Fox Cable News Promotes Transgenderism – Which Ticked Off or Alarmed Some People – But Why Are Some, Such as Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, and Other Daily Wire Writers Speaking Out About It?

Fox Cable News Promotes Transgenderism – Which Ticked Off or Alarmed Some People – But Why Are Some, Such as Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, and Other Daily Wire Writers Speaking Out About It?

This post has been edited after publication to add more content


I do watch a lot of Fox cable news (though I do not always agree with every opinion of every speaker on Fox, and in that caveat, I include their conservative reporters and editorialists, even though I am a conservative), I did not see this segment myself that I am mentioning in this post – I’ve only seen a few moments of it from other people’s copies of it online, and I’ve read commentaries about it.

The segment aired around June 13, 2022 on one of Fox’s national morning shows, one hosted by Dana Perino, I believe. Fox News with Rainbow Logo

Not only is Fox News acting weird lately (or for the past few years), but so too are other sites or news outlets considered to be centrist to conservative, such as Daily Wire (owned by Ben Shapiro), which is (Link): now promoting homosexual marriage and homosexual men hiring surrogates to give them babies.

The segment, which was aired on Fox’s national cable news station, was also repeated (or another, similar interview with the same family) was aired on a local Fox station, and it was uploaded to (Link): You Tube here (4.16 minutes long), if you’d like to see it.

Not only that, but during June 2022, Fox cable news was airing “pro pride month” type commercials, complete with rainbow colors and imagery. (I cannot recall if, prior to 2022, Fox has run “pride month” commercials in past years.)

I do not hate homosexual people. However, it’s not a conservative (or biblical) stance to promote or endorse homosexual marriage or homosexual behavior, so no. No, Fox. No, liberals. No, progressives.

It’s not okay for Fox cable news to air “pride month” commercials or promote other LGBT causes (specifically, other than homosexual marriage, children undergoing transition).

A few months ago, Fox News also hired Caitlyn Jenner, a biological man (formerly Bruce) to be a commentator on this programming.

Jenner is a conservative, and that’s fine so far as it goes, but it’s strange that a network whose night time opinion hosts, such as Tucker Carlson, who speak out against the trans agenda, are, on the other hand, supporting the trans agenda when adults are involved.

Not only are children negatively impacted by the trans agenda, but so too are adult biological women, so it’s improper to sit there and say, “Well, what adults choose to do is fine, but I draw the line when children are involved.”

The trans-agenda is negatively impacting grown women too, not just children.

(Link): Fox News’ shameful promotion of transgender horrors 

Excerpts:

June 14, 2022

Fox News’ shameful promotion of the trans-ing of a child in a purportedly family-friendly light in celebration of pride month has outraged its viewers, many of whom are Christian.

“America’s Newsroom” host Dana Perino last Friday introduced viewers to a California family and their trans-identifying teenager, a girl claiming to be a boy named Ryland.

Fox correspondent Bryan Llenas featured their story, saying trans issues are being “politicized” and that “people are afraid of what they do not understand.”

This particular family claims to be both Christian and conservative and wanted to inspire others with their journey of accepting their trans-identified child, who reportedly started showing signs of gender confusion at a very young age.

Having diligently covered these issues for over five years at The Christian Post, the manipulation was hard for me to stomach. Anyone who has been paying attention to these issues has come to expect this kind of deception from legacy media but it was stunning to see it on Fox News.

(Link): Fox’s Transgender Whitewash Ignores Agony, Regrets of Detransitioners

Excerpt:

For the last handful of years, no one’s been under the impression that Fox News is particularly conservative. But at least it was reasonable, many thought.

After Friday’s glowing endorsement of transgenderism, the benefits of those doubts are gone. “What extraordinary courage displayed by Ryland [Whittington],” the hosts gushed, as pictures of an adorable little girl faded into the present, where a 14-year-old boyish face filled the screen.

(Link): ‘So Appalling’: Why outrage over Fox News’ trans child segment matters

Excerpts:

June 23, 2022

(Podcast embedded on the page)

A recent Fox News segment about a trans-identified child has sparked shock and outrage among many conservatives.

