonest to compare this with what occurred in Connecticut.  In fact, that there is anyone who would think to draw this comparison proves just how far off from dealing with the routine killing of “black children” we remain. 

   

 

 

 

Advertisement

Atheism and the Problem of Morality

posted by Jack Kerwick

Where was God when Adam Lanza went on a shooting spree at an elementary school in Newtown,Connecticut that left 20 children and six adults dead? 

Atheists assume that if there is evil in the world, then there can be no God. What they need to realize, however, is that if there is no God, then there can be no morality. This is what Dostoyevsky meant when he noted that if there is no God, then anything is possible.

Morality is objective.  It consists of norms that are held to be independent of human will.  Morality is not about what we do, or what we want to do.  It is about what we ought to do—whether we want to do it or not.  

But if there is no God, the Supreme Law Giver and Goodness Itself, then morality loses the only objective ground available to it—and, hence, itself.

Advertisement

Not so, many have retorted.  Morality is rooted in reason, or human nature, or biology.

None of this will do. Reason, human nature, and biology may very well have a role to play in the moral life, but only if they are somehow ordained by God.

Reason is fickle.  Over the centuries, distinguished thinkers—from Burke and De Maistre to Hobbes and Hume to Montaigne and Pascal—representing a variety of philosophical traditions have recognized this.  Adolph Hitler and Osama bin Laden (and Adam Lanza, for that matter) acted no less rationally in the pursuit of their goals than did Mother Teresa and Gandhi act in the pursuit of theirs.  Reason is all too easily, and frequently, subverted by the simplest of things, whether passion, impulse, fear, or sickness.

Advertisement

Those who would attempt to use reason as the foundation upon which to lay morality are like a man who tries to build a house on quicksand.

And what is true of reason is just as true of human nature and biology.

Human nature has its angels, for sure, but it also has its demons.  Any human being who has dared to look honestly at himself will be compelled to acknowledge this stone cold fact. As we all say: No one is perfect.  

Biology is even less eligible of a candidate for a basis of morality.  Biology gives us instincts and impulses, needs and inclinations—in short, causes of various sorts.  Yet it cannot supply reasons.  Biology compels.  Morality, in stark contrast, presupposes the freedom to make choices.

Advertisement

If there is no God, then there is no spirit.  And if there is no spirit, then all is matter: reason and human nature boil down to human biology, and biology, in turn, becomes nothing more or less than the latest product of a resolutely non-purposeful mechanical process billions of years in the happening.

If there is no God, then anything is possible.

It isn’t just Dostoyevsky, a Christian, who recognized this.  Some of the most astute and staunchest of atheists have as well.

Of Christianity, Friedrich Nietzsche said that he regarded it “as the most fatal and seductive lie that has ever yet existed—as the greatest and most impious lie.”  Yet Nietzsche viewed Christianity as the ground zero of the “campaign against morality” that he openly waged, the prototype of just the notion of objective morality that he so despised. 

Advertisement

Thus, when Nietzsche declared “the death of God,” it was the death of moral objectivity, of moral absolutes, that he celebrated.

Human beings had nothing to go on but their own “Will to Power.”  They alone are the creators of value.

Jean Paul Sartre was even clearer on this score.

Though an atheist, he scoffed at those atheists who held that we could preserve such traditional moral ideals as honesty, compassion, and justice while doing away with belief in God.  Rather, he admitted to finding it “very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with him [.]”  If there is no God, then there are “no values or commands,” no principles or ideals, that “legitimize our conduct.”

Advertisement

Sartre’s verdict is as haunting as it is inescapable. If there is no God, then we “are alone, with no excuses.”

The response of believer and unbeliever alike to Adam Lanza’s shooting spree in Connecticutis unmistakably moral in character.  Yet unless God exists, there is no basis for our conviction that it was an act of evil. 

And unless the atheist, in his own peculiar way, needed God as much as anyone else, he wouldn’t feel compelled to look beyond his world of material causes and cosmic insignificance to blame Him for not existing.      

 

 

              

 

Advertisement

Adam Lanza: Knowing Evil from Illness

posted by Jack Kerwick

Courtesy of mass murderer Adam Lanza, Sandy Hook School in Newtown,Connecticut has been deprived of 26 members of its community, six adults and twenty children between the ages of five and ten.   

