In an opinion piece[1] in the Washington Post, the philosopher Émile P. Torres speculates about the likelihood of AI research accomplishing, within the foreseeable future, the development of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI), and whether that would be not only beneficial but also dangerous, and says,

Surely no research organization would design a malicious, Terminator-style ASI hellbent on destroying humanity, right? Unfortunately, that’s not the worry. If we’re all wiped out by an ASI, it will almost certainly be on accident.

I find this puzzling. How can any intelligent, thinking human being doubt, in the face of two world wars, the holocaust, numerous other wars and acts of terrorism since then (most notably the Russian attack on and invasion of Ukraine), and an increasing number of leaders who, in the event of an election loss, would likely do a Trump and suggest to their followers that they they should storm and occupy the democratic institutions of their country, that if a technology like ASI existed or was within reach, someone would not try—and probably succeed—to exploit this technology for nefarious ends?

In 1942 the Russian-born American scientist and science fiction writer Isaac Asimov  invented his “Three Laws of Robotics” which say,

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

In the eighty years since then numerous systems have been invented which, while not humanoid in form like most of Asimov’s and other science fiction writers’ robots, are nonetheless in a real sense robots as Asimov had in mind in formulating his laws but which do not abide by these laws, with many of them, like the quadruped military robot Cheetah or autonomous drones like the MQ-1 Predator, being expressly designed to harm humans or assist with harming them. Wikipedia even has an article on the Artificial Intelligence arms race which evidently is a thing.

These are powered by our current Artificial Intelligence systems and generally are only capable of performing one specific task; in this they are still sub-human machine intelligence, yet in the wrong hands they can wreak devastation. Many scientists are now working on human-level machine intelligence, on a par with human intelligence, and predict success within the next fifty years or so; others are already working on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) as a stepping stone to Artificial Superintelligence which will far surpass human intelligence.

Torres recognizes and describes in his article the ways that such ASI systems could, strictly by accident, wipe out the human race (which from a purely naturalistic perspective would of course not be evil because there would be no human beings left to suffer), and for this reason recommends that governments should stop all research on AGI and ASI.

I don’t believe that this will happen. It might happen if all governments had only the common good at heart; this is totally unrealistic, just look at Vladimir Putin, China or North Korea but also, as lesser, more harmless examples, our own politicians who as often as not are motivated by their country’s, their party’s or even their own good rather than the common good.

And even if all governments halted and prohibited such research, how do you ensure that some rogue actors don’t continue to research and develop such systems, without resorting to the repressive measures of a police state?

And once such systems exist, the biggest danger won’t be the annihilation of the human race but the use of this ASI to oppress and cause great harm to a still existing human race.

The Christian Scriptures predict a time of great tribulation (Mt 24:21, Rev 7:14) immediately prior to the return of Christ, and the havoc wreaked by ASI may well form part of that tribulation; as Christians, whether we believe in the rapture (1 Thess 4:17)[2] or not, we still have hope in the face of that prospect because we know that Christ’s ultimate victory over sin, sickness and death is assured (Rev 20:11-15; Rev 20).

Banner Photo by Michael Dziedzic on Unsplash

1. Since the Washington Post is behind a pay wall, here is a summary of Torres’ arguments, although without the paragraph I quote and which prompted this post[↩]
2. The interpretation of these verses, and how the events before, during and after Christ’s return will unfold, is something Christians have disagreed about for a long time, at least since the Prophecy Conferences of the 19th century but probably throughout the history of the Christian church[↩]

Natürlich wurde in der Pressekonferenz nach der Uraufführung auch die kulturpolitisch heiße Frage gestellt: Indigene als Filmfiguren, die auch noch überwiegend deutsch besetzt sind – geht das heute überhaupt noch?

