#but regardless of what society codes young women as. we now know that the brain keeps developing psychologically and biologically till 25yo

[lost-on-t-umblr]

What makes Rio and Agatha's relationship even more relevant is that, you know who or what is considered to be evil and something to avoid for as long as possible, something that's feared, resented, and thoughts to bring grief and destruction everywhere it goes? Death.

Rio and Agatha are an unusual pair that works so well because they can relate to each other. They immediately find their chemistry after possibly centuries of not seeing (or even perceiving) each other, because they instinctively know what the other is feeling and going through.

Rio is able to provide Agatha with the feeling of kinship that Evanora could never have given, nor ever wanted to give her (if this translates into evident mommy issues, that's for another post with a very different tone, lol).

Evanora Harkness has to be among my most hated characters last year, really.

Agatha was like 18 in the Salem trial. Agatha was 18 when her own mother tried to have her executed. Like. That's your teenage daughter, again, telling you that she can't control this ability and begging you to love her and teaching her how to be good and your response is telling her she can never be good and trying to kill her? Then, many years later, when she asks you, heartbroken, why do you still hate her, you just go and tell her she was born evil and that you should've killed her the moment she was born? Fuck. Off?

You can tell how much this dynamic fucked Agatha up and led her to become the person she is now. She is a bad person now. Not at the time the whole Salem trial happened, though, but she is now. That doesn't make her pure evil, either. She's a complex character and that makes her very interesting. But her mother and her coven deemed her as evil, so that was all she was. And even now, even though —again— she is far from being a good person. And it's sad because Agatha is a bad person yeah, but she wasn't at the time. And it gets sad, because there are moments where Agatha is really misunderstood—like with the part that she killed her first coven to steal her magic when they actually attacked her first and wanted to execute her, or likely the whole 'child sacrifice' thing when she probably didn't even sacrifice her son, at least willingly—, and people just assume the worst of her immediately, even if in that case it's wrong.

And you know what? She doesn't even deny it or try to explain herself. She already tried with her mother and her first coven. It didn't work, they still deemed her as pure evil and not a human being. So she doesn't even try anymore with new people. She doesn't think anyone will understand her.

The only one that gets her and isn't scared of her is... Rio. Death herself is the only one who understands her and loves her and sees her as a human, the one who has her back when her mother wants to torment her again. And-- it makes the whole thing even deeper.

[the-desolated-quill]

Ghost In The Shell: An Ode To Kamikaze - Quill’s Scribbles

MAJOR spoilers ahead for the Ghost In The Shell movie, so don’t read if you haven’t seen the movie yet... which you’re not going to obviously because it’s a whitewashed, racist piece of shit and you would never support such a thing, would you? No, of course not.

I’ve been asked a few times to write something on Ghost In The Shell and up until now I’ve been reluctant to do so for two reasons. 1) I’m not really a fan of Ghost In The Shell. I know roughly what its about from what people have told me, but I just never really got into it, and 2) I’ve pretty much said everything I’ve wanted to say about whitewashing, mostly in my numerous Doctor Strange posts. If I started doing stuff on Ghost In The Shell, I’d run the risk of repeating myself. Whitewashing is bad, Hollywood are a bunch of racist opportunists and you shouldn’t pay money or support these kinds of projects in any way, shape or form. That’s pretty much it. I had no intention of watching Ghost In The Shell and neither should you. Enough said.

But then some rather interesting news came to my attention, courtesy of @gabriel-strange. VEEEEERY interesting news indeed. So interesting in fact that I honestly thought it was an April Fool’s prank. So I double checked. I triple checked. I quadruple checked. And I discovered to both my horror and delight that it was true.

But first, we have to set the scene.

Ghost In The Shell is a Japanese series of anime and manga titles that takes place in the year 2029 in a fictional city in Japan. In this cyberpunk future, the lines between humans and technology have been blurred, with people placing more and more reliance on cybernetic implants and prosthesis, and computer and electronics permeate every aspect of their lives. The main protagonist is Major Motoko Kusanagi, a cyborg who works for the counter-cyberterrorist organisation known as Public Security Section 9. Her main job is to hunt down and capture cyberterrorists and hackers, who are especially dangerous in this futuristic society due to everyone’s over reliance on technology. It’s even possible for a skilled terrorist to hack into a person’s brain and make them act against their will.