Christian Post senior investigative reporter Brandon Showalter breaks down what unfolded, why he was “appalled” by Fox’s handling of the segment — and why he believes the medicalized gender transition of children is “one of the greatest medical scandals the world has ever seen.”

(Link): Conservatives angered by Fox News profile on trans-identified child: ‘Horrifying, evil and sick’

Excerpts:

By Ryan Foley, Christian Post Reporter
June 13, 2022

Multiple conservative commentators are criticizing Fox News after the nation’s leading conservative news network aired a favorable profile of a trans-identified child during “pride month.”

On Friday, Fox News’ “America Newsroom” featured a report from correspondent Bryan Llenas about Ryland Whittington, a trans-identified 14-year-old girl living in California.

A graphic reading “America Together: Celebrating Diversity” plugging “LGBTQ+ Pride Month” prefaced the report. As noted by co-host Dana Perino, Whittington’s “story about transitioning at age 5 has been seen by 7 million people in a family YouTube video” published eight years ago.

Continue reading “Fox Cable News Promotes Transgenderism – Which Ticked Off or Alarmed Some People – But Why Are Some, Such as Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, and Other Daily Wire Writers Speaking Out About It?”

Men Are Actually Blaming All Women for The Misogynic Progressive ‘Transwoman’ Lunacy – and not crediting feminists who’ve been speaking out on the issue for years – Men Like Rufo and Walsh Don’t Seem to Want to Share the Credit with Women

Men Are Actually Blaming All Women for The Misogynic Progressive ‘Transwoman’ Lunacy – and not crediting feminists who’ve been speaking out on the issue for years – Men Like Rufo and Walsh Don’t Seem to Want to Share the Credit with Women

I am a conservative. I am not a feminist.

I do not support the “woke” agenda, which would include things like denying the biological reality that there are two biological sexes, male and female.

I do not support men who “identify as women” (usually referred to as “transwomen”), especially if they have not undergone “bottom surgery,” being allowed into women’s only spaces, such as women’s prisons, bathrooms, and so forth.

Regardless if some of the wacko gender ideology we see today can be traced back to individual women writers of the 1990s or earlier (who were feminists), not all women can or should be blamed for that in particular, or for today’s out-of-control trans-activism.

Today’s trans activism insanity is, by and large, being carried along by MEN.

There are biological men with autogynephilia (a sexual fetish) and a large, first class case of Narcissism, who are hiding under the fig leaf of Gender Dysphoria to claim, “I’m a woman!,” and to also claim victim status and demand special rights.

That position is being helped along by male and female progressives.

But there are also biological women – of whatever political beliefs – who are opposed to biological men being allowed access into women’s only spaces, and some of them having been speaking out against trans activism going back years now.

And I have no idea what it matters if the numbers are more or less -ie, if there are more woman promoting trans activism or less.

No Studies, Polls, or Stats

One doofus or two who were arguing with me on Twitter earlier today (June 12) were blaming all women, women as a class, with no distinction, and saying the “numbers of women support trans activism outnumber those who speak out against it,” but neither individual cited me or linked me to any studies or polls (reputable or otherwise) to back up these assertions.

Based upon my anecdotal experience, I’ve seen a lot of biological women, and a few men, speaking out against progressive trans activism quite a bit the last few years – on twitter, on blogs, and in online magazine articles.

I’ve personally encountered very few biological women defending trans-insanity, and most of the women I’ve seen are opposed to progressive transgenderism, so I just tweeted back at one of those clowns,
“No, the women who are opposed to it outnumber those who support it.”

I’m sure some women who support leftist trans-activism may exist (there are progressive women (and men) crack pots who also support the quackery that is “anti racism” and “BLM,” after all), but I’ve seen far more speaking out against than in favor.

Some women have been speaking out against trans ideology for years, some for decades.

Ultimately, I’m not sure what difference it makes to argue that there may be more women supporting Trans Lunacy than oppose it… because it’s still unfair and inaccurate to blurt out, to suggest, that “women support it.” No, women are not a monolith on this subject.

As to the women who do oppose Trans Lunacy, some of them have been fighting it for years, before conservative men like Rufo and Walsh jumped on the band wagon.

Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier

One well known speaker and author against trans-insanity is a woman author, Abigail Shrier, who wrote a book about this issue, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, in 2020, and it was banned from a Irreversible Damage Book Coverfew online book stores for awhile, if I recall correctly.

From a review of Shrier’s book on Psychology Today:

The book posits that a sudden surge in the number of teen girls identifying as trans boys is due not to gender dysphoria or transgenderism but rather to girls with other mental conditions who are mistakenly self-identifying as trans because there is social capital built into marginalized identities.
— end excerpts —

Carlson gave Shrier credit for being among the first to discuss this in the United States (show date; June 14, 2022), see the video in the tweet below:

Men Helped Usher In Trans Activism, Too!

In the United States, we have male Presidents (Obama and Biden), and Governors, (and likely some male Congressmen and Senators) who are pushing for bills or laws to allow biological males who identify as women to be allowed into women’s prisons, locker rooms, and so on.

A small sampling:

(Link):  California Dishing Out Condoms To Female Inmates After Democrat Newsom [who is a man] Forces Them To Live With Men By Gabe Kaminsky

(Link): 20 States Sue Biden Administration For Corrupting Title IX With ‘Gender Identity’ Mumbo Jumbo

(Link): Biden’s [Joe Biden, a man] Title IX Rewrite Could End Women’s Sports, Let Men In Locker Rooms 

(There are also a few male (Republican) governors, such as Stitt and De Santis who are pushing against trans ideology.
But we also have male Democrats, such as Joe Biden and others, futzing around on the definition of “woman” so as to make permissible biological males being legally permitted into women’s bathrooms, sports teams, etc.)

Post Modernism and Gender Ideology

Gender ideology is also part of post-modernism and today’s progressive love of neo-Marxism, which biological men helped to usher in.

Karl Marx, who got this bus rolling, was a man. Marx’s belief in group identity and putting everyone into oppressed classes undergirds a lot of today’s far left’s gender ideology and “woke” politics.

Do I then blame all men of today for the lunacy of progressivism, of the neo-Marxist group identity politics, or say, “men are to blame for Marxism”? No, I don’t. Because that wouldn’t be fair or accurate.

In the past 60 or so years, in the United States, there have been both male AND female authors, intellectuals, and pundits who have helped craft ideas that led to CRT, queer theory, and so on.

So I don’t appreciate the clowns I run into on Twitter blaming all women (women as a group) for the actions or views of SOME women, and for causes that are neither wholly attributed to one sex or the other, such as leftist trans-activism.

All Men: Michael Foucault, Pat Califia, Gayle Rubin, Alfred Kinsey, John Money, Erwin Gohrbandt

Feminist women who dabbled in Gender Ideology over 20 years ago were joined by progressive men who love Marxism, who were opposed to the idea of objective truth, who support group identity politics, and Queer Theory (which men (and some women) had a large hand in, such as Michel Foucault, Pat Califia, and Gayle Rubin – again, those are men).

Even Matt Walsh, in some of his videos and commentary about wacko, leftist Gender Ideology advocates, occasionally name drops MEN who have aided and abetted this queer theory, pro-trans-agenda world view, such as Alfred Kinsey and John Money.

According to the person(s) at this Twitter Account, a man is behind the design of the Transgender “pride” flag, and that man (biological man) is named flagTransPride - CopyRobert Hogge but goes by “Monica Helms.”

Then we have John Money. I believe Walsh has mentioned Dr. John Money a time or two.

(Link): Dr. John Money, Father Of Gender Theory, Was A Pedophilia Apologist

Excerpts:

Would it surprise you to know that the normalization of gender fluidity is rooted in the same ideology as Critical Race Theory? You won’t be surprised once you understand the whole story.
— end —

(Link): John Money: The Pro-Pedophile Pervert Who Invented “Gender”

(Link): John Money

Excerpts:

John William Money (8 July 1921 – 7 July 2006) was a New Zealand psychologist, sexologist and author known for his research into sexual identity and biology of gender.
He was controversial for his conduct towards vulnerable patients, including sexual abuse and endorsing conversion therapy aimed at young children.
He was one of the first researchers to publish theories on the influence of societal constructs of gender on individual formation of gender identity. Money introduced the terms gender identity, gender role and sexual orientation and popularised the term paraphilia.
He spent a considerable amount of his career in the United States.