Regisseur Mike Marzuk antwortet auf diese Frage nicht ganz politisch korrekt, daß das in einem deutschsprachigen Film kaum zu umgehen sei, spricht dann doch noch politisch korrekt mehrmals von „Native Americans“ statt von Indianern und meint abschließend, „Wir drehen gern Filme über Freundschaft, auch über kulturübergreifende Freundschaften. Aber Filme sollen nicht unterrichten, sondern unterhalten.“

Und es ist diese Aussage (der ich durchaus zustimme), die für mich eine interessante Gemeinsamkeit von konservativ-fundamentalistischen, vor allem evangelikalen Christen einerseits und „woken,“ „progressiv“-fundamentalistischen Aktivisten andererseits, aufzeigt; im Englischen spricht man von „strange bedfellows“, sonderbaren Bettgenossen:

Beide lehnen nämlich diese These von Regisseur Marzuk ab und sehen Romane und Filme nur dann als gerechtfertigt an, wenn diese sehr wohl primär als Lehrmittel angelegt sind: Sie sollen nicht nur unterhalten (das natürlich auch, sonst fänden sie ja kein Publikum), sondern unbedingt auch Wahrheiten vermitteln, theologisch-korrekte für die Christen und politisch-korrekte für die Progressiven.

Deshalb sind im konservativ-christlichen Lager hauptsächlich Romane erfolgreich (und werden dann auch verfilmt), die irgendein Thema „biblisch“ beleuchten[1] ; diese werden dann von ihrem Zielpublikum auch oft nicht als Fiktion gelesen, sondern als biblisch-theologische Glaubens- und Lebensratgeber. Gleichzeitig wird von manchen gegen Filme, die sich auf „christliche“ Themen beziehen und dabei das christliche Wahrheits- und Ehrfurchtsgefühl verletzen[2] ähnlich vehement protestiert, wie von moslemischen Fundamentalisten gegen die Satanischen Verse oder Charlie Hebdo, wenn auch ohne Gewalt.

Und ebenso hält man im „progressiven“ Lager Literatur und Filme, die nicht der aktuellen politischen Korrektheit entsprechen (darunter auch viele Klassiker der Weltliteratur), für entbehrlich, ja sogar gefährlich, und geht daher mit den Mitteln der „Cancel Culture“ dagegen vor, damit z.B. Verlage diese (Beispiel Ravensburger) zurückziehen, Kinos sie boykottieren oder Unis sie aus den Lehrplänen streichen.

Ich halte solche Proteste und „Cancellations“ für kontraproduktiv. Kaum jemand bekehrt sich zu Christus, weil er  von Demonstranten am Kinobesuch gehindert wird, oder zu einer „progressiven“, anti-kolonialistischen Geisteshaltung, weil irgendwo gegen einen schwarz geschminkten Othello-Darsteller demonstriert wird.

Überzeugungsarbeit sieht anders aus: dem Anderen Intoleranz vorzuwerfen, wenn man es selbst an Toleranz gegenüber Andersdenkenden mangeln läßt, ist selten überzeugend.

1. z.B. Finsternis dieser Welt usw von Frank Peretti oder die Finale–Serie von LaHaye und Jenkins[↩]
2. z.B. Das Leben des Brian, Die letzte Versuchung Christi, aber auch Sakrileg (The DaVinci Code), die Harry Potter Bücher und Filme, und von manchen sogar Tolkiens Der Herr der Ringe[↩]

Der Ravensburger Verlag hat das Buch Der junge Häuptling Winnetou nach dem gleichnamigen Film zurückgezogen, weil ihm kritische Stimmen eine der aktuellen Todsünden, nämlich „kulturelle Aneignung“, vorwerfen.

Ich halte den Rückzieher von Ravensburger für reines virtue signalling und stimme voll und ganz mit dieser Aussage der Frankfurter Ethnologin Susanne Schröter überein, die das Konzept der kulturellen Aneignung als Vorwurf für sehr problematisch und absurd hält:

«Die Skandalisierung der kulturellen Aneignungen weist eine Reihe von Absurditäten auf. Eine betrifft die Folgen, die sich ergeben, wenn man die geforderten Nutzungsbeschränkungen zu Ende denkt. Dann müssten bei jedem Gegenstand, jedem Stil, jeder Form kulturellen Ausdrucks die Urheber ausfindig gemacht und ihr Gebrauch auf diese Urheber beschränkt werden.

