Evangelical Christianity and Its Failing Moral Core

This 18 minute video interview with Reverend Robert Schenck discusses the status of Evangelical Christianity and the influence of its involvement in American politics and culture wars. Schenck is blunt about the losing moral situation the church has put itself in.

Beginning at ~10:30 in the interview, Schenck points out that millions of people under the age of 45 are leaving the church because they see the moral hypocrisy and emotional manipulation the church foists on its flock. Church membership losses have been occurring for the last 13 years straight. At 11:42, Schenck flatly states that fund raisers directly told him that to get money flowing in, he needed to instill fear and anger in his congregation: “The madder they are, the more fearful they are, the more money they are going to send you. .... Well, young people are sick of that.”





Earlier in the interview beginning at ~4:40 Schenck is blunt about why Evangelicals supported the president. Specifically, they want the supreme court packed with a majority of religious Christian judges. They want a solid majority. They are willing to tolerate what they know and privately admitted early on is an immoral president to get the power in government they desperately want for Christianity. But apparently, the Evangelical moral mindset has changed. Beginning  at ~6:16 Schenck says that he does not hear such private admissions any more from other Evangelical leaders.

He interprets this to not mean that Evanelical leaders are drifting away from the president. Instead he sees the leadership as having internalized and accepted the president’s moral poison. Schenck calls this ‘a kind of final conversion’ that he fears puts the president’s Evangelical supporters in danger of losing their immortal souls and the church itself of becoming a relic “and not a good one at that.”

If Schenck is correct in his analysis, there is a potentially lethal moral failure in Evangelical leadership and its involvement in politics and culture wars. The failure flows directly from supporting a vulgar, immoral president. That moral failure is what is driving people away from the Evangelical church, and maybe for some, from all of Christianity.

One thing that merits comment here is the willingness of the Evangelical leadership and what is left of the church to impose their will and morals on a society that increasingly does not share those values. This plays directly into the rise of GOP authoritarianism. The president’s penchant for authoritarianism is clear. Schenck asserts that the political and social culture the president has fomented is extremely dangerous, especially Christians who endanger their souls.

Fortunately, some other Evangelicl leaders have concluded that the president is dangerous. Thirty leaders have written essays on the danger the president represents. The essays are published in the book, The Spiritual Danger of Donald Trump.

Conservatives are flocking to a new 'free speech' social media app that has started banning liberal users

 Many of Parler's users have voiced their disapproval of how mainstream platforms such as Facebook and Twitter moderate content.

July 3, 2020

Last week, Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, both announced on Twitter that they were moving to a new social media platform.

"I'm proud to join @parler_app -- a platform gets what free speech is all about -- and I'm excited to be a part of it," Cruz tweeted.

Many others followed suit. Parler, founded in August 2018, touts itself as an "unbiased" social media platform focused on "real user experiences and engagement." In recent weeks, it has become a destination for conservatives who have voiced their disapproval of how mainstream platforms such as Facebook and Twitter moderate content.

But as with every other platform on the internet, Parler's free speech stance goes only so far. The platform has been banning many people who joined and trolled conservatives.

"Pretty much all of my leftist friends joined Parler to screw with MAGA folks, and every last one of them was banned in less than 24 hours because conservatives truly love free speech," a user wrote on Twitter.

Writer and comedian Tony Posnanski also received a ban from the app. "Free speech my a--! I literally said less than here and I got banned," he tweeted.

John Matze, the founder and CEO of Parler, said Thursday in an interview with CNBC that the company remains firm in its promise that it supports free speech.

"Our general premise is that we believe in the good of the American people as a whole and that people should be able to have these discussions," he said. "People don't want to be told what to think. People don't want to be told what to say anymore."

Parler did not respond to a request for comment.

The move to Parler by conservatives comes as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media platforms remain under pressure from Republicans over how they decide to remove content posted by users. Conservatives for years have claimed that they are unfairly silenced on the platforms, although many Republican politicians and pundits enjoy large audiences on them.

The pressure has increased in recent weeks since Twitter labeled multiple tweets from President Donald Trump as misleading and Snap, the owner of Snapchat, announced that it will stop promoting Trump's content. Facebook, which did not take similar action, has faced both a major advertiser boycott over how it handles hate speech and unrest from employees over how it handled Trump's statements.

Republicans have countered by pushing legislation to curtail the tech industry's legal protections, coupled with an executive order from Trump.

Parler is not the first alternative platform to try to capitalize on displeasure with the major platforms. Its user experience is similar to that of Twitter and other microblogging websites. Users can make posts on the platform and receive likes, comments and shares.

Some people who joined the platform described it as a conservative version of Twitter. Rees Paz, who calls himself a left-leaning centrist in his Twitter bio, tweeted that all of the users recommended for him on the app were conservative figures, from Trump's son Eric to Laura Loomer, a conservative activist who was previously banned from Twitter.