The series has been heavily praised for its creativity and its philosophy, posing some very interesting questions. How do you define who or what is human in a world where a person’s mind can be copied and where body parts can be replaced with machine parts? Where do you draw the line? It’s a very rich and thought provoking subject matter, so naturally Hollywood wanted in on some of that. In 2009, Steven Spielberg and DreamWorks acquired the rights to make a live action Ghost In The Shell movie. Paramount Pictures agreed to co-produce the movie in 2015 and Rupert Sanders signed on to direct.

All they needed to do was find a talented, up and coming young Asian actor to play Motoko Kusanagi. Who did they go with?

Yep. Scarlett Johansson. An actor most famous for not being Asian. She was cast in the role when talks with Margot Robbie (another actor whose defined by not being Asian) fell through.

This, naturally, sparked a huge amount of controversy from both fans and people working within the industry, and as night follows day, people started to try and justify this bullshit. Some people (let’s be kind and call them idiots) posit that there was never any indication that Motoko Kusanagi was Japanese in the original manga.

Right. Because why would one assume that a woman with a Japanese name, living in a Japanese city in a series originating from Japan would be Japanese? 

Guys, she’s about as Japanese as you can get! Wake the fuck up!

Others say that the race of the character shouldn’t be an issue because the themes the series covers are universal and can be applicable to everyone regardless of race. Oh good! In that case, she should definitely be played by an Asian actor. Well... if the themes are as universal as you suggest, the fact that she’s Asian shouldn’t alienate me, a white person, at all, should it? Unless you’re suggesting the themes are somehow more universal if the main character is white. If that’s the case, you may want to look up your definition of universal.

A popular excuse is that the Japanese fans have no problem with the casting of ScarJo, with many assuming that a Hollywood production would have chosen a white actor. Even Mamoru Oshii, the director of the original anime films, gave his blessing, saying there was no basis for an Asian actor to play the role. So if they don’t have a problem with it, why should we? Well first of all it’s kind of tragic that Japanese people just assume their beloved characters will be whitewashed because Hollywood have done this so often now they’ve basically gotten used to it. But it doesn’t justify it. A child might get used to an abusive parent over time. It doesn’t make the abuse okay. It’s still wrong. And as for Mamoru Oshii, Well, with all due respect, his opinion is fucking irrelevant. No, really! His opinion carries no weight whatsoever! He’s a Japanese man working in a Japanese industry in a country where 98.5% of the population are Asian. Here in the western hemisphere, Asian people are very much in the minority and, especially in the US, it’s very difficult for them to break into this industry. The last thing they need are white actors stealing all the good roles they could and should be playing. (And for the record, the most vocal people criticising this movie are Asian Americans who have become sick and tired of Hollywood constantly screwing then over, so fuck you).

And finally there’s the age old excuse that ScarJo was the best person for the role and that casting an A-list actor would help to bring the franchise to a more mainstream audience. I mean there are no A-list Asian actors, right? Well apart from Jackie Chan and Lucy Liu (and they're debatable), no. There aren’t any A-list Asian actors. And do you know why? IT’S BECAUSE YOU DON’T FUCKING CAST THEM! Of course there aren’t going to be any A-list Asian actors because you’re not giving any of them a chance! You keep handing over the roles to white people and depriving Asian actors of job opportunities that were intended for them in the first place!

The studios and filmmakers of course have been offering their own insightful comments, saying how this is a future world and that they’re depicting an international city. That seems to be their go to word. International. Code for ‘populated mostly by white people’. Even Motoko Kusanagi has been renamed as Mira Killian. Seriously, Ghost In The Shell is only a decade into the future. What happened between now and 2029 that the Asian population has somehow decreased exponentially?

