Stop Being an %$#@& on Social Media: False Dichotomy, the Bane of Modern Debate

Stop Being an %$#@& on Social Media, PART 1: 14 Quick Tips for Better Online Interactions

Stop Being an %$#@& on Social Media, PART 2: 5 Common Logical Mistakes to Avoid

Logical Fallacy: False Dichotomy

Picking up right where we left off…

A false dichotomy is another logical fallacy that I see regularly used in online debates. It’s to offer only two possible options even though a broad range of possibilities are available. These often can be summed up in “either/or” statements.

For the sake of illustration, let’s say someone asks me, “For coffee, do you like Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks?” This is a false dichotomy because the implied idea (whether purposely or not) is that these are the only two options: Dunkin or Starbucks. Essentially, the person is saying, You can either like Dunkin Dounut coffee or Starbucks coffee — and there’s not other option. But what if I don’t like either? What if I like both? What if I like the local coffee shop down on the corner? Or Tim Hortons? (My northern friends know what I’m taking about.) What if my favorite coffee is the coffee I make at home? Or how about this: What if I don’t drink coffee at all? 

To give a theological example, one of the biggest debates in Christian history is Arminianism versus Calvinism. But Molinism is a perfectly acceptable, biblical alternative. Another big issue with this “only-two-options” way of thinking is that it tends to ignore nuance and details. In other words, the two options are generalized; specificity is overlooked or ignored. When false dichotomy is going on, often stereotyping is going right along with it. For instance, there are different “degrees” or flavors of Calvinism. Someone may agree with most of the tenets of Calvinism while not subscribing to them all. We can fairly say there is “soft” Calvinism, “hard” Calvinism, and even “hyper-Calvinism.” I don’t care what John Piper said; it doesn’t mean the Calvinist you’re talking to holds that same exact belief.

I don’t know what it is about human beings, but we love creating false dichotomies. Is it because we love a good rivalry? Or are we just too lazy to think harder? And I think it’s even worse with us Americans, likely because of our two-party system.

You’re either liberal or conservative. (Can’t some of my views be “conservative” and some “liberal,” depending on the topic?) You either affirm everything about group X or you hate all of group X. (Can’t one disagree with views of people X but still respect and value them?) You either love whatever president is in office or hate him. (Can’t I criticize where it’s due and praise where it’s due?) 

For some reason, we Americans can’t help but think that there are two — and only two — options. You’re either on “the Left” or on “the Right.” You’re either Democrat or Republican. There’s no nuance. No middle-ground. No moderation. No compromise. This way of thinking is a false dichotomy. And it’s illogical. (And this is why the U.S. is in big trouble.)

False dichotomy is what I call the great fallacy of American thinking today, and sadly it’s negatively affecting the thinking of Christians as well.

Faith VS. Politics

It is my strong opinion that if you are truly living consistently to the biblical guidelines you claim to live by as a follower of Christ, then you fall outside of the false dichotomy of modern U.S. politics. A Christian cannot align him- or herself to the Democratic or Republican parties (or even with what is generally called “the Left” and “the Right”) without compromising biblical values. Yes, plenty of Christians align with one or the other, but they do so by raising certain biblical values over others. I’m not here to try to tell anyone how to vote; that’s something all Christians need to wrestle with, as I do each election cycle. But what I am declaring is that biblical Christians should be uncomfortable with the current false dichotomy of U.S. politics. If you’re a Christian and you find yourself sitting comfortably within one of those political tribes, I think you need to study your Bible more closely or pay better attention to the world around you.

It has been my experience that Christians who pledge undying allegiance to one of the parties have their judgment clouded when having moral discussions. To give an example, I was having a online debate about a certain moral issue that is easy to know where to stand morally based on Scripture and God’s moral law as well as logical thinking and science. This is the issue of abortion. During this moral debate — well, that’s what I thought it was — my opponent (a self-proclaimed Christian) suddenly made a statement about me voting for a certain political candidate. I asked, “When did I ever say I was voting for him?” — rendering my debate opponent totally befuddled. So, what was a moral debate for me appears to have been a political debate for my opponent. In her mind, I was making an argument about who to vote for, not whether the murder of the unborn is something we should stand against. Clearly, the false dichotomy of U.S. politics is damaging the clear thinking (and clear witness) of the Church.

