Here's what humanity has done over the last few decades...
1. The principles of Western civilisation were based on the Bible. Westerners typically believed in God. Although they didn't fully understand God, there was an acceptance of the moral standards that came with Christianity as being beneficial for the human race.
2. As science progressed, theories developed of a world that may not have been influenced by God. Although there is not a complete explanation, a 'theory of everything' (as Stephen Hawking liked to put it), and no idea how matter could come into being of it's own accord, scientists and atheists have pushed forward this view.
3. Atheist philosophers no longer accepted "I don't know" as a rational response to some of the tough questions (despite scientists using the same response when asked similarly tough questions). For them, God had to be fully understandable by humans, and God's actions had to be assessed by the moral standards of Western civilisation.
4. Instead of seeking for deeper reasons, the existence of wars and of the Israelite nation destroying the 'pagans' in the land by God's command were implied to show that God (if He exists) must be a 'nasty' God.
5. Instead of allowing for rational discussion, with each party seeking to expand their own understanding, all the atrocities and suffering of the current world were ascribed to God. Because God is assumed to have complete control over the world, surely He would stop the suffering... if He loves us?
6. The popularity of this notion furthered the idea that we don't need to take responsibility for our actions... if God exists, "He made me this way and He made me do it."
7. The irony is ignored. "If God exists, then He must have made me this way" is not satisfactory for anyone (Christians don't believe it and atheists don't like it), and so atheists use it as their reason for "Therefore God doesn't exist" (rather than, "maybe God didn't make me this way..."). However, if God doesn't exist, then they can't blame God for why they are the way they are... which would imply they they themselves are responsible.
8. But atheists don't like responsibility, which leads to many studies into what factors help make people the way they are: childhood upbringing, abuse, influences, etc. However, no study is completely conclusive because there are always some people who turned out well despite their circumstances: people who made good choices because they took responsibility.
9. Not having God to blame and not having sufficient evidence to blame 'circumstances', something had to be done. Enter 'white privilege'. It's the new concept which is not measurable, not fully understood, and certainly not allowed to be critiqued. It must simply be 'accepted'.
10. 'White privilege' allows people to not have to look at themselves for their troubles. It's their scapegoat. "I am what I am because... white privilege." 'White privilege' to the rational minded has all the same traits as God does to the atheist: not measurable, not fully understood, not allowed to be critiqued (because of it's non-existence), and must be the reason for why the world is the way it is. Just as God 'allowed genocide' (the Israelites killing other nations), 'white privilege' also allows genocide: the disempowerment of, abuse towards and disposal of... white people.
Hence, 'white privilege' is the new god.
But 'white privilege' won't get you out of trouble. It won't save your soul. It's simply a pseudo-reason for why your life is the way it is. It disregards a white person who is poor, and it disregards a black person who has 'made it'.
Will Smith? Barak Obama? Did they have 'white privilege'??
It's another excuse for people to avoid taking responsibility for themselves. Therefore, is it any wonder that the proponents of such an imaginary concept are liberals?
1. The principles of Western civilisation were based on the Bible. Westerners typically believed in God. Although they didn't fully understand God, there was an acceptance of the moral standards that came with Christianity as being beneficial for the human race.
2. As science progressed, theories developed of a world that may not have been influenced by God. Although there is not a complete explanation, a 'theory of everything' (as Stephen Hawking liked to put it), and no idea how matter could come into being of it's own accord, scientists and atheists have pushed forward this view.
3. Atheist philosophers no longer accepted "I don't know" as a rational response to some of the tough questions (despite scientists using the same response when asked similarly tough questions). For them, God had to be fully understandable by humans, and God's actions had to be assessed by the moral standards of Western civilisation.
4. Instead of seeking for deeper reasons, the existence of wars and of the Israelite nation destroying the 'pagans' in the land by God's command were implied to show that God (if He exists) must be a 'nasty' God.
5. Instead of allowing for rational discussion, with each party seeking to expand their own understanding, all the atrocities and suffering of the current world were ascribed to God. Because God is assumed to have complete control over the world, surely He would stop the suffering... if He loves us?
6. The popularity of this notion furthered the idea that we don't need to take responsibility for our actions... if God exists, "He made me this way and He made me do it."
7. The irony is ignored. "If God exists, then He must have made me this way" is not satisfactory for anyone (Christians don't believe it and atheists don't like it), and so atheists use it as their reason for "Therefore God doesn't exist" (rather than, "maybe God didn't make me this way..."). However, if God doesn't exist, then they can't blame God for why they are the way they are... which would imply they they themselves are responsible.
8. But atheists don't like responsibility, which leads to many studies into what factors help make people the way they are: childhood upbringing, abuse, influences, etc. However, no study is completely conclusive because there are always some people who turned out well despite their circumstances: people who made good choices because they took responsibility.
9. Not having God to blame and not having sufficient evidence to blame 'circumstances', something had to be done. Enter 'white privilege'. It's the new concept which is not measurable, not fully understood, and certainly not allowed to be critiqued. It must simply be 'accepted'.
10. 'White privilege' allows people to not have to look at themselves for their troubles. It's their scapegoat. "I am what I am because... white privilege." 'White privilege' to the rational minded has all the same traits as God does to the atheist: not measurable, not fully understood, not allowed to be critiqued (because of it's non-existence), and must be the reason for why the world is the way it is. Just as God 'allowed genocide' (the Israelites killing other nations), 'white privilege' also allows genocide: the disempowerment of, abuse towards and disposal of... white people.
Hence, 'white privilege' is the new god.
But 'white privilege' won't get you out of trouble. It won't save your soul. It's simply a pseudo-reason for why your life is the way it is. It disregards a white person who is poor, and it disregards a black person who has 'made it'.
Will Smith? Barak Obama? Did they have 'white privilege'??
It's another excuse for people to avoid taking responsibility for themselves. Therefore, is it any wonder that the proponents of such an imaginary concept are liberals?
No comments:
Post a Comment