And of course Scarlett Johansson doesn’t hesitate to get her thoughts heard, first by saying that this was about gender over race and how this was an opportunity to bring a strong female character to mainstream audiences. Now if you were wondering what White Feminism is, this is it. An actual feminist would encourage and celebrate the casting of an Asian actor in the role because it would be a massive step forward for women of colour. Old ScarJo clearly doesn’t meet those requirements. And then she said this:

“I certainly would never presume to play another race of a person. Diversity is important in Hollywood, and I would never want to feel like I was playing a character that was offensive.”

Uhuh. Okay. Dear readers, do me a favour. I want you to remember this quote for me, alright? Trust me. It’ll be very important later ;)

From Doctor Strange to Iron Fist to the upcoming Death Note adaptation, there seems to be this weird obsession in Hollywood recently of exploiting and fetishising Asian culture whilst surreptitiously telling the Asian community to go and fuck themselves. This Ghost In The Shell movie seems to be less of an adaptation and more like a white person’s self insert fanfic. And trust me, you have no idea how true that statement really is.

Which brings me to the interesting news I was telling you about. Again, massive spoilers for the movie ahead, so be warned.

Are you ready? Okay.

Well...

Turns out that Mira Killian is actually Motoko Kusanagi. She has the brain of a Japanese girl inside of her whose memory was erased in an effort to create the perfect soldier. There’s even a scene at the end of her meeting and hugging her Japanese birth mother and embracing her true identity as Motoko Kusanagi.

Oh yes! They actually went that far! Somebody actually thought this would be a good idea! And don’t get me wrong, it’s horrible. It’s racist as shit. I’m utterly disgusted by this, but at the same time I can’t help but admire the ballsiness of it. They chose to depict literal whitewashing in their movie. A Japanese girl is stripped of both her identity and any character traits that would identify her as Japanese and replaced with the body and mind of a white person in an effort to create somebody ‘perfect’. It practically borders on self parody.

But do you want to know the best part? Remember what ScarJo said?

“I certainly would never presume to play another race of a person. Diversity is important in Hollywood, and I would never want to feel like I was playing a character that was offensive.”

Tell me Ms Johansson. Do you know the Japanese translation for ‘lying, racist scumbag’?

Because let’s not deny it. What ScarJo said was a blatant lie. She is playing a Japanese character and now she’s quite rightfully being torn to shreds by the critics, most notably the Asian American Media Group. Yeah! Who’d have thought they’d have a problem with this?! Call it a hunch, but somehow I think there might be less demand for a Black Widow movie now after all this. So I wouldn’t hold your breath.

It also puts all those other claims to shame too. That the character’s race isn’t important and that this is an international city and that the themes are universal and so on. Let’s not forget that in the early days of production, they were considering using the same CGI from The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button to make their chosen white actor look Asian. The fact that they’re practically bending over backwards in a desperate and pathetic attempt to justify their whitewashing actually proves that the race of the character is actually important after all.

I can’t help but find this just a bit hilarious. I mean at least Doctor Strange didn’t pretend Tilda Swinton was Asian. At least they didn’t stoop THAT low. And the irony of it all is Rupert Sanders and co could have gotten away with it if they just kept their mouths shut. I know how gullible general movie going audiences can be. They probably would have blindly accepted a whitewashed Ghost In The Shell movie if the story and acting was good. But because the studio just couldn’t leave well enough, because they were so paranoid that they’d be accused of racism and that they’d upset the fans, they tried to tinker with it and ended up not only making the issue even more awkward than it already was, but also highlighted their racism in big bold neon lights. They haven’t just tied a noose around their necks. They’ve practically built their own gallows as well.

Already they’ve started to feel the effects. On its opening weekend, Ghost In The Shell pulled in less box office earnings than DreamWorks’ Boss Baby. And I don’t know about you, but I would love to have seen how that conversation played out to the studio execs. Your movie is losing to an animated film featuring Alec Baldwin voicing a talking baby. LOL. In fact I’m almost tempted to go and see this movie for myself just to witness it commit cinematic suicide live, right in front of me. This has got to be one of the most glorious kamikaze moves I’ve ever seen in my entire life.