But even some conservatives find fault with the platform, which, in addition to stating that it is a free speech haven, promises to "never [share] your personal data."

Its privacy policy says it "may collect ... information such as your name, email address, username, and profile photo."

For people who choose to join the app's "influencer network," the company may ask for information "such as your Social Security number (SSN) or your tax identification number."

Some users have been dissatisfied with the company's efforts to protect their privacy.

Mindy Robinson, a conservative political commentator, criticized Cruz for endorsing the app.

"The minute it asked for a copy of my driver's license to access normal features Twitter already has ... I knew something was seriously wrong with Parler," Robinson wrote.

She then clarified that she was not able to send a direct message on the app without providing a photo of her driver's license.

Another user wrote: "I signed up prior to it requiring a phone number. It hasn't asked me to provide it yet. The moment it does I'm out."

In his CNBC interview, Matze defended Parler's policy on phone numbers and identification, saying people say "nasty things" online because they can stay anonymous.

"On Parler, people get verified, people have phone numbers related to their accounts. People know they're acting and behaving as they would in a town square," he said.

"We are a town square, not a publication," Matze added. "I think people will come around to this idea more and more — society can solve these problems without regulation of the social media platforms."

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/conservatives-flock-free-speech-social-media-app-which-has-started-n1232844

DO NOT SIGN UP TO CHECK THEM OUT, they require your phone number.

I used to think independence was everything. A pandemic and a goofy little cat taught me otherwise

By Megan Burbank
Seattle Times features reporter

The morning I was supposed to file this story, I was cleaning cat vomit out of the carpet in my apartment, something that I could not have imagined doing three months ago, when the idea of a pet seemed nice, but I couldn’t imagine leaving an animal alone all day. “My lifestyle doesn’t really allow for it,” I would say to friends, as if they were suggesting I adopt a human child and not a self-contained house cat.

What I really meant was: I like living alone and I’m afraid of change and commitment.

Living alone is a privilege, and before the coronavirus pandemic, I loved everything about it. I’ve always been an introvert with a hyperactive imagination, so to spend time alone is not a curse, but a pleasure. I love sleeping alone, watching movies alone, taking walks alone and coming home alone, and doing chores and cooking alone, with a podcast or audiobook in my earbuds for company.

After a busy day of work-related back-and-forth and my phone’s relentless pings, I love nothing more than to put my devices in airplane mode and read a paper-and-ink book, undisturbed, until I’ve truly come home to my own brain again and feel ready to deal with the demands of the outside world once more.

In my 20s, when I was still living in a limbo of roommates and cohabitation, I had taken Virginia Woolf’s “A Room of One’s Own” as literally as some people take the Bible (conveniently ignoring the existence of Leonard Woolf). I am the kind of person who, at the end of a three-year relationship in my late 20s, was devastated AND subtly excited that I could go grocery shopping again without having to make compromises in the frozen foods section at Trader Joe’s.

I took a perverse pride in being responsible for nothing but myself and an ever-growing plant collection. How embarrassing — how domestic — it would be to have to take care of anyone or anything else. My dream was to live alone, or in the event that I fell in love again, down the street from a hypothetical future partner, who would also Live Alone and Like It!

On weekday nights, I’d wipe down countertops in communal kitchens I shared with various sundry roommates, and long for the day when I could dispense with them altogether. If this all sounds mildly sociopathic, it may have been.

It is possible for fierce independence to teeter into its unpleasant cousin, unfettered solipsism, and living alone under a COVID-induced lockdown revealed the weak points in my “No man is an island but I, a woman, am one” routine.

Part of what had allowed me to enjoy being alone was a vast network of friends and family I knew I could call on whenever I needed to, and who frequently called on me. In the early days of Washington state’s “Stay Home, Stay Healthy” order, our interactions were limited to video chats. I could hardly remember the last time I’d been hugged. Living alone had never felt so isolating.

Holden Caulfield laments at the end of “The Catcher in the Rye” that eventually “you start missing everybody.” And it was true. I missed seeing my friends and family in person. I missed high-fives and handshakes. I missed the people I used to see on my bus route. I missed the women in my ballet classes. I even missed my dentist’s office.

I missed everybody. And if I was struggling, I couldn’t imagine what this was like for extroverts. I felt so bad for all of us. I felt so bad I volunteered to foster a cat.

After having no luck at the Humane Society, where my application to adopt an older cat with some emotional challenges joined 900 others, I took in a goofy little cat named Luna for a breed-specific rescue. For the first time in my life, I would be solely responsible for a living thing bigger than a plant.

In the photo from the rescue, Luna wore a severe lion cut, a jaunty bow tie and a sour-looking expression. As it turns out, that’s just what her face looks like.