Menschen haben stets Dinge von anderen übernommen, wenn sie diese für sinnvoll erachtet haben. Um es auf den Punkt zu bringen, ist die gesamte Menschheitsgeschichte eine Geschichte kultureller Aneignungen, ohne die es keine Entwicklung gegeben hätte.

Kulturelle Aneignung ist wohl die wichtigste Kulturtechnik, die ein friedliches Zusammenwachsen möglich macht.»[1]

Leider ist das konsequente Zu-Ende-Denken der eigenen Ideen und Forderungen etwas, was die wenigsten “progressiven” Aktivisten schaffen, und Menschen wie die Ravensburger Verlagsleitung denken leider die Folgen ihres Rückziehers auch nicht zu Ende: Wer bestimmt wohl in ein paar Jahren das Verlagsprogramm?

Neben der kulturellen Aneignung wirft man Karl Mays Büchern, dem diesen entfernt darauf basierenden Film, sowie dem Buch zum Film, „rassistische Vorurteile“ und eine „kolonialistische Erzählweise“ vor.

Aber gerade May, bei dessen Büchern es sich um reine Phantasieprodukte, um Märchen also, handelt (was man mich, als jungen Leser vor 57 Jahren, von Seiten der Erwachsenen auch keine Minute vergessen ließ), beschreibt seine Charaktere, im Gegensatz zu vielen seiner Zeitgenossen, durchaus differenziert: sowohl unter den Weißen als auch unter den „Indianern“ gibt es Gute wie Böse, und gerade May thematisiert auch die zunehmende Unterdrückung der „Indianer“ durch die weißen Einwanderer.

Sowohl Film als auch Buch Der junge Häuptling Winnetou basieren nun mal auf Karl Mays Material und seinen Charakteren, und können diese nicht einfach umschreiben.

Ich glaube, daß der Drang, solche Bücher zu verbannen, und auch die genre-getreue Verfilmung solcher Bücher zu unterbinden, ebenso wie das cancelling historischer Persönlichkeiten, die keine aus unserer heutigen Sicht blütenreine Weste haben, einer verständlichen und nachvollziehbaren Scham über die historischen Vorurteile und Schandtaten unserer Kultur und Vorfahren entspringt; aber so zu tun, als hätte es die Vorurteile und Schandtaten nie gegeben, indem wir ihre Werke, soweit sie unseren heutigen ethischen Standards nicht hundertprozentig entsprechen, macht uns nicht zu besseren Menschen und ist keine gesunde Vorgehensweise. Viel wichtiger wäre es, sich um die heute existierenden Vorurteile und die daraus entspringenden Schandtaten zu kümmern und diese zu bekämpfen.

(Das Titelbild dieses Artikels ist eine „gestauchte“ Version des Filmplakats zu Der junge Häuptling Winnetou. Sollte sich jemand dadurch in seinen Rechten verletzt fühlen, bitte ich um Mitteilung und werde es dann natürlich entfernen.)

1. Zitiert nach dem ORF Online Bericht, Wirbel um Rückzieher von Ravensburger[↩]

A few days ago Spiked, a UK-based online magazine variously described  as either right-leaning libertarian or left-leaning libertarian, published an article by Gareth Roberts, the “cancelled” Dr. Who writer, entitled, Joan of Arc was not ‘nonbinary’. He criticizes an upcoming play at Shakespeare’s Globe in London, “I, Joan”, which ‘reimagines’ Joan of Arc as a nonbinary person; then he goes on to criticize the current tendency to project ideas and concepts of contemporary identity politics into the past, “identifying” historical persons as one of “LBGT+”.

This quote struck me:

It is, of course, notoriously difficult to define ‘nonbinary’. Like its siblings ‘trans’ and ‘queer’, it has an uncanny power to mean whatever the person using it fancies saying at the time. But so far as I can make out, it seems to boil down to not behaving stereotypically ‘like a man’ or stereotypically ‘like a woman’, but as a bit of both.