And I can’t think of a more appropriate way to end this Scribble than with the ironic use of this classic from the 80s. Enjoy :)

[oliverosjeremypauline]

      The United States is currently facing the problem of mass incarceration. In fact, studies show that the United States has the highest incarceration rates compared to other countries in the world (2014). One issue that contributes to the growing problem of mass incarceration is the injustice found in the juvenile justice system. This essay will discuss the problem in the justice system for minors, the history of juvenile justice, and the possible solutions on how the problem can be prevented or resolved.

The Current Problem

In America, minors have the possibility of being charged and sentenced for a crime they committed as if they were adults. Children are being sentenced to spending their entire life in prison, or punished to serve more time than they deserve. Although there are no laws that strictly prohibit this practice, it is highly frowned upon by many. By keeping minors in jail longer, it does not contribute to resolving the issue of mass incarceration, as the rates of criminals being sent to prison will be higher than the rates of criminals being released. Instead, it will only contribute to the problem by making the population rates in prisons go up.

           Another reason why the juvenile justice system is a current problem is due to the fact that it is unfair and immoral for minors to be treated as if they were adults. In an article written by Randy Hertz, he differentiates children from adults by stating how children are not fully mature or responsible as an adult, as their minds have not yet developed fully (2012). Having an undeveloped mind can result in having the inability to differentiate what is right from what is wrong, which can lead them to committing crimes without fully understanding the situation. In his article, he writes that:

The recognition that children are different is supported by recent neuroscience and psychosocial studies that have shown adolescence to be a period of intense change in the brain. We now know that the parts of the brain that drive emotional reactions, impulses and reactivity to peers develop before those that control impulses and imagine consequences, and which enable adults to resist pressures, delay gratification and weigh risk and reward. Scientists who study the teenage brain describe it as akin to a car with a fully functioning gas pedal but no brakes. (2012)

If the child unknowingly committed a crime, they should not be given the same punishment as if they were an adult who was fully aware of the wrongdoing of their actions. By giving them a harsher punishment than they deserve, they would be robbed of the chance to change their lifestyle for the better. Jason Baldwin, who was a juvenile that was sentenced to life without parole, shares how he had spent 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit (2012). While serving his time, he met other minors who were sentenced to life without parole. Although the crime they committed was terrible, he believed that children do change and they should be given that chance to redeem themselves. Forgiveness is also a huge part in the Christian lifestyle, so minors should not have to be punished for a lifetime just for committing one crime.

“By giving them a harsher punishment than they deserve, they would be robbed of the chance to change their lifestyle for the better.”

History

        The decision on how minors should be treated in court has gone changed over time. According to the American Bar Association, during the establishment of the United States, minors were charged and tried in court the same way adults would be (2007). It was not until 1899 when the United States founded the first juvenile court. Although it seemed like the problem has been resolved, crime rates began to increase, resulting in the laws changing back to almost how they were in the beginning.

        Juvenile justice can be traced far back into time. According to Richard Lawrence, an award-winning author, he wrote in his book that

Laws and legal procedures relating to juvenile offenders have a long history, dating back thousands of years. The Code of Hammurabi some 4,000 years ago (2270 B.C.) included reference to runaways, children who disobeyed their parents, and sons who cursed their fathers. Roman civil law and canon (church) law 2,000 years ago distinguished between juveniles and adults based upon the idea of “age of responsibility.” In early Jewish law, the Talmud set forth conditions under which immaturity was to be considered in imposing punishment. Moslem law also called for leniency in punishing youthful offenders, and children under the age of 17 were to be exempt from the death. Under fifth-century Roman law, children under the age of 7 were classified as infants and not held criminally responsible. Youth approaching the age of puberty who knew the difference between right and wrong were held accountable. The legal age of puberty (age 14 for boys and 12 for girls) was the age at which youth were assumed to know the difference between right and wrong and were held criminally accountable. (2008)

Although it could be seen throughout history that children were treated differently than adults, the United States believed otherwise when the country was first being established. In their eyes, they see believe in the concept that committing an “adult crime” means serving the “adult time,” regardless of age. However, in the 19th century, more people began opening their eyes, realizing that this was not the proper solution. Activists and advocates raised their voices to be heard, and expressed their beliefs that minors should not be punished as adults. In an article written by the ABA Division for Public Education, it says that