Luna, who has been described by her vet as “a funny little lady,” is an exotic shorthair whose bottom-line breeding means she has an extremely smooshed face and a teeny-tiny nose, and she’s small for an adult cat. A friend has compared her to a slightly inbred royal with a Habsburg chin but a positive attitude, and this does not seem inaccurate. (Please don’t buy purebred animals.) The effect is a tiny cat who is as friendly as a dog and breathes like a monster. I love her.

She had been surrendered because she was never appropriately socialized as a kitten, and was being aggressive and rude toward the other cats in her home. She needed to be in a space where she would be cared for and loved but where she could be the only cat. I could relate to this petite menace and her need for solitude, and immediately agreed to foster her. No cat is an island.

Luna enjoys: watching “Cheers” on the couch, murdering bugs who have the misfortune of crossing her path, taking luxurious naps on surfaces meant for humans, trying to eat the comb I brush her with weekly.
Luna does not enjoy: eyedrops, her carrier, having her paws handled, the vacuum.

Everyone who meets Luna falls in love with her. She is an objectively adorable cat who gets rave reviews at the vet, with huge amber Halloween eyes and a beautiful gray-white coat with blue markings.

I told myself I was “only fostering” but as we spent our first evening together watching horror movies on the couch side by side, I knew I wanted to keep her.

And so a global pandemic turned me from a “Room of One’s Own” purist into one of those annoying people who make up voices for their pets (Luna’s is sort of like an imperial guard in “Star Wars”) and complain about fireworks’ impact on their animals’ mental health. I am above starting a dedicated Instagram account for Luna, but not too proud to hashtag. I clean up her messes and take her to the vet and sometimes even unhygienically let her sleep at the foot of my bed, which would likely horrify the person I was in my twenties.

I still love being alone, but if the past few months have taught me anything, it’s that the American myth of self-sufficiency and bootstrapping is a dangerous one that reinforces long-fortified systems of oppression. It may be possible to get through this time, but it can’t be done alone. That’s why my neighbors now wear masks to protect strangers they’ll never meet, why they’ve put up homemade Black Lives Matter signs in their windows, why waving kindly at a fellow stranger wearing a mask is the new smile-and-nod.

I always prided myself on being self-sufficient, but the truth is I’m not. No one is. Not really. Mutual care is the only way we survive. It’s a luxury to have a room of one’s own; it is harder to acknowledge your own need for care. It requires more vulnerability, at a time of tremendous, deep-rooted and lasting pain, to accept the importance and imperatives of softness, kindness and communion.

So I am leaning into those things right now — driving my cousin and her newborn daughter home from the hospital; drinking wine with my mom in her yard; paddling lazily across Green Lake with my brother in separate, inflatable dinghies; Venmoing drinking money to furloughed friends; and, yes, occasionally cleaning up cat vomit. No funny little lady is an island.

https://www.seattletimes.com/life/i-used-to-think-independence-was-everything-a-pandemic-and-a-goofy-little-cat-taught-me-otherwise/

The Great Logic Fallacy of the Science Deniers

The current issue of Scientific American has a short but interesting article by Naomi Oreskes, The False Logic of Science Denial. Climate science deniers dislike her for trying to debunk climate science denial. She points out that logic fallacies are common and even scientists fall prey to them over things they really should know better than to fall prey to.[1] Oreskes writes:

"All this is to say that logical fallacies are everywhere and not always easily refuted. Truth, at least in science, is not self-evident. And this helps to explain why science denial is easy to generate and hard to slay. Today we live in a world where science denial, about everything from climate change to COVID-19, is rampant, informed by fallacies of all kinds. 

But there is a meta-fallacy—an über-fallacy if you will—that motivates these other, specific fallacies. It also explains why so many of the same people who reject the scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change also question the evidence related to COVID-19. 

Given how common it is, it is remarkable that philosophers have failed to give it a formal name. But I think we can view it as a variety of what sociologists call implicatory denial. I interpret implicatory denial as taking this form: If P, then Q. But I don't like Q! Therefore, P must be wrong. This is the logic (or illogic) that underlies most science rejection. 

Climate change: I reject the suggestion that the “magic of the market” has failed and that we need government intervention to remedy the market failure. Evolutionary theory: I am offended by the suggestion that life is random and meaningless and that there is no God. COVID-19: I resent staying home, losing income or being told by the government what do to."

So there it is. Implicatory denial is much of the explanation[2] for why climate science is deniable. Deniers don't like the idea of human-caused climate change and/or the idea of government doing anything about it. Therefore, there is no climate change for whatever reason(s) makes it believable.

The same flawed logic applies to denying vaccine usefulness, COVID-19, or whatever other accepted science gets rejected.