I realize giving any sort of specific example of a politicized issue is asking for trouble. I’m not trying to start any sort of political debate. (I can hear some of you clicking away on your keyboards already…) So, before anyone pipes up, let me be clear that this is certainly an issue with Christians that align themselves with both parties. Don’t believe me, just point out President Trump’s unChristian behavior and watch right-wing Christians fall over each other trying to defend him.

If you’re a Christian dedicated to a certain party, let me point out to you, that this doesn’t mean you have to blindly accept all of the party’s views. What better way to make a party more godly than to have biblical Christians as part of that party changing it from the inside?

My point is Jesus defied the false political, cultural, and even religious dichotomies of his day, and so should Jesus’ people. (And, yes, sometime Jesus even confirmed true dichotomies. See Matthew 12:30.) I often run into the false dichotomy that pits biblical truth versus compassion; the underlining attitude is we need to downplay truth so not to hurt any feelings. Now, this could be a whole blog by itself because there is a load of issues with this thinking, but let me point out that Jesus was both compassionate and truthful. He never compromised God’s truth, but he also spoke and acted in love.

Say it with me: It’s both/and, not either/or.

NEXT: Some biblical concepts to assist in online interaction and debate.

Stop Being an %$#@& on Social Media, PART 1: 14 Quick Tips for Better Online Interactions

Stop Being an %$#@& on Social Media, PART 2: 5 Common Logical Mistakes to Avoid

The Importance of Family Discipleship (w/ Book Review)

“Discipling your child is not primarily your church’s job, your child’s school’s job, or your pastor’s job. This job is yours,” Matt Chandler and Adam Griffin write in their book Family Discipleship: Leading Your Home through Time, Moments, and Milestones.

And they’re absolutely right. In our consumerist and busy culture, parents often “outsource” the spiritual development of their children, expecting the local Sunday school teacher, pastor, or Christian school for the important work of building up their children in Christ. Obviously, part of raising a child in Christ is, in fact, being part of a local church community. As I heard one pastor put it (quoting an African proverb), “If it takes a village to raise a child, then it takes a church to raise a Christian.” But this doesn’t change the fact that the primary responsibility to spiritually disciple children belongs to parents. “To parent without deliberately discipling your child is to build your family’s house on a foundation of sand,” Chandler and Griffin write.

Even if the Scripture didn’t put this responsibility squarely on the shoulders of parents, the fact that parents spend much more time with their children than any pastor or Sunday school teacher, it’s common sense that the main spiritual influencer in a child’s life would be his or her mother and father. Thus, Chandler and Griffin spend time on the importance of parents modeling Christian behavior and spiritual disciplines to their children. Here, Chandler and Griffin give some gold nuggets that are important for any Christian parent to hear. For one, parents’ attempts to disciple their children will often be both frustrated and frustrating! Children will break into tantrums during devotion time; siblings will fight during discipling activities (like they do with other family activities); and what you think is an important lesson will be met with listlessness. It’s a reality of being a parent, so accept it and keep doing your best! 

But, with this, parents are imperfect sinners just like their children and often fail to be perfect examples of our perfect Savior! Big surprise, right? But it’s important for parents to hear this. Thus, these failures are the opportune moments to model the Gospel to your children: To share the truth of the Gospel, to admit your sins, and to ask for forgiveness. Chandler and Griffin write, “No matter what your household looks like, your family is the primary instrument and environment for discipleship in all the fantastic and flawed ways that it might be worked out.”