Our hearts break—as they should. Unfortunately, to judge from the endless commentary on this matter, it would appear that our heads are just as fragmented.

The demand for better “mental health” treatment is a classic case in point.  Yet this focus on mental health reflects, not just massive intellectual confusion, but equally massive moral confusion. 

The ever perceptive writer Ilana Mercer was among the first to recognize this.  Just hours after the Newtown shooting, legions of commentators—“self-serving tele-experts, twits of psychology and psychiatry,” as Mercer refers to them—stormed the airwaves to “diagnose” the shooter.  But as Mercer was quick to note, the diagnosis of evil doers can only lead to the denial of evil itself.

Advertisement

“Adam Lanza,” she declares, is “evil, not ill.”

And she is right.

The language of “evil,” like that of “good,” is the language of morality.  The language of “mental health” and “sickness,” on the other hand, is the idiom of science (whether pseudo-science or not is beside the point).  Mental illness is as incompatible with moral judgment as is physical illness.  Neither Asperger’s syndrome nor cancer has anything to say regarding the moral worth of Lanza’s character or actions.

Adam Lanza, the man who shot up a school murdering 20 little boys and girls and six of the adults who tried to protect them, was evil, not ill.

The sick deserve our compassion.  The wicked deserve our condemnation.  Do you see the inconsistency between describing Lanza as both “ill” and “evil?” If it is some mental “illness” that compelled him to commit mass murder, then he no more warrants blame than he would if it was some physical illness like cancer that compelled him to vomit uncontrollably or suffer a dramatic weight loss. 

Advertisement

The great conservative Edmund Burke had famously declared that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.  Yet good men cannot do a thing about evil unless they are able to recognize it for what it is—and what it is not.  In fact, in the absence of this ability, men can’t hope to be good at all.   

So, point one: lest we know this elementary difference between evil and illness, we will render ourselves incapable of making pronouncements concerning either.

This conflation of illness and evil gives rise to an even greater problem, however: far more evil promises to be done in the name of “mental health treatment” than would ever be done in the name of justice.

C.S. Lewis is among those who took note of this nearly 60 years ago.  Lewis wrote that when “the idea of mending tails off into that of healing or curing,” then the healers are likely to “act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants.”  Indeed, “in some respects,” they could “act even worse,” for “a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive” of all tyrannies.  The therapists will “torment us without end” because they have “the approval of their own conscience.”

Advertisement

Lewis makes another crucial observation.  The language of good and evil affirms the moral agency of men and women—even human monsters who would deliberately harm children.  The language of mental illness, in contrast, deprives us of it.

“To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

Yet when punishment, even capital punishment, is visited upon a person because he is believed to deserve it, the subject in question is “treated as a human person made in God’s image.”      

Those of us who are resolved to combat evil must be just as resolved to differentiate it from illness.

 

 

 

Advertisement

The “Root Causes” of the Newtown Shooting

posted by Jack Kerwick

No sooner had the word of the Sandy Hook Elementary School slaughter in Newtown,Connecticut broke than the search for “root causes” was well under way.  Not unexpectedly, topping the list was the “root cause” par excellence, the alleged lack of “gun control.”

Unsurprisingly, none of the following “root causes” made the cut.

For nearly forty years, abortion has been the law of our land.  Forget for the moment whether the aborted is a “person,” “child,” or “fetus,” or whether or not it has a “right to life.”  What no one can deny is that it is its mother’s posterity, her begotten.  It is her child.

But in allowing mothers, of all people, to destroy their own children, can anyone doubt that we make minced meat of the idea that children, being the most vulnerable among us, are to be protected at all costs? 

Advertisement

Maybe it is exactly because the abortion culture had taken its toll upon mass murderer Adam Lanza’s psyche that he had no regard for innocent children.

Capital punishment, or, more precisely, the infrequency with which it is implemented, may also explain Lanza’s murderous actions. 

Far from undermining the sanctity of human life, there is no other institution that affirms it more resoundingly than that of the death penalty.  Inasmuch as the latter expunges from the midst of the living those who would commit such unthinkable crimes as that of which Adam Lanza is guilty, capital punishment is the clearest expression of a people’s regard for the life and well being of its members. 