Recent academic studies have criticized Money’s work in many respects, particularly in regard to his perpetration of the involuntary sex-reassignment of the child David Reimer,[3] his abuse of Reimer and his twin brother (also a child) by forcing them to simulate sex acts that Money photographed,[4] and the adult suicides of both brothers.[4]
— end excerpts —

So, some of the key influential figures leading us down the path to today’s current Trans Insanity are all men:
Michel Foucault, Pat Califia, Gayle Rubin, and John Money.

Continue reading “Men Are Actually Blaming All Women for The Misogynic Progressive ‘Transwoman’ Lunacy – and not crediting feminists who’ve been speaking out on the issue for years – Men Like Rufo and Walsh Don’t Seem to Want to Share the Credit with Women”

Twitter Continues To Suspend Any Person or Group Who Mentions Rachel Levine’s Actual Biology or Original Name

Twitter Continues To Suspend Any Person or Group Who Mentions Rachel Levine’s Actual Biological Sex (Which is Male) or (His) Original Name (Which is “Richard”)

Since I first published this post, Twitter has gone on to suspend yet another individual over the biological male, Rachel “Richard” Levine. Post edited below with new link(s)


I already have a post or two about this subject.

I myself was suspended from Twitter over a year ago for pointing out that Richard Levine (who goes by “Rachel”) is a man who makes for one unattractive woman (which is true; he’s not an attractive person whether he presents as a man or a woman).

Since that time, Twitter continues to suspend or block any person or group who makes similar comments on their platform.

Progressives (other than Twitter) just do not like it when anyone disagrees with their leftist views of biological sex or their views on sexuality.

In the past week, Twitter has suspended conservatives Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, and right leaning satire account The Babylon Bee for stating the truth: Rachel Levine is actually Richard Levine, a biological man who likes to wear skirts, lipstick, and his hair long.

As for me, I am a conservative, but I don’t really like Tucker Carlson or Matt Walsh and a few other conservatives across the board. These are conservatives who I do agree with on some topics while I disagree with them on others. Concerning the left’s lunacy in regards to transgenderism, though, I am in agreement with Walsh and Carlson.

For all the conservative men who keep asking, “Where are all the feminists?”

I’m not a feminist, I’m a conservative, but I loathe sexism, I follow several feminist social media accounts, and yes, some feminists have been calling out the Transgender movement for well over a year now, but they don’t receive much attention.

Such feminists are drowned out by the useful idiots (ie, feminists who support transgenderism). Transwomen refer to the feminist women who speak out against the radical trans agenda as “terfs” (trans exclusionary radical feminists).

Here is a round-up of the latest commentary or news articles about who Twitter has of late suspended for referring to Rachel Levine as being a man named Richard:

update: The Christian Post recently responded:

(Link): Disagreement is not hatred. Censorship is. (by The Christian Post editorial board)by Christian Post editorial board)

Excerpts:

March 29, 2022

The Christian Post was (Link): canceled last week by Twitter, over referring to Biden administration official Rachel Levine with an unsanctioned but arguably accurate descriptive pronoun.

It was both unsurprising and surprising; unsurprising since CP regularly covers the controversy surrounding trans-identified individuals and surprising since Twitter thought this particular story was more “hateful” than other stories, and warranted suspension.

CP appealed, and so far Twitter has been silent. It actually brings a Pink Floyd lyric to mind:  “Welcome to the Machine.”

There is much to say in arguing that our pronoun was accurate, but the larger question is: who is the hater here? Eliminating the voice of a publication because of a description that likely more than half of the world’s population would not object to is, in fact, hating that segment of the world.

Granted, Twitter is a private company and can play by the rules it establishes within the confines of the law. But if we are having a conversation about hate, how is it kind to eliminate a voice that disagrees, especially if there is no rancor involved?