Discipling your family must have intentionality and consistency, which means having a plan or strategy (which will always be getting adjusted as your children grow and change). In the core of the book, Chandler and Griffin focus on three opportunities to disciple: Time, Moments, and Milestones:

Time – Creating intentional time built into your family’s life rhythms to disciple. This might be, for example, regular family devotions.

Moments – Looking for spontaneous opportunities during everyday life to have important spiritual talks or lessons. In professional teaching, we call these “teaching moments” — unplanned opportunities to teach a short lesson.

Milestones – Marking special days and events in the life of the family and giving them spiritual significance.

If I have any complaints about the book, it’s that I would’ve liked more specific examples and idea-generators for discipling one’s family. Perhaps if the authors included examples from families other than their own, it would have filled out the book nicely. Family Discipleship is a fairly quick, easy read; still, sometimes when I read a book like this by pastors, I can’t help thinking that it didn’t need to be a whole book; the same information could’ve been passed on in a sermon (or two) or blog article (or two). (I also suspect that such books are the result of a past sermon series.)

I would recommend Family Discipleship to new parents, parents who are new Christians, or parents who have never considered how to disciple their family before and need guidance on where to start. The book certainly convinces the reader of the importance and responsibility placed on all Christian parents to disciple their own children, and the book gives a great framework for thinking about discipling. Despite my small complaint above, the personal illustrations from the authors, the ideas they give, and the end-of-chapter activities help stimulate the readers’ own ideas for their own families. Reading the book has certainly made me more aware of my discipling efforts with my children.

*Crossway provided me with a free copy of this book for review.

Stop Being an %$#@& on Social Media: 5 Common Logical Mistakes to Avoid

IMG_20200716_112700

PART 1: Stop Being a %$#&@ Online: 14 Quick Tips for Better Online Interactions

Not everyone is motivated by logic. And when that’s the case, all communication breaks down. Just like there are laws of physics that are undeniable, there are also laws of logic. The Christian worldview believes there’s a divine intelligence behind creation, so it makes sense in the Christian worldview that these immaterial, universal laws of logic exist. Even those opposed to the Christian worldview can’t escape these laws of thinking any more than they can escape the laws of physics. And, thus, when we abandon logic, things fall apart.

There are common logical mistakes people make when in debate  — whether politicians, journalists, or keyboard warriors — and these are called logical fallacies. If you’re truly hoping to have meaningful conversations, avoid these. (And, let’s be honest, people often make these “mistakes” on purpose!) Sadly, all of these have become so common in online interactions, people just accept them as the norm. By being aware of them, you can avoid making them yourself as well as be equipped to point out the faulty arguments of others.

 

1. Straw Man

The straw man fallacy is to give an inaccurate or ridiculous portrayal of an opponent’s argument so to easily dismantle it. The idea is to build a man of straw, so then it’s easy to knock him down.

For example, I once posted an article about how daughters who grow up with their biological fathers in their home are safer, less likely to get pregnant before marriage, and less likely to get into abusive relationships. A feminist, who took issue with the article (despite it being backed by data), summed up the article as, “All girls who grow up without a father will be raped.” Well, that’s not what the article said! And, so, I’m under no obligation to defend that view. As you can see in this example, often the straw man fallacy plays out as the person taking the stated view to an unreasonable extreme.

Another straw man I have often come across online is when atheists portray Christianity as “believing in an old, bearded man in the sky.” If that’s what they really think Christians believe, they have no grasp of the most basics of Christian theology. Even Christian children’s books I read to my kids don’t teach this idea of the God of the Bible. Now, if Christians did believe an old man in the sky — have at it, atheists! But Christians are not ancient pagans; Christians worship an immaterial, timeless, self-existent being who exists apart from the universe and brought all of creation into existence — the Uncaused First Cause, the Unmoved Mover. As you can see from this example, often those making the straw man argument are trying to make their opponent look foolish. In many cases like this, they’re just looking to mock someone, not have a reasonable discussion. So, don’t waste your time. Move on.