However, the death penalty is rarely exercised with any measure of regularity where it remains on the books, and in places like Connecticut particularly, it is scarcely exercised at all.  Since 1976, only one person had been executed in the state, and earlier this year,Connecticut repealed the ultimate punishment.

Advertisement

The sanctity of human life is thus eroded further.  Lanza may have gotten the memo.

Manza’s race and gender could have played a huge role in accounting for his rampage.  Consider that Manza was a young white man, that is, a member of just that group, and only that group, that is derided and mistreated as a matter of policy. 

From “affirmative action” to massive Third World immigration, from media depictions of white men as either ignoramuses or crazed “racists” to the incessant barrage of giddy proclamations of an ever diminishing white America, the assault on white men is comprehensive.   

Is it impossible to believe that a young white man like Manza, who has been exposed to this systematic abuse his entire life, may not have been consumed with both self-hatred and rage?  For that matter, may not this cultural animus toward whites have figured in Manza’s choice to leave a trail (judging from news photos) of mostly white bodies?

Advertisement

Then there is the matter of Manza’s ethnicity.  “Manza” is an Italian surname, and Italians and Italian-Americans are routinely portrayed as Mafioso and other violent thugs in the popular media. 

Maybe Manza incorporated this image into his own self-understanding.  Maybe this is why he chose to go on a shooting spree.

Almost as unrelenting as their campaign against white men is that which the Politically Correct storm troopers have prosecuted against religion.

Traditional Christian theism has been mocked and ridiculed while atheism has been promoted as “cool” and “hip.”  But, as hardened atheists from Friedrich Nietzsche to Jean Paul Sartre have noted, if there is no God then there is no objective morality: man is free—condemned to be free, Sartre insisted—to create his own values.  In fact, he has no option but to create his values, for there are no values otherwise.

Advertisement

Is it inconceivable to think that this message just may have crept into Lanza’s consciousness over the span of his life?

Now for the punch line: I don’t for a moment believe that any of the foregoing “root causes” are in the least relevant to Adam Lanza’s decision to gun down 20 little kids and six adults.  Yet they have at least as much as to do with it as does the lack of “gun control” on which scores of leftists rushed to hang this abomination.

Lanza was an evil man responsible for perpetrating an evil deed.  As long as there are evil people in the world, evil will be with us.

Maybe it is to the “root causes” of why our generation fails to come to terms with this timeless fact that we need to turn our attention.

 

 

 

 

 

Previous Posts

Myron Pauli: The Pledge of Allegiance versus The US Constitution
Just in time for Independence Day, guest-blogger Myron Pauli addresses the conflict between the Pledge of Allegiance, on the one hand, and, on the other, The United States Constitution. All patriotic Americans who have the opportunity to do so ...

posted 10:26:12pm Jun. 29, 2015 | read full post »

Dylan Roof, the Confederate Flag, and the Logic of the Left
The Dylan Roof/Charleston massacre supplies much food for thought. (1)Predictably, the agents of the Racism-Industrial-Complex (RIC) wasted no time in exploiting this horror for their own political and ideological purposes. From Fox News to ...

posted 10:11:17am Jun. 24, 2015 | read full post »

The CHARGE of "Racism" is Eurocentric Bigotry?! An Academic Leftist Weighs In
An email from "Leon Marlensky," the only consistent leftist remaining, as far as he is concerned. Here, he sounds off a bit over the Charleston, SC coverage. I have reprinted this here with Leon's permission. Dear Jack: In the wake of the ...

posted 11:06:40pm Jun. 19, 2015 | read full post »

What "Caitlyn" Jenner and Rachel Dolezal Teach Us About the "Progressive" Worldview
The events of Rachel Dolezal and “Caitlyn” Jenner are classic textbook case studies in the intellectual and moral incoherence of the contemporary leftist/progressive worldview. Dolezal is a biologically white person who has spent years ...

posted 10:29:58pm Jun. 17, 2015 | read full post »

The Last of the True Progressives Weighs in More on Caitlyn Jenner
Leon Marlensky (an alias for a fellow academic who wishes to remain anonymous) elaborates more on his disgust over, as he sees it, the betrayal of progressivism as revealed via the coverage of the Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner issue. To Those of You ...

posted 10:25:20pm Jun. 15, 2015 | read full post »

Advertisement


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.