Excerpt:

Twitter censored Breitbart News senior writer John Nolte after he made a joke about transgender Health & Human Services Assistant Secretary Rachel Levine.

Nolte was locked out of his account for 12 hours for tweeting that there should be a “Tweet Rachel Levine is a Guy Day.” He is the latest in a growing group of prominent conservative commentators who have been censored by Twitter this week for drawing attention to Levine’s real gender.

In an automated message to Nolte, Twitter informed him that he had violated the Twitter rules and would have to delete his tweet to regain access to his account.

(Link):  BREAKING: Charlie Kirk suspended from Twitter after naming Rachel Levine’s biological sex

“Everything I said was precisely accurate, and yet, Twitter still suspended my account. That should terrify every American, even those who disagree with me,” Kirk said.

Charlie Kirk, founder of TPUSA, talk radio host and outspoken conservative commentator, was suspended from Twitter on Tuesday after identifying President Joe Biden’s assistant health secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services as a man.

“Richard Levine,” Kirk wrote, “spent 54 years of his life as a man. He had a wife and family. He ‘transitioned’ to being a woman in 2011, Joe Biden appointed Levine to be a 4-Star Admiral, and now USA Today has named ‘Rachel’ Levine as a ‘Woman of the Year'[.] Where are the feminists??”

(Link):  Twitter is Punishing Another Account [Babylon Bee] Over Rachel Levine 

Excerpt:

by Rebecca Downs
March 20, 2022

On Sunday night, Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon shared over Twitter that the social media platform informed him that the account for the satirical news site “has been locked for violating the Twitter rules,” when it comes to “hateful conduct.”
The problematic tweet in question is from March 15, and links to a post from that same day proclaiming “The Babylon Bee’s Man Of The Year Is Rachel Levine.”

Continue reading “Twitter Continues To Suspend Any Person or Group Who Mentions Rachel Levine’s Actual Biology or Original Name”

Conservatives In Civil War Over Whether or Not Porn Stars Can Be Considered Conservative or Should Be Permitted To Attend Conservative Events

Conservatives In Civil War Over Whether or Not Porn Stars Can Be Considered Conservative or Should Be Permitted To Attend Conservative Events

I am a conservative, I don’t support pornography, but I’m not sure if I agree with other conservatives who have been saying lately that pornography movie actors cannot be conservatives.

It’s my understanding that some conservative type symposium sponsored by TPUSA (Turning Point U.S.A.), aimed at high school and college aged students, recently invited or permitted to attend, a porn star named Brandi Love, in Florida.

Ever since, conservatives have been feuding about this.

Some are saying, yes, porn actors should be permitted into the “conservative tent,” (or into conservative functions) while other say, “no way!”

My opinion is that yes, even porn stars can be politically conservative if they like, but I’m not sure it’s wise for one to actually attend an event for college students – and some said that while she was in attendance, she wore some kind of name badge with her “porn name” on it, to advertise her porn site or something(?)

I don’t think conservatives should defend porn, because porn is ultimately harmful to society and to women in particular – defending sexual hedonism and perversion is the province of liberals and leftists.

I see some overlap here and among the Christian faith, because a lot of Christians and churches used to defend the practice of remaining a virgin until marriage  (as they should), but in years past, they have begun defending sexual impurity and saying sex outside of marriage is no big deal.

Some churches, when having a “pro sexual purity” or “pro celibacy” event during church hours have been known to hire known fornicators – I’ve done posts about this subject in the past.

The Christians will never ask or hire an honest- to god- adult virgin to give a “sexual purity” lecture, no, they’d rather hire a person who FAILED at sexual purity.

It would be like hiring a food-addicted, 600 pound adult to give a “pro healthy eating” lecture at a church. It makes no sense.

Cancel Culture?

Some people are trying to market this move – of TPUSA of revoking her day pass – as cancel culture, but I’m not so sure.

If conservatives were trying to “cancel” Brandi Love, they’d be trying to ruin her entire career; there would be an on-going Twitter campaign by conservatives to “dog pile” and harass her on Twitter (which is not going on, AFAIK).

(If conservatives are harassing her, they should knock it off. I did read that some conservatives are defending her on Twitter.)