Represent your opponents’ opinions accurately and engage with that, not some caricature you created.

 

2. Ad Hominem

Ad hominem is Latin for “to the person.” This is to attack the person and not the argument. 

This is the internet atheist who goes on and on about how dumb you are to be a Christian, yet he doesn’t give one relevant argument against Christianity or for atheism. This is the person who labels you as a bigot or hate-monger because you reasonably disagree with a lifestyle or behavior. This is the person that dismisses you by stereotyping you as a member of a group rather than addressing what you’re saying.

Let me point out something else: As a Christian, I have moral, logical, and practical reasons for being against hypocrisy, but even if a person is the biggest hypocrite in the world, it doesn’t necessarily mean their argument is invalid. For example, a person could give a perfectly valid argument for vegetarianism while eating a hamburger. Is the person a hypocrite? Yes. But that doesn’t mean the argument is any less valid. 

Attack arguments, not people.

 

3. Red Herring

A red herring is an attempt to distract from what is being debated by bringing up an unrelated — and usually emotionally loaded — topic. Apparently, the saying comes from when criminals would drag stinky fish across a trail to throw off the scent of the hound dogs hunting them. 

Recently, my friend was leading a reading group on a Zoom meeting for our ministry at Rutgers, Ratio Christi. The topic of discussion was a book on scientific evidence for the existence of God. A husband of one of the women, an angry atheist that clearly didn’t like her participating in the group, jumped into the meeting and started ranting about Christians who believe humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. He kept bringing up the young earth view of creation, but nothing in the book had anything to do with this. Furthermore, the young earth view isn’t an essential Christian belief. It was irrelevant to the conversation! He was just trying to derail the discussion. (There was a fair amount of Ad Hominem and Straw Man fallacies spewing from his mouth too.)

One of the clearest examples I’ve personally experienced with a red herring fallacy is when I posted an article I wrote about the eugenic origins and racist history of Planned Parenthood. Someone responded by bringing up how certain churches hold to a view that doesn’t allow women to be elders. What does that have to do with Planned Parenthood’s racist history?! This was so random it’s hard for me to imagine the thinking behind it, but it was clearly an attempt to distract from the real issue. 

 

4. Snow Job

Similar to a red herring, this is an attempt to overwhelm an opponent with mountains of information and facts — but the problem is they’re irrelevant to the debate. 

I’ve experienced this most often when a person responds in a LONG paragraph. My first reaction (before reading it) is to feel intimidated and think, “Man, this person must really know what they’re talking about!” But, once I read it with a critical eye, I realize that much of the paragraph is not about the specific topic being debated. Sure, the person is bringing up a lot of related stuff, but it’s not addressing the specific component of debate.

Recently, someone matter-of-factly mentioned racist doctrines in the modern church. I asked for examples. The person wrote a long paragraph giving examples of racism and even some places where modern Christians could do a better job addressing racism with solid theology, but none of this was racist doctrine that was held by any church. For the record, I’m not denying racism committed by self-proclaimed Christians either in the past or present, but I do deny there is any doctrine based on biblical grounds to justify this evil — though there have been attempts (and they all fail miserably under biblical scrutiny). My point is, I asked for examples of racist church doctrine and he provided a long paragraph on racism and the church, but he didn’t answer my request.

 

5. False Dichotomy

OK, there’s one last big one that needs to be addressed, but it’s such a big one, it needs it’s own article…

 

PART 1: Stop Being a %$#&@ Online: 14 Quick Tips for Better Online Interactions

 

Stop Being a %$#&@ Online: 14 Quick Tips for Better Online Interactions

IMG_20200716_112700

OK, I get it. You have opinions and you want everyone to know them. I get it. You look at what’s going on in the world and you don’t like it. I get it. The things people are posting in your feed are alarming. I get it. 