This is a newly discovered and exciting characteristic shared by 100 per cent of the human race. Declaring yourself ‘nonbinary’ is like demanding to be recognised as unusual because you’ve got a bumhole.

The problem is, of course, that in contemporary usage the term nonbinary doesn’t just mean not behaving stereotypically ‘like a man’ or stereotypically ‘like a woman’ but as a bit of both.

Instead it implies a refusal to be classified as either male or female[1] ; it is thus a denial of a foundational aspect of human nature as both Scripture and science affirm it:

So God created man in his own image; he created him in the image of God; he created them male and female.
(Genesis 1:27, emphasis mine)

Yes, science recognizes the condition of gender dysphoria, but with the exception of the 0.02%[2] of people born with ambiguous physical sex characteristics (intersex) those affected by it are nevertheless either male or female, and objective science untainted by political correctness identifies it as a pathology, which is considered totally unacceptable bigotry by those who identify as nonbinary. 

I don’t really have a problem with someone not fitting traditional gender stereotypes in either dress, behaviour, or even preference of name and pronouns, and of course people are free to call themselves what they want, and, as Jordan Peterson famously said, as a matter of politeness I will usually address an individual as he or she wishes to be addressed.

However, both as a Christian and as a thinking human being I reject the very concept of nonbinary persons as contrary both to Scripture and human nature, and I object to being compelled, whether by law, or company policy, or social pressure, to affirm someone’s gender self-identification as trumping biological fact.

The post-modern expectation that all of us ought to affirm as the ultimate reality someone’s self-identification even if that self-identification flies in the face of biological fact, or else face various kinds of sanctions, is the ultimate denial and rejection of the freedoms of speech, expression, or opinion as fundamental human rights, just as compelling people to affirm same-sex attraction, marriage, and sexual activity as normal and good is a denial of the freedom of religion.

I agree that in a pluralistic society we generally owe each other tolerance (within the constraints of the law[3]), but we do not owe anyone affirmation. 

1. This is also reflected in the language of gender assignment at birth which suggests that sex is is arbitrarily assigned rather than being discerned based on objective biological criteria[↩]
2. There are those who put that percentage as high as 2%, but it seems to me they are driven more by ideology than sound research[↩]
3. Within a church, the tolerance we owe each other is also constrained by the doctrine of that particular church[↩]

In Against National Conservatism First Things has Peter Leithart writing about the Edmund Burke Foundation’s National Conservatism Statement of Principles.

He lists a number of laudable aspects of these Principles, including their opposition to universalist ideologies and corrosive globalization, and then zeroes in on two major — and fatal —flaws or weaknesses of the Statement:

• its lack of recognition of the Church’s own, biblically-rooted universalism or globalism, and
• its failure to recognize the Bible as the Word of God rather than merely a wellspring of national values, a source of shared culture or a ground of national tradition.

These are well-founded and valuable criticisms, and I am in full agreement with them.

Let me add a couple of observations of my own, light-weight though they may be compared to Peter Leithart’s.

Firstly, as a European, and more specifically Austrian, of the first post-WW II generation I am deeply suspicious of any ideology or philosophy that is prefixed with National. I was born ten years after the end of the war, and I grew up with post-war reconstruction well underway; but the tragic results of National Socialism were still evident in many areas of life. And recently we have seen the rise of leaders like Donald Trump, Lech and Jaroslav Kaczynski, Victor Orban, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, all of whom view themselves, as do their followers, as National Conservatives and true patriots, a label which they deny their political opponents. It would not have been fair to mention him in the same sentence as the others, but Vladimir Putin is of the same ilk, only more so. Hitler’s nazis sang, “Deutschland über alles”, Trump proclaimed “America First” and “Make America Great Again”, and Putin phantasizes about an ever-expanding Russkiy Mir, the Russian World, and is prepared to use military force to realize that dream. It sounds just all too familiar to me. And while the signatories of the statement would definitely disown Putin, especially after his illegal invasion of and war against Ukraine, Victor Orban’s Hungary is hailed by some conservatives in the US as a bulwark of Christendom surrounded by rampant secularism.