Footnotes:
1. Oreskes argues that a common and "vexing" fallacy a among scientists is this: If theory P is correct, then Q is predicted. An experiment to see if Q pops up, and it does. Therefore, theory P is true. This conclusion is based on a logic fallacy. Q could pop up for one or more reasons unrelated to P. The frequency of that fallacy led philosopher Karl Popper to argue that the method of science should be falsification. Popper's logic was a theory cannot be proved to be true, because not every every circumstance can be tested. A single counterexample proves a theory false.

Oreskes asserts that Popper's theory was based on logic flaw. Specifically an experiment can failed for reasons unrelated to the theory being tested. Reasons for failure include insufficiently sensitivity to detect the predicted effect or analysis software throws out real data points that are programmed to be rejected as spurious. She argues that here is no logical resolution to this. So scientists generally deal with it through consilience. That means looks to find or infer the explanation that is the most consistent with evidence from a variety of sources That approach looks at a problem from a variety of angles to see what holds up best.

2. The paper that Oreskes cites for implicatory denial, Sociological Explanations for Climate Change Denial, asserts that it is one of two common forms of science denial. The other is called interpretative denial, where facts are accepted, but the interpretation of what the facts logically lead to a different (flawed) conclusion from what unbiased people would usually come to.

Over the years, my personal experience has been that implicatory denial is more common than interpretative denial. But that's just anecdote, not solid data.

The Ivanka and Jared Show

The 22 minute video is from John Oliver's show. It is mostly about Ivanka and Jared. Ivanka shares her father's belief about the low importance of truth. She is also truly expert at sounding reasonable and on point, while in fact saying essentially nothing at all. As Oliver puts it, "the apple doesn't fall far from the orange."

The main point I want to make is about how Ivanka views truth. These two screen shots from the video clip explain it nicely and in her own words.

Apparently Ivanka believes that letting people hold false beliefs is not being dulpicitous so long as it is to your advantage. After all, perception is more important that reality, except of course when it isn't. It is reasonable to think that Ivanka thinks that if it isn't to your advantage, then by all means, try to correct the error.

Thanks to V4V for bringing this video clip to my attention.

Some thoughts on thinking…

Full article here. 

"How to think effectively: Six stages of critical thinking"

• Researchers propose six levels of critical thinkers: Unreflective thinkers, Challenged thinkers, Beginning thinkers, Practicing thinkers, Advanced thinkers, and Master thinkers.

• The framework comes from educational psychologists Linda Elder and Richard Paul.

• Teaching critical thinking skills is a crucial challenge in our times.

The stage theory of critical thinking development, devised by psychologists Linda Elder and Richard Paul, can help us gauge the sophistication of our current mental approaches and provides a roadmap to the thinking of others.

The researchers identified six predictable levels of critical thinkers, from ones lower in depth and effort to the advanced mind-masters, who are always steps ahead.

As the scientists write, moving up on this pyramid of thinking "is dependent upon a necessary level of commitment on the part of an individual to develop as a critical thinker." Using your mind more effectively is not automatic and "is unlikely to take place "subconsciously." In other words – you have to put in the work and keep doing it, or you'll lose the faculty.

Here's how the stages of intellectual development break down:
 

Stage One: The Unreflective Thinker

These are people who don't reflect about thinking and the effect it has on their lives. As such, they form opinions and make decisions based on prejudices and misconceptions while their thinking doesn't improve.

Stage Two: The Challenged Thinker

This next level up thinker has awareness of the importance of thinking on their existence and knows that deficiencies in thinking can bring about major issues. As the psychologists explain, to solve a problem, you must first admit you have one.

Stage Three: The Beginning Thinker

Thinkers at this level can go beyond the nascent intellectual humility and actively look to take control of their thinking across areas of their lives. They know that their own thinking can have blind spots and other problems and take steps to address those, but in a limited capacity.

Stage Four: The Practicing Thinker

This more experienced kind of thinker not only appreciates their own deficiencies, but has skills to deal with them. A thinker of this level will practice better thinking habits and will analyze their mental processes with regularity.

Stage Five: The Advanced Thinker

One doesn't typically get to this stage until college and beyond, estimate the scientists. This higher-level thinker would have strong habits that would allow them to analyze their thinking with insight about different areas of life. They would be fair-minded and able to spot the prejudicial aspects in the points of view of others and their own understanding.

Stage Six: The Master Thinker

This is the super-thinker, the one who is totally in control of how they process information and make decisions. Such people constantly seek to improve their thought skills, and through experience "regularly raise their thinking to the level of conscious realization."

 *     *     *

The significance of critical thinking in our daily lives, especially in these confusing times, so rife with quick and often-misleading information, cannot be overstated. The decisions we make today can truly be life and death.
 

Now for your input:

-What do you think?  Does this analysis make sense to you? 

-Where do you see yourself on the pyramid? 

-Do you want to advance?  If so, how far up do you want to go?  Do you realistically think you can get there?  If yes, why?  If not, why not?

Thanks for thinking about it and recommending.