Social reformers began to create special facilities for troubled juveniles, especially in large cities. In New York City, the Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency established the New York House of Refuge to house juvenile delinquents in 1825. The Chicago Reform School opened in 1855. The reformers who supported these institutions sought to protect juvenile offenders by separating them from adult offenders. They also focused on rehabilitation—trying to help young offenders avoid a future life of crime. (2007)

Many people argued that rehabilitation is a better solution for juvenile delinquents, rather than punishing them and sending them to prison. With the constant fight, they never backed down, and in 1899, a major win was accomplished as the first juvenile court had been established in Cook County, Illinois. Within twenty-five years, the majority of the states in the country had also founded their own courts with a new system for juvenile delinquents (Lawrence).

        It seems that the problem has been resolved as a solution had been found; however, that was not the case for this situation. It only lasted about sixty years, until there was a sudden increase in the crime rates among the youth. The crimes were due to violence, which included homicides. Based on the rapid growth of the violent crimes, it was predicted back then that “there will be 270,000 more juvenile super-predators on the streets than there were in 1990 (2008).” With this high rate, the states believed that they must act quickly to prevent this from happening, and that the only way to do so was to severely punish those who commit such violent crimes. Thus, it resulted in abolishing the laws that were recently established, where minors were to be charged and tried differently from adults, and brought back the old practices of punishing them as if they were adults.

Solutions

        Although it may seem fair to give an evil punishment for an evil crime, it is not a proper solution that will resolve the problem. Even though there are a few that disagree and find it a good solution, many believe the practice is immoral and should be put to an end. A way to achieve that is to work on forgiveness and love, which can lead to taking action that will help resolve the problem and help them. As said by Richard Stearn, “The kingdom of which Christ spoke was one in which the poor, the sick, the grieving, cripples, slaves, women, children, widows, orphans, lepers, and aliens- ‘the least of these’ were to be lifted up and embraced by God. It was a world order in which justice was to become a reality, first in the hearts and minds of Jesus’ followers, and then to the wider society through their influence (2010).”

        Forgiveness and love are huge aspects in life, especially for Christians. In the Bible, the greatest commandment is found, which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself (NLT).” We must first love God with our whole being. Second, we must love our neighbor as ourselves just as how we love God. In his book, author Richard Stearn says, “[i]f we truly love God, we will express in by loving our neighbors, and when we truly love our neighbors, it expresses our love for God (2010).” Also, in both Isaiah 58 and Matthew 25, God shares how our life should be lived. Our lifestyle should involve not only loving God, but loving people as well. Those people should include those who are poor, sick, and even those who are imprisoned for committing crimes that can be deemed as unforgivable. It is not the people who committed the crimes that are the enemy, but it is Satan who is making them do evil acts. However, evil cannot be overcome with evil, such as punishing them to spend prison on life, but evil can only be overcome by good. Good, meaning that we must love and be compassionate towards them, regardless of their wrongdoing. Just as God sees past our failures, we must also give them chances and extend grace towards them. It must be remembered that there is no sin that is so great that God cannot forgive, therefore, we must not exclude to love anyone based on the crimes they have committed.

“...we must love and be compassionate towards them, regardless of their wrongdoing.”

        A way that grace can be extended to juvenile delinquents is by fighting for them, and taking on great acts that can make a difference. For example, laws and propositions can be made that prevent juveniles from spending life in prison. In California, Governor Jerry Brown had proposed Proposition 57, which was approved and enacted earlier this year. Proposition 57 was very beneficial towards juveniles, as it permits minors who committed a crime to be tried in a juvenile court. Previously, the prosecutor had the power to send the minor and their case to an adult court; however, now that power is only limited to the judge. Although it does not completely eliminate the possibility of minors being sent to an adult court, it is still beneficial as the chances have decreased, which can be considered as a step towards solving the problem. Also, the proposition gives those who are sentenced to life in prison a chance to reduce their sentence, and seek parole (2016). By reducing their time, they are offered a chance at redemption.