Secondly, it is all very well for “National Conservatives” in the United States championing the nation state and opposing the transferring of authority to international bodies, when their “nation” is almost the size of the entire continent of Europe or more than twice the size of the European Union[1]. No doubt the European Union, as a trans-national, international body has its flaws, and one can debate whether member states have ceded to much power to the EU institutions, and it is unfortunately also true that the EU has left the Christian values of it’s founders behind (but that is no more than a reflection of developments in the member states), but this is not too different from the discussions in the US about the respective powers of the individual states and the federal government. More importantly, the European Union, or something very much like it, is the only way the nations of Europe can have any hope of competing, economically and politically, with the United States.

Thirdly, when it comes to, «In nations with a Christian majority, Christianity should be at the root of public life and “honored by the state.”», I am very sure that train has already left the station, and it’s not coming back, in any of the Western nations. And when I think of the influence of Trump’s national conservatism on American Evangelicalism, or that of Putin’s national conservatism on the Orthodox Church and others in Russia, both of which are massively more corrosive than anything coming from the international organizations, then it seems to me that our primary concern at the moment should be not with globalization but with toxic, almost idolatrous, Christian nationalism.

1. Size in square kilometer: US–9.8 million, EU–4.2 million, European continent–10.2 million[↩]

In a recent discussion on Facebook someone denigrated Anglicanism (even the conservative version of GAFCON, ACNA, etc) as not sufficiently reformed, because, while the English Reformation got rid of the heretical practices and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, it retained other practices “which should not be part of any church.”

In reply I asked, What things other than “heretical practices and beliefs” shouldn’t be part of any church?

He has, so far, not replied to my questions, but this reminds me of what, in Reformed theology, is called the regulative principle of worship.

Theopedia says, 

The Regulative principle of worship in Christian theology teaches that the public worship of God should include those and only those elements that are instituted, commanded, or appointed by command or example in the Bible. In other words, it is the belief that God institutes in Scripture whatever he requires for worship in the Church, and everything else should be avoided.

The regulative principle is often contrasted with the Normative Principle of Worship, which teaches that whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, so long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church. In other words, there must be agreement with the general practice of the Church and no prohibition in Scripture for whatever is done in worship.

1. Any practice that is expressly forbidden in Scripure is heretical and shouldn’t be part of any church.
2. Any practice that is commanded or commended in Scripture is orthodox and should be part of every church.
3. Anything that is neither prohibited nor commanded/commended in Scripture is a matter for prudential judgment and freedom which (as long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the the church and doesn’t contradict biblical principles) a church can decide to adopt or not while still respecting those who decide differently.

The reformers of the 16th century rightly rejected the authority, jurisdiction, and infallibility of the Roman pope and insisted on Scripture as the only binding standard for both the church and the individual believer. Ever since then there have been people in the church who have claimed for themselves that authority, jurisdiction, and infallibility, and have disparaged and condemned anyone who didn’t agree with them on every point.

It is very sad that there are those in the church who have given up on Sola Scriptura; unlike the Roman Catholic Church they are not guided by Sacred Tradition but by the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age. They seek to be relevant in this post-modern age by abandoning “the faith once delivered to the saints” and instead adopting the mores of the new, “progressive” secular public morality.

It is even sadder, however, when those who claim to still be comitted to the authority of Scripture disparage, castigate, and maul each other over what are, after all, adiaphora, peripheral matters. 

The Roys Report has this: “Former UMC Pastor in Wisconsin Convicted on Child Porn Charges”

The recent rash of scandals being reported of pastors and youth leaders engaging in illicit sexual affairs with parishioners has been shocking, on the one hand, but on the other hand I could see myself, at several stages of my life, succumbing to similar temptations, and even hiding that sin from others while carrying on ministry. We humans are very good at rationalizing away the sinfulness of our hearts and behaviour, and most of the time we present our carefully constructed “glittering image” [1] to others around us and especially to the church.