So far as I am aware, there are no conservatives writing to any of Love’s employers and demanding that she be fired and never allowed to work ever again – that would be the sort of thing that “cancel culture” leftists do.

Also note Love was not banned from the political conference due to differences in political opinion – the left always cancels people over political dissent. This banning was more over morals, not over a difference in view points.

Here is some material about this conservative feud:

(Link):  Conservative porn star Brandi Love fumes on Twitter about ‘cancel culture’ after she’s uninvited from GOP student event

I’m not sure if I agree with all of this essay or not:

(Link): About Porn Stars and Conservatism

Excerpts:

by B. Morse

…Now, the conversation has begun on the internet (read flame war) about where pornography fits into the big tent of conservatism after a right-leaning porn star, Brandi Love, showed up and was subsequently booted from a Turning Point USA event due to her profession.

This sparked a debate about whether or not Love can actually be a “conservative” and be a porn star with many of conservatism’s big names saying she can and others saying she can’t.

Continue reading “Conservatives In Civil War Over Whether or Not Porn Stars Can Be Considered Conservative or Should Be Permitted To Attend Conservative Events”

Matt Walsh V. Marriage Idolaters Such as Bradford Wilcox and Mark Regnerus

Matt Walsh V. Marriage Idolaters Such as Bradford Wilcox and Mark Regnerus

So, hyper conservative Matt Walsh tweeted this out in regards to a lady (I think she’s a model or actress? – her name is Julianne Hough) who says after she married her husband (who is a biological man) that she is “not straight” (which I assume means she is attracted to women – as well as to men(?)).

Here is Walsh’s tweet on the matter:

Oh so she lied to her husband and married him under false pretenses. What an inspiration.
—-

I’ve been a conservative for the duration of my life, but conservatives (who usually claim to be “Pro Family” and “Pro Marriage”) are often hypocritical about these topics, or hold some pretty odd, troubling views.

Many conservatives, especially ones who promote Male Headship Complementarianism, and the ones who are members of pro-family organizations and think tanks – such as Bradford Wilcox of the Institute For Family Studies – promote marriage at the expense of singleness (they regularly slam, insult, and put down singleness), or they promote some unethical, unbiblical views, as I’ve outlined in previous posts on my blog.

Continue reading “Matt Walsh V. Marriage Idolaters Such as Bradford Wilcox and Mark Regnerus”

The Marginalization of the Average Joe and Practice of Selective Compassion by Christian and Secular Americans

The Marginalization of the Average Joe and Practice of Selective Compassion by Christian and Secular Americans

I think conservative writer Ann Coulter’s editorial about Christians who shuffle off to assist ebola patients in Africa – which got her all sorts of vitriol by both left and right wingers, Christians and Non Christians – has been proven right.

I first wrote about that in another post or two:

(Link): Ann Coulter’s Article Hits Home — Literally, by S. Harris – And: further thoughts on U.S. Christian Priorities and Reverse Racism

(Link): Strawman Argument: “You’re Creating a False Dichotomy” – No, I’m Not (Re: Coulter editorial and U.S. Christians aiding foreigners)

After American, caucasian movie actor Robin Williams died from suicide a few days ago, on the one hand, there was, yes, a lot of sympathy and sadness expressed for him and his family online in the days that followed, as it should be.

But there were also some very insulting, unsympathetic views published, and at that, based on William’s skin color or his mental health problems, not only by guys like Bill McNorris and Christian Matt Walsh, but by atheist writer P Z Myers.

As far as I can tell, the Bible does not adhere to the concept of “privilege” as believed by liberals. The American progressives harping on “privilege” causes them to refuse to show care and concern for the groups they believe to be in power.

Jesus Christ taught that people’s sins comes from their hearts (from within), not from their environment, and he did not endorse the view that because you or your group has been systematically mistreated or oppressed at the hands of another group, that this excuses your sin, or makes it acceptable for you to hate your oppressor, or for you to refuse to show compassion to that group.

In Jesus’ day, ancient Israel was ruled first and foremost by the ancient Romans, and on a lesser level, by the religious ruling class (the priests and Pharisees).