        While Proposition 57 has taken a step in the right direction to ending the injustice in the juvenile justice system, it still does not completely solve the problem of punishing minors as adults. Therefore, laws and bills should still be proposed that can help abolish that practice. For example, California had recently proposed bills that contribute to suspending juveniles being sentenced to life without parole. Below are the bills that were proposed:

Senate Bill 395 would require a lawyer to be present before a child waives his or her Miranda rights during a law enforcement interrogation. Senate Bill 394 would make juvenile offenders sentenced to life terms eligible for parole consideration after 25 years. Senate Bill 190 would end the practice of charging administrative fees to families when children are held in detention. Senate Bill 439 would set a minimum age for the juvenile court system, removing anyone under 12 years old from its jurisdiction (2017).

The bills have not yet passed, yet, by consistently fighting to make a stand, their voices can be heard and children could, once again, be treated differently from adults when it comes to being punished in court.

Conclusion     

   In conclusion, the injustice in the juvenile justice system should be put to an end. Throughout history, it is evident that there is a clear difference in behavior between children and adults, and therefore, should be punished differently as well for the crimes that they commit. Currently, juveniles are still being tried as adults, where they have the possibility of being sentenced to life in prison. The majority oppose and deem that it is wrong to do so, as children are not only in the stage where their minds are still in the process of being developed, but also because they are still young, and still have the time to learn from their wrongdoings and change and grow into a better person. By being sentenced to life without parole, they are robbed of the chance to change and redeem themselves. Criminals can easily be viewed as evil people that should be kept away for the sake of humanity; however, it should not be forgotten how Jesus treated them during His time on earth. Jesus spent his time with sinners, which included criminals, prostitutes, and other types of people who were viewed as “bad people” (Mark 2:13-17, NLT). Yet, rather than condemning the sinners, He opened His arms extended His love, grace, and forgiveness towards them. The same must also apply towards God’s children. It says in Matthew 19: 13-14 that Jesus said, “[l]et the little children come to me. Don’t stop them! For the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to those who are like these children” (NLT). Here, Jesus emphasizes how valuable and important the children of God are. Jesus had also commanded that nothing shall be done to prevent God’s children from coming to Him. However, by sentencing them to spend their lives in prison, it limits them from becoming the people that God calls them to be. Therefore, the laws that permit that practice should be abolished. While there are propositions that are being enacted, the people must continuously fight for what is right.

REFERENCES

ABA Division for Public Education. (2007). The history of juvenile justice. American Bar Association.

Baldwin, J. (2012) Kids shouldn’t face dying in prison. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-baldwin/supreme-court-juvenile-sentences-life-without-parole_b_1653920.html

Dobruck, J. (2017) State senators call for major reform of juvenile justice system. California State Senate Majority Caucus. Retrieved from http://sd30.senate.ca.gov/news/news/2017- 03-20-march-20-2017-long-beach-press-telegram-state-senators-call-major-reform

Hertz, R. (2012). Why life without parole is wrong for juveniles. The Nation. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com/article/why-life-without-parole-wrong-juveniles/

Lawrence, R. (2008). Juvenile justice. Sage Publications, Inc.

New Life Bible (1999). New Living Translation. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Print.

Stearn, R. (2010). The hole in our gospel: what does God expect of us? Thomas Nelson. Print.

The Times Editorial Board. (2016). Prop 57 is a much-needed check on prosecutorial power. Vote yes. LA Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-     end-proposition-57-20161004-snap-story.html

Weinberg, W. (2016). Prop 57 ends “direct file” in juvenile criminal cases. California Criminal Defense. Retrieved from https://www.californiacriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2016/ 12/prop-57-ends-direct-file-juvenile-criminal-cases.html

Wyler, G. (2014).  The mass incarceration problem in America. Vice. Retrieved from https://news.vice.com/article/the-mass-incarceration-problem-in-america

[add-salt-shed-light]

A Liberal Application of Intolerance

I ended my last article by writing “I intend, in my next few articles to mock and ridicule liberalism and expose its utter stupidity and hypocrisy”. I often times use provocative language to sound controversial, as it tends to capture a larger audience.  It is a shameless marketing ploy, but if it works then you (the readers) should be ashamed of yourselves!  