I have a lot more trouble understanding the temptation to engage in sex with children (pedophilia) or adolescents (ephebophilia); but I am sure those who are tempted that way and succumb are also good at telling themselves that there is nothing wrong to giving in to these “natural impulses”.

This sad case, however, really has me scratching my head. I do not understand how anyone can tell themselves that wishing to “molest, abuse, rape & reuse” children (or anyone, for that matter) is not sinful and disqualifying from Christian ministry; I do not understand how this man could stand up on Sunday  morning and preach from Scripture, perhaps with his notes and a Bible app on the same phone where he had more than 150 videos of children being “molested, abused, raped & reused”. My own “glittering image” would not survive this, it would shatter if I had even one such image or video on my phone together with Bible, Lectionary, Prayer Book and Catechism and Hymnal, not to mention my Kindle library of pious and theological books.

This man has harmed not only his victims; his family and his church must be be absolutely devastated, and the testimony of Christ has been damaged.

When we are in a close accountability relationship with a mature Christian it is not easy to maintain our “glittering image” without this accountability partner sooner or later noticing cracks in that image; tragically, too many pastors have no such relationship; they are not sufficiently close to anyone who could notice the cracks in their “glittering image” when they succumb to whatever their particular temptation is, and call them on it.

I know I should pray for this man, not just for his victims, his family, and his church. I don’t really know how to pray except to say, “Lord, have mercy!”

1. I am borrowing this term and concept from Susan Howatch’s book “Glittering Images”, the first book in her “Starbridge” series[↩]

Toby Young, British journalist and founder of the Free Speech Union, in conversation with Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute, has some insightful comments about the new “progressive” public morality (i.e. normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism, unrestricted abortion rights, etc.).

I am posting this not just because I agree with him (except for his use of “woke” to describe the new morality[1]), but to underline the main point in my recent post about Disney:

Most of the people who have subscribed to this new pulic morality sincerely believe themselves to be good, moral people; even some Christians have become persuaded of the new morality and have convinced themselves that just as we have abolished slavery so we need to abolish traditional sexual mores in order to be truly loving.

A “Christian” culture war rhetoric demonizing them and casting aspersions on their motives is effectively our version of “cancel culture” and will neither turn our society around, nor protect our children, nor increase the likelihood of winning people to Christ—which, after all, should be the church’s main goal.

Instead we should do as Christ did: compassionately, lovingly calling people to repentance, praying that the Holy Spirit would open their eyes to the deception of this new morality.

When we have an opportunity to oppose the new morality in the political realm (from school boards on up) we will be much more persuasive if we do so in a rational, measured tone and without resorting to personal invective. As Proverbs 15:1 says, “A gentle answer turns away anger, but a harsh word stirs up wrath.”

Here is Toby Young:

We have to try to understand why it has become harder and harder to disagree about essential values in the public square without falling out with each other, and why cancel culture has metastasized to become such an all-encompassing blight. I think it has something to do with the ebbing away of the Christian tide.

In the nineteenth century, and even in the first part of the twentieth century, we were a  Christian society, and the sacred values we were expected to observe were Christian values, and if someone comitted adultery, or got divorced, or was born out of wedlock, there was serious social stigma attached to that. We had a kind of public morality which people were expected to observe, and if they didn’t, they were sort of outcast, or they were in some kind of Bohemian sub-culture. There was some tolerance for people who didn’t believe, more tolerance, particularly towards the end of the nineteenth century, in the higher education sector, towards people who challenged the prevailing orthodoxies, more tolerance than there is now.

So as the Christian tide ebbed away, so this morality faded, and particularly in the 1960s and 1970s all the taboos which had constrained people’s behavior, the moral taboos, fell away and there was a brief period where we enjoyed this intellectual, sexual freedom, and everyone thought that was what the future was going to be.

But then, intererestingly, people seemingly found it quite difficult to cope with that degree of freedom, and they’ve embraced another, even more dogmatic morality, which in the past ten, fifteen years has become the public morality.