But I also can’t help noticing that no one is listening to you either. Yeah, your peers who hold the same exact opinion are cheering you on, so if that’s what you’re looking for, you got it. They are listening to you. But I don’t see you bringing anyone over to your team.

Where I like to occasionally post things about my kids or hobbies or something that made me laugh on social media, I also occasionally feel the need to jump into what I call the Online Mosh Pit. For those of you who’ve never been to a punk or metal show, a mosh pit is a swirling mass of violent dancing in a crowd at a concert. Just like when I was in my twenties at a punk show, standing on the edge of the chaos that is “The Pit,” I’m watching the violence online — the flailing fists, the bodies running into each other, the big guy jumping off the stage and knocking everyone over like bowling pins. Sometimes I watch as simply an observer, sometimes I watch too intimidated to jump in, and sometimes I jump right into the fray.

In the glory days of the mosh pit, an old school guy like me will tell you, there were rules of etiquette. It wasn’t all senseless violence. So, let me suggest some rules so you can be less of a %$#@& when the band breaks into your favorite chunky breakdown and you start swinging your fists around online.

 

1. Try Asking Some Questions Before Jumping Into “Battle Mode”

There’s a lot of miscommunication (and badly communicated posts) on social media. The nature of social media pretty much guaranties this. So, take some time to try to understand what the other person is actually saying. Even general questions like “Can you explain to me what you mean by that?” and “How did you reach that conclusion?” can move the conversation along. Practice active listening skills too. Repeat back to the person what he or she said in your own words: “So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying… Do I have that right?”

 

2. Give a Compliment

Hey, give credit where credit is due! Don’t be afraid to say, “That’s a good point.” Or, at least, “I understand what you’re saying, but I think you’re mistaken because…” You could even say something like, “I appreciate your passion for an important issue like X, but I don’t know if what you’re saying are the best way to address it…” Such comments let your opponents know that you’re considering what he or she is saying and not just looking to smash him or her into bits. 

 

3. Seek Common Ground

I’ve had interactions before where someone is going at me in full battle mode and I’ll point out, “You and I agree on a lot more than we don’t…” That usually changes the tone of the conversation. Point out where you agree. I find this makes the conversation more specific — more focused on working out the differences rather than just slugging it out. Try saying things like, “You and I agree on X, but we disagree on the best way to address X, so how do we work that out?” 

 

4. Don’t Respond Emotionally

That should be obvious, but, well… Spend seven seconds on social media and you’ll see most people don’t do this. If you feel yourself get heated, wait until you’re feeling more level-headed to respond. That’s one of the advantages to having a discussion online versus in person.

 

5. Prepare

Yeah, someone always wants to throw out “That’s just your opinion” to dismiss what you wrote, but there’s a difference between having a weak opinion (often based on emotion) and a strong opinion (based on research and backed by facts and logic). If you’re going to jump into a debate, do the hard work of reading and thinking first. (BTW, anyone saying “That’s just your opinion” is telling you they can’t come up with a good counter argument to what you wrote.)

 

6. Read Opposing Opinions

There is wisdom in the saying, “Know your enemy.” Where I certainly hope you don’t consider those you’re debating as your enemies, knowing the arguments your opponent would use before engaging them is wise. Not only will it better prepare you to respond to their arguments, but maybe — just maybe — you’ll be exposed to an idea you never thought about before. 

 

7. Be Ridiculously Polite

Work to have a discussion, not an argument. Once it becomes an argument, no one is listening anymore. It’s very easy to read the wrong things into people’s words online because we can’t pick up on social cues, body language, tone of voice, etc. (With this, people feel more emboldened to be rude online.) Thus, I sometimes go out of my way to be extremely polite and make it clear my intentions are good when engaging with someone. When you’re interacting online, do whatever you would consider “overly-polite” and then be even more polite than that.