And by the way, did no one get my last “You may have been raised in a brethren assembly IF” joke?  It didn’t even generate a single thumbs-up, or smiley face on Facebook!  Of course, there is the possibility that it wasn’t funny (but the probability of that is low).  Hasn’t anyone else ever wondered why our assembly potlucks are often called Fellowship Teas when ‘tea’ isn’t central to the event? I can’t remember ever having tea at a Fellowship Tea.  I guess the old adage is true…if you have to explain the joke, then there is no joke.

Bringing the focus back to the topic I started with…

I would like to restate my intention in a more positive way.  The critiques that I will level at the secular liberal worldview are intended to demonstrate that without an unmovable foundation of truth, any system of human thought crumbles into incoherent nonsense when challenged.  My desire to undertake this critique is because I worry that many of our Christian young people are buying into this liberal worldview that promotes as its ideals: tolerance and acceptance.

Tolerance and acceptance are the hallmark buzz words of liberalism.   It sounds appealing, as the words portray a certain kindness and compassion; something that a good person should aspire to.  They are heralded as human virtues.   How often have you heard an individual describing himself/herself as being “a very tolerant and accepting person” ?   I hear it in the workplace, on television, and read it on social media.  I’ve even noticed it in personal ads (which I read solely for research purposes).   Are these indeed virtues that a person can use to describe themselves?   No, they are not.  I cannot use these two words to describe myself.  In fact, no one can.

The words tolerate and accept are transitive verbs and need to be followed by a direct object in order to have any moral quality.  Transitive verbs require something or someone (the direct object) to receive the action of the verb.  That is, when someone claims to be tolerant/accepting, you have to ask ‘of what?’.  It is the ‘of what’ that determines if the tolerance/acceptance is a good thing or a bad thing.  Ask a liberal who claims to be tolerant/accepting a few probing questions:

Are you tolerant/accepting of murderers?

 Are you tolerant/accepting of pedohiles?

Are you tolerant tolerant/accepting of polygamy?

Are you tolerant/accepting of someone who doesn’t agree with the things that you are tolerant/accepting of?  

Are you tolerant/accepting of biblical views on homosexuality and of those people that hold to those beliefs?  Or do you call them homophobes, bigots, or discriminators?

Do you show tolerance/acceptance towards the newly elected US President and his supporters?

If the liberal’s answer is “no” to all of the questions on that very short list, how can they define themselves as tolerant/accepting people?  There are certainly things that they won’t tolerate or accept.  (By the way, where is this list of things that a person must tolerate and accept or be branded a bigot by a secular liberal?  And who wrote this list?  Is it universally binding?  Is it based on subjective or objective truths?  Or is it simply the opinions of secular liberals?)

As demonstrated, tolerance/acceptance can only be defined as good or bad on the basis of the direct object they are applied to.  They are not in themselves virtues.   How then can anyone use these words to define themselves?  A transitive verb cannot be a virtue as it is dependent upon a direct object to have any moral meaning.  I don’t expect a liberal to follow that argument (because they are intolerant of any ideas that counter their own).  However, I went through the trouble of explaining that, so you (my conservative Christian readers), can understand that tolerance and acceptance are simply liberal jargon that hold no moral value in themselves.  They are not virtues.  They are simply the empty mantras of the morally bankrupt religion called secularism.

In contrast, consider the Christian virtues that flow forth as the fruits of the Spirit:

Galatians 5:22-23:  “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,  gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law (NASB).”

It is interesting to note that none of these are transitive verbs that require a direct object in order to have moral value.  These are all good things, in and of themselves.  Regardless of the circumstances, they are virtues that flow from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  We can show love to our enemies and show goodness to those that hate us (Matthew 4:44).  We have peace in all things, and can even show joy in our tribulations because we have been justified by faith (Romans 5:1-3).  These are the virtues or moral qualities that should define the life of a Christian.  They are virtues that can be applied in any circumstance, to anyone, or to anything.  Tolerance and acceptance sound great, but they have no value in themselves. The bible-believing Christian stands on a foundation of absolute truth which can be applied consistently to all times, places, and circumstances.