So, after a brief interlude, one public morality has been replaced by another. And if you don’t sign up to the articles of faith of that political morality, you are now outcast, probably more outcast than you were if you didn’t sign up to the articles of the Christian faith in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.

And I think that’s really what has happend: we have embraced this new, secular public morality which is actually, interestingly, much more puritanical, and censorious, and authoritarian, than the seemingly much more gentle Christian morality which at least allowed for forgiveness, a path back, redemption, but which this new public morality seemingly doesn’t allow for. And I think that’s why we live in an increasingly intoletant society, why, if you don’t sign up to the shibbolets of the “woke church”, you end up kind of cast out; and, curiously, a lot of people who find themselves at odds with the articles of faith of that new public morality are orthodox Christians.

1. I believe using “woke” to describe the new morality’s sexual agenda is a mis-appropriation of a term that belongs to people of color in their fight against racism,  and mis-using it this way equates support of traditional Christian beliefs, and opposition to “progressive” beliefs, about sex, marriage, and the sanctity of life with racism, which is nonsense.[↩]

In the conservative Christian online medium Mercatornet, Sydney journalist Sebastian James laments that “The Woke Disney Company is turning its back on family values.” He writes,

In a company-wide zoom meeting back in March, the president of Disney’s General Entertainment Content, Karey Burke, said the company “doesn’t have enough LGBTQIA leads in their content and don’t have enough narratives in which gay characters just get to be characters”. She vowed to change this “non-inclusive trend”.
Why can’t Disney stick to producing great content, family films which champion what is good, true, beautiful, and universal?

That question does Disney and its management an injustice. They believe that by making their products more “inclusive” they ARE in fact championing what is good, true, beautiful, and universal.

I also think that the so-called “inclusivity” of companies like Disney is an illusion; you rarely see conservative Christians with traditional views of sex and marriage portrayed as wholesome, but the same thing applies: they genuinely believe that such views are NOT wholesome but bigoted and harmful.

We may disagree with them and oppose them, and I do, but demonizing them by denying their sincerity or otherwise impugning their motives is neither fair or just, nor will it halt society’s trend of normalizing “alternative sexualities and identities.”

Let us by all means call sin “sin” but not lose sight of the fact that these folks’ greatest problem is not their view of sex and marriage but the fact that they are not following Christ, and that their unbiblical views are merely the outworking of that. Ultimately our task as Christians is winning people to Christ (including Disney president Karey Burke), not making secular society conform to Christian values (or lamenting the fact that the world’s values are, well, “worldly”).

Unfortunately it is also true that throughout much of church history Christians have treated “perverts” abominably, as if their sin were worse than heterosexual adultery, fornication and concubinage (which were frequently tolerated, even among church leaders), and even today we see scandals of churches most vociferously opposed to the normalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriage being revealed as having swept under the carpet the heterosexual abuse of children, adolescents, and other vulnerable people by clergy, in an (usually unsuccessful) effort to shield their institutions from liability and preserve their reputation. We as individuals, congregations, and even denominations may not have been guilty or complicit in these injustices, and may not even have been aware of them, or we may think that those who perpetrated them were not true Christians, but we must not ignore the damage these things have done to the testimony of the universal church and how they have contributed to the situation we see today:  “wokeness” may be an over-reaction but it is always is a reaction to injustice.

In Scripture we see Jesus rebuking with strong language (i.e. “you are of your father the devil”) those religious leaders who failed to obey not just the words but the spirit of God’s commandments, but calling ordinary sinners to repentance while treating them with love and compassion (i.e. “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”). As Jesus-followers it behooves us to do the same.

Banner picture: Lightyear / Disney/Pixar

Eine Facebook-Freundin (anonymisiert) fragt:

Die Antwort lautet: Wahrscheinlich stimmen beide Aussagen.

Die israelischen Raketen waren wahrscheinlich die (traurige aber verständliche) Reaktion auf den Raketenbeschuß durch den Islamischen Dschihad.