A lot of American liberals will say it’s impossible for an American woman to be considered sexist, or for female dislike of men to be considered sexist, because men in American society hold all the power. They will say that because whites held all the power in the USA, that one cannot consider a black person’s prejudices against whites a form of racism.

Then we also get into the identity politics and hate crime laws, where liberals believe that someone should receive a harsher, or specific charge of hate, for, say, mugging someone in a certain group that they consider unprivileged.

For example, a crime that is motivated by hatred of skin color, where a white guy punches a black guy in the face, is supposed to be worse than, say, a white guy punching another white guy. A guy murdering someone who happens to be homosexual is supposed to be a hate crime, but the same act is not considered a hate crime if a homosexual or heterosexual murders a heterosexual guy.

I have never understood these positions, because, for one reason of a few, it doesn’t square with the Bible.

Jesus never once taught the Jews of his day that it’s okay for them to hate the Romans, nor did he excuse their dislike of the Romans, on the premise that the Romans held all the “privilege” or “power.”

Continue reading “The Marginalization of the Average Joe and Practice of Selective Compassion by Christian and Secular Americans”

How Laypersons Can Minister to Depressed / Suicidal People

How Laypersons Can Minister to Depressed / Suicidal People

This is a follow up to my previous post,

(Link): A Response to Blogger Matt Walsh Regarding Depression

Some of the advice I give here in regards to depressed or suicidal people can also be applied to other situations, not just depressed or suicidal friends.

Parts of this advice can be applicable to family or friends you have who are in mourning, friends who have a physical illness, or ones who are worried because they just got laid off from their job and don’t know how they’re going to pay their rent, or friends who were divorced a month ago after 15 years of marriage and they are heartbroken.

Regardless of the reason of their sorrow, worry, or fear, a lot of this advice can help them as well.

In his post about the suicide of actor Robin Williams, Christian blogger Matt Walsh focused on what one should SAY to a depressed or suicidal person.

Walsh also seems to think making arguments – based on logic – can pull a depressed person back from going through with suicide.

Cold, hard facts and logic, appeals to reason and rationality aren’t going to make much of an impact in discouraging someone from taking his or her own life. (I explain why in a little more detail in the last post.)

The area of emphasis is wrong.

One should not be stewing or pondering over what to SAY to a depressed, suicidal person (or someone who is in mourning) – for ultimately, there’s not much one can say to someone in that much pain – the key is what one DOES for a depressed or suicidal person.

You need to think in terms of what you can DO for a hurting person, not in terms of what you should SAY.

Continue reading “How Laypersons Can Minister to Depressed / Suicidal People”

A Response to Blogger Matt Walsh Regarding Depression and Suicide

A Response to Blogger Matt Walsh Regarding Depression

Before I address Matt Walsh’s post about depression specifically:

For anyone who wants to read a compassionate, balanced view about mental health problems, including depression, by a Christian author, please read a copy of the book,

Why Do Christians Shoot Their Wounded?: Helping (Not Hurting) Those with Emotional Difficulties – by Dwight L. Carlson.

Carlson is a Christian doctor who explains how much, if at all, personal sin, choice, or biology play in issues such as depression.

An excerpt from the book’s page on Amazon reads,

  • It’s no sin to hurt. Thousands of Christians suffer real emotional pain– such as depression, anxiety, obsessiveness.

Many other Christians, including prominent leaders, believe emotional problems are the result of sin or bad choices. These attitudes often only add to the suffering of those who hurt.

In this book Dwight Carlson marshals recent scientific evidence that demonstrates many emotional problems are just as physical or biological as diabetes, cancer and heart disease.

While he never discounts personal responsibility, Carlson shows from both the Bible and up-to-date medicine why it really is no sin to hurt.

Understandably and compellingly, Why Do Christians Shoot Their Wounded? brings profound help for those who hurt and those who counsel. For those who suffer, here is a powerful liberation from guilt. For those who care for the suffering, here is vivid proof that those in emotional pain deserve compassion, not condemnation.
—- end excerpts —-

MATT WALSH, ROBIN WILLIAMS, AND SUICIDE/DEPRESSION

In the day or two after it was announced that movie actor Robin Williams died by suicide, Christian blogger Matt Walsh wrote a blog post about it called “Robin Williams didn’t die from a disease, he died from his choice” (url: themattwalshblog.com). A copy of Walsh’s first post appears (Link): here on Barbwire (the link will open in a new window).

