EQUALITY, JUSTICE, SARAH JEONG, AND THE NEW YORK TIMES

“Equality” has been rallying cry in just about every modern revolution. We find “marriage equality” on LGBTQ banners. Socialists and communists are quick to invoke “equality” as their goal. The Founding Fathers also invoked “equality.” But do we believe in equality? Our banners claim that we do, but banners might not reflect what we really believe.

We claim that everyone should have an equal vote, but yet voter fraud has become acceptable, even openly promoted. In a now-deleted tweet, actor Peter Fonda called on Democrats with voting-age children to commit the illegal act of filling out their ballots — and turning them in.

For another example, an outspoken racist, Sarah Jeong, has recently been hired as a member of The New York Times editorial board. Townhall reports that:

·       Jeong is a raging racist who has tweeted hundreds of times about her extreme hatred toward white people. In one tweet, she boasted that “it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” She also asked on Twitter whether white people are “genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”

How did The Times respond to the push-back? It claimed that Jeong was “the subject of frequent online harassment” because she is a “young Asian woman,” as if that entitled her to make racist remarks.

Where is the equality if some are entitled to make racist remarks while others are not? How does Jeong defend her many racist remarks? She had once tweeted, “Theoretically you can’t be racist against white people."

Why not? Townhall.com explained:

·       This theory is predicated on the belief that white people in America benefit from an unequal power structure. Government discrimination against minorities exists to keep this inequality of the races present. Ergo, in order to be racist, you have to have power they argue. The left believes white people have all the power in American society. So if a minority attacks an entire group of white people, they are doing so honorably in order to dismantle the white patriarchy according to the left. (August 4, 2018)

Hence, certain forms of racism are defended. But if we believe in equality, the question of who has the power, the money, the bigger house, or the better job is irrelevant. Shouldn’t we all have equal protection under the law against racism and libel? Should some people be protected while others are vilified because of their income, education, or any other criterion that might be translated as “privilege?” If Jeong is entitled to libel and vilify others, why would she not also be entitled to steal from them or even stab them? After all, aren’t they “oppressors” who deserve such treatment?

When we reject equality, we also reject justice. Justice insists that, individually, we be held accountable according to our criminal actions and not according to or color or some other measure of “privilege” or “entitlement.” If Jeong believes that someone has criminally acted in a racist manner, then she should expose him to prosecution. If she believes that he has committed a crime against which there are no present statutes, then advocate for the passage of such.

We are a nation of laws intended to protect everyone. What happens when we start choosing favorites and labeling others as “deplorable?” Trust is replaced by bitterness and defensiveness. Years ago, a highway patrolman had ticketed me for speeding. I had been speeding, but everyone else was driving faster than me. Why did he choose me to be ticketed? I had out-of-state plates! This experience had filled me with bitterness, even rage and contempt for the law and the system that manipulated it for its own purpose. Instead of wanting to be law-abiding, I now wanted to do the very opposite thing. It’s called “pay-back.”

This was a little matter. However, what happens when we perceive that the entire system is flagrantly abusing our rights because of our color or “privilege,” and even justifying this abuse? Let me try to answer this question with another question – How do we respond when a judge or a policeman shows genuine compassion for us, going out of his way to protect our welfare? Most of the time, we will want to reciprocate, at least by showing respect for their office.

Now multiply this a million times, and we will better understand what is happening to our nation. Our Founding Fathers evidently understood this principle. Our second president, John Adams, had stated:

·       “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

·       "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

Love – other centeredness – is our only hope. It doesn’t come naturally. I always pray that I might put others needs above my own, but how do we do this when we are feeling persecuted and threatened? I think that there is only one way. We have to know that our Savior is looking out for our needs.

·       "Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]