https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-lt-gov-dan-patrick-racism-wont-stop-until-we-accept-jesus-christ/ar-BB150Rf7?ocid=spartandhp

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick on Wednesday night claimed that the root of America’s racial problems was the lack of faith by “the left.”

Speaking after more than a week of demonstrations against the police killing of George Floyd, a Black man in Minneapolis, Patrick tried to pin the nation’s long and deep-rooted racial problems on people not being religious enough ― and more specifically, “the left” not accepting Jesus Christ.

Patrick said on Fox News that Floyd’s killing and the unrest breaks his heart and that it’s an issue of “loving God.”

“You cannot love your fellow man if you don’t love God,” he said. “And we have a country where we’ve been working really hard, particularly on the left, to kick God out.”

Patrick also said laws can’t fix racism, only Jesus and God can:

“You cannot change the culture of a country until you change the character of mankind. And you can’t change that unless you change the heart, and for billions of us on the planet, we believe you can’t do that unless you accept Jesus Christ or unless you accept God. God has been left out of this equation through all of this and we need tremendous healing. We cannot heal through commissions and blue-ribbon panels and more laws.”

Fox News host Shannon Bream agreed.

“The Bible tells us it’s not optional,” she said. “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Patrick neglected to mention that while many use faith as a means to share a message of love and integration, others have done just the opposite. Religion ― including Christianity ― has been used to justify both racism and slavery.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the KKK and other white supremacist groups use the Bible and believe the book “is the family history of the white race.” Slate reported that the fires of Klan cross burnings “symbolize faith in Christ.” And the Bible was used historically to justify slavery in the United States.

Saw this article yesterday. One comment was something like....How does lack of faith by the left produced violence and hate by the right?

Yup

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Saw this article yesterday. One comment was
> something like....How does lack of faith by the
> left produced violence and hate by the right?

Without getting political, IMHO, it boils down to tribalism, group think, ego-defense mechanism, herd mentality, classic "us vs. them" mentality. It goes by a bunch of names for 5he same thing, mob behavior, which kills independent observation and reason.

I guess this is just the predictable nonsense we can expect applied to any crisis.

Everything could be solved if people would just believe in Jesus the same way. (Eye roll)

"Y'all gotta think like me and ever-thing be fine"

https://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg

Except Jesus was all about in and out group thinking.

If you research plantation owners you will find they were mostly Christians who went to church on Sunday to praise Jesus and show their love to Jesus even as they bought and sold people, owned them, split up families, and, and well, we all know . . .

Anybody not see Roots?

Nailed it, unfortunately

That is SO true, sad to say

Dan Patrick is just as credible as Alex Jones. He's an embarrassment to the State of Texas.

So how come the Bible Belt and the seat of slavery are pretty much the exact same part of the nation?

Hmmmnnn. Funny that.

“You cannot love your fellow man if you don’t love God,” he said. “And we have a country where we’ve been working really hard, particularly on the left, to kick God out.”

There's probably some truth to that. Because if folks love God then they are constrained to love his creations. And his creations include all races. But the trouble with the left is that they are always looking for an enemy, a reason to tear up the town. In the left they have created their own hierarchy of oppression where certain groups get privilege and everyone else is suppose to keep silent. We still have legal affirmative action promoted by racists who are in government positions. They promote hiring for minorities, racism in college acceptance, in federal programs, there is a lower standard for minorities. What we need is a color blind society, not this bigotry of multiple standards based on a persons ancestors or color, but it happens today because the left is racist against minorities and think they can't be as qualified.

But if we could love everyone, instead of being racist this would be a better place. Glenn Beck said today on his podcast that when the day comes that Europeans nations are destroyed the world will weep. RIP

You must have missed my post above where I pointed out the the Bible Belt, the biggest bunch of true believers in the country, is also the seat of slavery, the home of Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc, etc.

So much for loving God solving the problem.

I was also on various hiring committees and a college admissions committee. I actually know how EEOC works. You do not appear to understand it. Why am I not surprised.

I'm busy for a few hours. I'll be back later to explain how it works. Not that I expect you will change your attitude that white males are grievously disadvantaged. If you haven't gotten it right in the last fifty years, ten minutes from me is not likely to help. But hey, someone else might benefit from an insiders view. And who knows, miracles sometimes do happen. :)

Sorry for the delay. I was tired last night.