 

8. Don’t Assume

You know what they say about assuming, right? “To assume (ass-u-me) makes an ‘as*’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me.’” Don’t assume you know everything the other person believes just because they express a certain opinion. Unfortunately, we are infected with this “either/or” mindset when it comes to the political issues people debate today and we want to dump everyone into the “liberal” or “conservative” camp. This is just lazy. (For example, I could be a conservative who criticizes President Trump. I could be a liberal but against abortion.) People are a lot more reasonable and moderate than you think. Plus, every opinion has nuance. Unfortunately, the loudest voices are the most extreme, and we have the bad habit of lumping everyone into categories. I’ve had people assume things about me because I’m Christian. I’ve also had people lump me into both “liberal” and “conservative” camps because of views I’ve expressed, only to have them baffled when I express another view they consider to be part of the opposite camp. 

 

9. Don’t Post Memes

Think you found that perfect meme to stick it to your opponents? Don’t post it. Memes are great for laughs, but they do nothing to move along a debate. Most memes are just cheap shots at the other side and they often commit a slew of logical fallacies. If you want to have a serious discussion, don’t post a meme. Just don’t.

 

10. Don’t React to a Headline

Read the whole article before you respond to it. There’s been many times I’ll be getting pushback for an article and it becomes clear to me that the person didn’t even read it, whether it’s an article I’m reposting or an article I wrote for my blog. (Also, if a person reposts an article without comment, don’t assume you know their motivation behind posting it.)

 

11. Address What the Person Actually Wrote

As the saying goes, “If I only had a dollar” every time I’ve had someone give pushback to something I’ve posted only to read his or her comments and realize the person is not addressing anything I wrote. Usually, they’re arguing about something someone else (such as a politician, journalist, etc.) said about the topic. I’ve responded to comments like these with something like, “OK, but that has nothing to do with what I wrote.” Please respond to what a person actually writes, not what you think he or she thinks. 

 

12. Pick Your battles

If you’re going to go after everyone with a differing opinion than you, eventually people will just roll their eyes when they see your tiny picture and just scroll past your comments. Those who do respond will not be responding to what you write as much as responding to your personality because you’re annoying. 

 

13. You Don’t Have to An Opinion About Everything

Hey, it’s alright to admit to yourself that you don’t know enough about a topic to have a strong opinion and to decide to sit this one out. When it comes to the vast amount of things that we can discuss and debate, we all don’t know a lot more than we do know. Most people are just regurgitating stuff someone in their “tribe” has said without doing the hard, honest work of researching and thinking to form their own, independent opinion. So, be humble. Be teachable. Spend some time reading and thinking before becoming a keyboard warrior.

 

14. Get A Life

Consider that you have more important things to do than pick fights online. Take a walk with a friend. Plant a garden. Write an elected official. Volunteer at the soup kitchen. Read a book with your kids. Invite that person you disagree with over for dinner and have a real conversation.

Also, ask yourself: Other than screaming online and voting once a year, what am I really doing to live out my convictions?

This is a good start, but coming up: Common logical fallacies to avoid on social media and — since this is a Christian blog — biblical guidelines for Christians for online interaction.

Yes, Let’s Talk About Systematic Racism. So It’s Time to Talk About Planned Parenthood.

Sanger3

In a letter to Clarence Gamble, a man who favored sterilizing welfare recipients (more about him below), Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote about her 1939 “Negro Project,” which promoted contraceptives to southern African Americans: 

“It seems to me from my experience where I have been in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts…. The ministers [sic] work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the [Birth Control] Federation [renamed Planned Parenthood in 1942] as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Opponents of Planned Parenthood see this as clear evidence of Sanger’s racism. Others, even Angela Franks — a Sanger expert and staunch critic and opponent of Planned Parenthood — says the quote does not have to be interpreted as a racist comment. Franks says since there’s no hard evidence elsewhere of Sanger’s own words painting her as a racist, it’s possible Sanger wasn’t revealing a hidden agenda here, but imagining a misunderstanding on the part of the African American people she hoped to reach. 