When I began writing this article, my plan was to eventually turn the subject towards the ‘women’s rights’ protests that erupted the moment Trump won the election.  These protests provide plenty of fodder to expose the intolerance, inconsistency, and hypocrisy of the liberal left.  However, my plan has abruptly changed.  I was just struck with a ‘deep’ thought that I need to flesh out before it wanders off into the deep recesses of my aging brain.  Women’s rights will have to wait.  

I have not thought this through, so what comes next may be disjointed and nonsensical.  I give you fair warning.  You are about to experience the inner workings of my twisted brain as I begin to process this ‘deep’ thought.  (I place ‘deep’ in quotes because it may actually turn out to be a shallow thought.   I’m simply allowing for that possibility.)

My Sudden Deep Thought

I do not want to assume that everyone that subscribes to secular liberalism is an agnostic, an atheist, or an unbeliever.  However, secular liberalism does seek to remove religion and God from all aspects of culture, education, and politics.  Therefore, I believe it fair to assume that a majority of those that adhere to a secular liberal worldview would accept evolution as proven science. At the same time, they claim tolerance and acceptance as the virtues of their secular religion.  

It is at this point that my ‘deep’ thought begins to emerge. I will introduce it in the form of a question and then attempt to answer it.

Are the secular liberal ‘virtues’ of tolerance and acceptance compatible with the theory of evolution?

Please allow me some time to wrestle with this question.

If God is replaced by the theory of Darwinian evolution, then the human species was created over billions of years through a series of beneficial random mutations.  More specifically, an evolutionist would attribute the origin of the human species to the mechanism of natural selection, also known as survival of the fittest. What could possibly be more intolerant and unaccepting as the process of natural selection?  It is literally a theory based on discrimination and intolerance. The theory assumes that a developing species gradually improves and progresses over time by the death of the weak and the selection of only the strongest or the fittest for survival.  In the words of Richard Dawkins (an atheist evolutionist), “nature red in tooth and claw' sums up our modern understanding of natural selection admirably (Dawkins, R., The Selfish Gene)”.

Try and imagine an early humanoid population, millions of years back along the evolutionary tree.  A male (let’s name him Throg), is called in front of a council of elders.

“Throg, we’ve called you here today to let you know that your kind is no longer welcome here.  Why you completely missed getting the latest genetic mutation; the opposable thumb.   Not only are we tired of peeling bananas for you but you are a potential contaminate to our gene pool.  You are holding us back and we can tolerate it no longer.  You are banished.”

Perhaps a ridiculous example, but I use it to illustrate that an evolutionary process which is driven by the creative mechanism of natural selection, is decidedly intolerant. How then could we “evolve” through such an intolerant process into a secular society that upholds tolerance and acceptance as human virtues (when, of course, it suits their opinion)?  In fact, how could any such system, without God, be able to formulate any moral code of good and evil?  The answer is it can’t; at least not an objective system.

To conclude my ‘deep’ thought...the liberal ideals of tolerance and acceptance are incompatible with the intolerance inherent within the theory of the origin of the species by way of natural selection.  Whether that is a deep thought or a confused thought, I will leave to my readers to judge - but my brain feels better having now processed it more fully.

The secular liberal, as I will seek to demonstrate over the course of my next few articles, is left with a system of morality that is relative and subjective – and therefore, decidedly inconsistent in its application.  The fact that a secular liberal can even profess to recognize the categories of good or evil, is because they know that there is a God; but it is a God that they deny in their unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-22).  Although their unbelief may confuse their ability to properly classify things between the categories of good and evil, they still have a conscience that is accountable to the God they deny (Romans 2:14-16).

Christian young person, the secular liberal world can only offer you a belief system that leads to inconsistency and foolishness.  As Christians we have a book that provides us with an unchangeable source of truth. Only a worldview founded upon the Word of God can remain consistent.  Stand fast on the bedrock of scripture: “continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:14-17, NASB)”.