The very title of the post suggests, or assumes, that Williams was wholly in his right mind, capable of making rational decisions, and was therefore totally responsible for his own death, that he could have easily avoided his death (if only he had “chosen” joy and/or read a Bible more, etc), and, by extension, deserves no compassion.

Walsh would probably counter, “But I never specficially said he didn’t deserve compassion, or that he should just read his Bible more!”

Well, no, you didn’t say that exactly, but the wording of your blog post heading alone certainly implies it. The rambling in the post itself, which was intended to bolster the claims implied in the title, further suggests these views as well.

Walsh got so much negative feedback from that post, he wrote a follow-up post to it the other day.

I don’t know at this point if I intend on writing a full-scale rebuttal to Walsh’s post here – or, if I do, I may do it in the days or weeks ahead. I’m undecided.

I found Walsh’s commentary so revolting, I can’t bring myself to go back and re-read the piece again. Once was enough. I’ll try to re-visit the pages to grab some quotes, if I can.

I skimmed the Part 2 earlier today. Part 2 is entitled, “Depression isn’t a choice but suicide is: my detailed response to the critics”

The attitude of Walsh’s primary post was very victim-blaming, in spite of his protestations to the contrary.

Walsh evidently feels post # 1 was very loving and supportive of Robin Williams or anyone who deals with depression.

Perhaps Walsh is merely a very poor writer and failed to accurately convey his views in the first place, so that they came out as insensitive as they did, and now he’s upset so many people have taken his post the “wrong way.”

That has happened to me a time or two online – I fail to clearly explain my position on a sensitive issue, and folks take it the wrong way, and assume I’m a heartless jerk. (On the other hand, people are sometimes guilty of reading things into posts I’ve written that I never said or felt.)

If I am not mistaken, Walsh implied in part 1, and admitted in part 2 (again, I cannot bring myself at this time to re-read both to double check this) that he has had depression in the past, or some sort of problem.

Okay, I shall wade into the post again to find the exact quote. Here is what Walsh said in part 2 about his own experiences:

I actually found myself getting emotional as I wrote it. I’m not suicidal but I have demons of my own, so I submitted that post to the public, praying others would find the same solace in the promise of hope and the power of free will.
— end quote —

From part 1, Walsh says,

And before I’m accused of being someone who “doesn’t understand,” let me assure you that I have struggled with this my entire life.
— end quote —

I want to pause here to say I find that wording odd, from the quote from part 2. Walsh says he hopes people can find hope in “the power of free will.”

Christians usually feed depressed people the cliché’ that they can be freed of depression in “Jesus alone.”

Just as believing in Jesus alone cannot free a person from depression, neither can celebrating “free will,” or a “pick yourself up by your bootstraps and solider on” mentality.

I’d say often, a lot of people with clinical depression operate under one or both those paradigms for years to start with anyway, along with psychiatric visits or medications, until they realize none of it is working, they get mentally exhausted and want to stop fighting to live.

It is exhausting to live another day when all you want to do is stay in bed all day long with the sheets over your head, or take your own life.

That is, people with depression (some of them, anyway) already have tried to “choose joy” and so on; they don’t need a Matt Walsh telling them to give that a go.

Having severe depression is not an automatic death sentence. There can be a way out, but it might vary from one person to the next.

But the vast majority of people I’ve seen who have made it through depression and lived to tell about it usually do not credit their survival with pure choice (ie, choosing to be joyful), Bible reading, attending church, or Jesus alone.

As a matter of fact, many of these recovering folks will tell you that one thing that made their journey MORE difficult was receiving well intentioned, yet hurtful advice, such as the very things Walsh was writing about and which is common among Christians: believe more in Jesus, attend church, choose to be joyful, etc.

Continue reading “A Response to Blogger Matt Walsh Regarding Depression and Suicide”