Wie Thomas M. Eppinger auf MENA-Watch berichtet,

In der Nacht zum Samstag hat der Islamische Dschihad über 160 Raketen aus Gaza auf Israel abgefeuert. Jede einzelne von ihnen zielte auf Zivilisten, jede einzelne ist ein terroristischer Akt. Nur dem Iron Dome und den öffentlichen Sicherheitseinrichtungen ist es zu verdanken, dass solche Terrorakte nicht mehr Opfer fordern. 

Demgegenüber unternimmt Israel mehr als jede andere Armee der Welt, um die Zivilisten des Gegners in der Kampfzone zu schützen. Dennoch sind in jedem Krieg unbeteiligte Opfer unvermeidlich. Die palästinensische Taktik, sich hinter der eigenen Zivilbevölkerung zu verstecken, kann nicht zur Folge haben, die eigene Bevölkerung widerstandslos dem Terror auszuliefern. 

Das Infame an der CNN-Überschrift ist, daß sie die Ursache für den israelischen Raketenbeschuß, nämlich den vorausgegangenen Beschuß aus Gaza, verschweigt (auch wenn der Artikel dann beides erwähnt).

Diese Art der Überschrift entspringt der unter westlichen Medien und vor allem linken Politikern und Organisationen weit verbreiteten Leugnung, direkt oder indirekt, des israelischen Rechts auf Selbstverteidigung in diesem Krieg, der von palestinensischen Terror-Organisationen wie PLO (die im Westjordanland regiert), Hamas (die im Gazastreifen regiert) und Islamischer Dschihad (die für den aktuellen Raketenbeschuß verantwortlich ist) am Leben erhalten wird.

Diese Leugnung, die durchaus nicht auf englischsprachige Medien begrenzt ist, sondern unter Anderem auch in österreichischen und deutschen Medien gut vertreten ist, ist zu einem gesellschaftsfähigen Antisemitismus geworden, der sich als Sorge um die unterdrückte palästinensische Bevölkerung geriert, dabei aber die Rolle der palästinensischen Führung, insbesondere der Hamas, in dieser Situation verschweigt. Diese hält sich zwar derzeit mit direkten Angriffen auf Israel zurück, läßt aber andere Terrorgruppen wie den Islamischen Dschihad weitgehend unbehelligt im von ihr konrollierten Gazastreifen agieren.

Man muß nicht die gesamte israelische Politik im Westjordanland, im Gazastreifen, und in den besetzten Gebieten gutheißen, aber es muß schon ganz klar gesagt werden, daß der Staat Israel die ständigen Angriffe auf die eigene Zivilbevölkerung nicht einfach so hinnehmen kann. Dies auch dann, wenn aufgrund der Taktik der Terrororganisationen jeder Verteidigungsschlag Israels Opfer unter der palästinensischen Zivilbevölkerung fordert: Leider verstecken die Terrororganisationen ihre Raketenwerfer und Munitionslager ebenso wie die Eingänge zu ihren Terrortunneln in zivilen Siedlungen, um die resultierenden zivilen Opfer dann propagandistisch auszuschlachten. Dazu gehört auch, daß die Opfer der eigenen Raketen (wenn diese z.B. zu kurz fliegen und noch im Gazastreifen einschlagen), grundsätzlich immer Israel in die Schuhe geschoben werden.

Nun werden einige diesen ganzen Narrativ in Frage stellen, und trotzdem die Verantwortung für die Gewalt im Nahen Osten primär Israel in die Schuhe schieben. Darauf kann ich nur sagen:

Ich finde den demokratischen Staat Israel, der als einziger in der Region faire und geheime Wahlen sowie eine unabhängige Presse hat, in seiner Darstellung der Situation wesentlich glaubwürdiger als die autokratischen bis diktatorischen Regimes von PLO und Hamas, die in ihren Herrschaftsbereichen keine Opposition zulassen.

Und obwohl ich kein Freund von Krieg bin, und ihn als Mittel der Politik kategorisch ablehne, muß ich doch Staaten das Recht auf Selbstverteidigung zugestehen, dem Staat Israel ebenso wie der Ukraine.