I’ll leave it up to you to decide if Sanger was racist, but read the rest of this article first. (Yes, it’s long for a blog, but it’s worth your time.)

Even if Sanger wasn’t specifically racist, Franks writes, Sanger was unquestionably a “eugentic, elitist bigot.”

Yes, Sanger certainly was that, as I’ve documented by using Sanger’s own words in earlier blogs: Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, In Her Own Words:

Reading Sanger’s Women and the New Race (1920) and The Pivot of Civilization (1922), one can’t not be hit by how she often spoke of birth control as a way to help the poor, yet at the same time she plainly despised the poor, the uneducated, the immigrant, and the disabled. You see, Sanger was a zealous, outspoken eugenicist. 

Eugenics is based on evolutionary theory, where humans are moved up the evolutionary ladder by promoting reproduction in “the strong” while impairing reproduction in “the weak.” It’s not much different than what dog breeders do except with people.

The most extreme example of eugenics was, of course, in Nazi Germany, but eugenicists like Sanger focused instead on things like birth control, sterilization, and abortion for “weeding out the unfit,” which she also referred to as “biological waste” and “biological and racial mistakes.” (For the record, when she speaks of “race” in her writings, she’s usually referring to the human race.)

To really get a good understanding of her attitude toward the poor, we only have to read Chapter IV of The Pivot of Civilization, titled “Philanthropy and Charity.” The chapter’s big idea is that organized charity is a “malignant social disease” because it leads to the poor surviving and reproducing. Yes, this is the founder — the legacy — of Planned Parenthood, someone they hold up as a hero still today.

 

SANGER’S PARTNERS AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD

But, despite all this, I guess we still can deny Sanger as a racist since her own writings are absent of any racist rhetoric. But what about the company she kept? Can that tell us about her views of “non-whites”? You can tell a lot about a person (and an organization) by the company she keeps, right?

Lothrop Stoddard

Stoddard was invited to join Sanger’s American Birth Control League (later renamed Planned Parenthood) after his book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy became a best-seller. His book is about “the collapse of white supremacy and colonialism due to population growth among non-white people, rising nationalism in colonized nations, and industrialization in China and Japan” and advocates “restricting non-white migration into white nations.” It received a favorable review in Sanger’s magazine Birth Control Review, and he wrote articles for the Birth Control Review (see the December 1921 issue, for example) under Sanger’s editorship. He wrote in his book, “Black peoples have no historic pasts. Never having evolved civilizations of their own… The negro… has contributed virtually nothing. Left to himself, he remained a savage.”

Harry Laughlin

Laughlin was a sterilization advocate and lobbyist for Sanger’s organizations. He was on the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization and helped pass the 1924 Immigration Act, which prevented immigration from Asia, set quotas on the number of immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere, and provided funding and an enforcement mechanism to carry out the longstanding ban on other immigrants.”  He wanted to keep out what he called the “dross in American’s modern melting pot.” He promoted Naziism in the 1930s and worked with Burch (below) to prevent Jews from seeking asylum in the U.S.

Guy Irving Burch

Burch was another anti-immigration activist and eugenicist who lobbied for Sanger in Washington. He worked with Laughlin to prevent Jewish asylum in the U.S. He wrote on official letterhead of the National Committee for Federal Legislation of Birth Control (NCFLBC) that he fought for Americans against “being replaced by alien or negro stock, whether it be by immigration or by overly high birth rates among others in this country,” who were “cancerous growth that eats away the vital organs of its victims.” Sanger supported him in setting up the Population Reference Bureau and helped find him a job with the Birth Control Federation of America (later renamed Planned Parenthood) in 1937.

Clarence Gamble

Gamble was born a millionaire (his family name is the “Gamble” in Procter and Gamble); he was introduced to eugenics at Princeton; and he was a close associate to Burch (above). He was all about sterilization, especially on welfare recipients. He tested experimental contraceptives on poor women both in America and India (seemingly without their knowing), including a saltwater solution as a kind of spermicide. He served as Pennsylvania representative for Planned Parenthood from 1933-1946 and was on the Planned Parenthood executive committee from 1939-1942. Sanger continued to support him even when others in Planned Parenthood did not, and she hoped he would take her position as president of Planned Parenthood in 1953.