How EEOC works

When I was at a university, we had to submit all our job requests through the EEOC office on campus. All that really meant in practical terms was that we had to specify the job description in detail, and we better do it right, because we were going to be held to it by the EEOC office. And applications that came in went to that office which logged them, and then we got them.

That was it. You couldn't review all the applicants first and then decide what the real job requirements were (designed to fit the applicant you liked best). You had to draw the target before the arrows were shot, not after.

How EEOC once saved my butt

We had gotten a new tenure-track faculty position to help us start a graduate program. New tenured positions are really really hard to get. A strong research record was a completely reasonable requirement for applicants.

We routinely got 100 to 200 applicants for a position. Easily half of them did not meet the job requirements, but a good number did. Incidentally, there was always applicants that had some degree from BYU in their background. Nobody, including me, ever made a snarky remark about that, though my status as an exMo was well known.

Anyway, there was a female applicant who had a degree in a related area. We could have lived with that. But no research record in our area. We could not live with that. Our dean really wanted us to hire her. I couldn't get a straight answer as to why, though it may have had something to do with a divorce and child visitation issues. It was not a gender equity issue, though our entire college was light on female faculty.

Whatever the reason (I never did find out) we really did not want to torch our tenure-track position. Even with our dean twisting admin arms, it would be very tough to get another. So I go to the EEOC officer and asked do we really need to hire her?

The officer said not only do you not need to hire her, if you did, I would not sign off on it unless you came up with a much better reason for why we should hire her than what you just explained. If your dean gives you trouble, send him to me.

And that was the end of that.


Our university med school got sued. Two positions in each class were set aside for Native American students. They had to meet the same minimum standards all applicants had to meet, and if there were no qualified applicants (rare, but it happened) the positions went to other applicants.

A student who didn't get in sued. The argument the university presented in court was this: we are a small state and running a med school is quite expensive. We fund this school not for the benefit of the students, and certainly not for the benefit of the applicants. The citizens of this state fund this institution for the benefit of the citizens of this state. Medical practitioners willing to work on native reservations (there are 5 in the state) is a significant need, and we feel Native students, especially those born and raised here, are far more likely to stay. so we set aside two seats to nurture support for our native citizens.

In the general class, we give preference for students from this state. Again, we run the med school for the benefit of the citizens of the state. We prefer students with roots here if we can get them. Everyone has to meet the same minimum standards, they have to meet the same MCAT cutoff, they have to pass the same licensing exam after graduation.

That's the Cliff's Notes version. The court ruled in favor of the university.

I was also on the admissions committee for the general university. Interesting job, perhaps a story for another day, but the relevant point here is that we had zero set-asides for gender, race or national origin.


Long story short(-ish), the EEOC office never told us, or anyone else on campus, that we needed to hire thus and such a person. As long as our application process was transparent, we were good. The only lawsuits I ever heard about, other than that one mecd school case, was over tenure denial. People get very cranky when they are denied tenure, but that is not an EEOC issue.


MacaRomney makes it sound like every faculty member or every police officer or every teacher or even every astronaut who is a minority or female is somehow an affirmative action hire. That has most definitely not been my experience. Like the med school cited above and places with very competitive admissions, they have to work at keeping some diversity in the student body. It's complicated, and it gets plenty of legal challenge to make sure it doesn't get out of hand in the opposite direction, but I am pretty sure white upper-class and techno-class males are not unduly burdened.

Thank you for taking the time to share that.

maca has been drinking a little too much Glen Beck and Faux Kool-Aid.

The problem here is that the right feels that only they have the truth. The problem here is that racism starts and is promoted mostly by the right. The right believes in propaganda to try and blind people or mislead them. Almost like some in the Church.
Saints were socialists. The United Order was socialism and in the early Church, the members only bought from other members, did not do business with "Gentiles," and it was us vs. the world.
The UO was quite successful but was done away with at the end of the 19th century.
Now in UT even if the GOP is totally against what Jesus and the Church teach, members march to the voting booth and vote for any bozo with an R after his/her name. Have been there, done that.
I have a friend who is quite active in Church and what he said makes perfect sense.
Do you risk getting into the Celestial Kingdom by supporting corrupt, lying, evil men, and by voting for them you condone their evil acts?
Or do you think for yourself and vote for the best possible person who is Christ-like?

How insulting to Christians whose politics lean more to left than right, and there are plenty of those. Many like Patrick throw out the term "left" as an insult to classify all those who might oppose his Republican views under one umbrella. To them left covers everyone from rabid communists to moderate Democrats.