D. Kenneth Rose

Rose was national director of Sanger’s Birth Control Federation of America (later renamed Planned Parenthood). He explained the importance of Planned Parenthood’s work as “one-third of our population — the ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed [is] producing two thirds of all our children,” so the solution was to increase outreach to “the Negro and our migrant population.”

C.C. Little 

Like all these other guys, Little was a hardcore eugenicist involved in the American Birth Control League (later renamed Planned Parenthood). In the August 1926 issue of the Birth Control Review (under Sanger’s editorship), he wrote about the “immense diversity of racial elements” in New York and his desire to preserve the lack of diversity elsewhere in the U.S. “the way a chemist would prize a store of chemically pure substances.”

Hans Harmsen 

Finally, we come to a man who was a literal Nazi. As a physician in Germany, he supported a 1933 sterilization law for the disabled. Sanger supported him as the best candidate to lead the German birth-control movement, and he continued to be pro-sterilization and pro-eugenics in post-Nazi Germany. He became president of Pro Familia, the German affiliate of Planned Parenthood in 1952 and held other leadership roles in Pro Familia until a 1984 investigative report revealed his Nazi past. Was Planned Parenthood unaware of this? Not likely. Pro Familia certainly was aware.

Birth Control Review, November, 1923.

DO BLACK LIVES MATTER TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD?

It’s no secret that from the very beginning the majority of Planned Parenthood’s birth control clinics have been in areas populated by minorities.

Their school-based clinics were no different. I worked in an urban NJ high school of predominately African American and Hispanic students for 16 years starting in 2000 and witnessed the presence of Planned Parenthood firsthand in the community center and after-school program inside the school. Of the 100 school-based clinics opened in the 90s, not one was in a “white” school. None were at suburban middle schools. Every one was in a predominantly African American, minority, or non-white school.

According to some statistics from a few decades ago, Health and Human Services Administration reported 43% of all abortions were performed on African Americans and another 10% on Hispanics. African Americans made up only 11% of the total U.S. population and Hispanics only 8%. The National Academy of Sciences found 32% of all abortions were on minority mothers.

According to information from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from 1986, by 1975 a little more than 1% of the African American population had been aborted, which increased to nearly 2.5% by 1980 and reached 3% by 1985. By 1992, it jumped to 4.5%. It was reported elsewhere that in many African American communities by 1986, there were 3 abortions for every 1 birth. And we won’t even get into the stats on sterilization.

In 1987, a group of ministers, parents, and educators in the African American community recognized this and filed a suit against the Chicago Board of Education, accusing these Planned Parenthood school-based clinics of being “designed to control the Black population.” 

 

2020: THE LEADING CAUSE OF BLACK DEATHS

These issues aren’t in the past. In February of 2020, Walt Blackman, an African American member of the Arizona House of Representatives, wrote an opinion piece titled “Abortion: The Overlooked Tragedy for Black Americans.” In it he shared some eye-opening statistics.

African Americans have more abortions than any other population group. White women are five times less likely to have an abortion compared to a black woman. Though African American woman make up 14% of the child-bearing population, they make up 36% of all abortions. In the African American community, for every 1,000 live births, there are 474 abortions. Of the 44 million children murdered by abortion since the 1973 Roe Vs. Wade decision, 19 million have been African Americans.

A study in 2011 revealed that abortion was the leading cause of death among African Americans, and a 2012 study by Protecting Black Lives found that 79% of Planned Parenthood abortion clinics are within walking distance of minority communities.

Yes, we need to talk about systematic racism and oppression, and we need to include Planned Parenthood in that conversation.

 

Main sources: 

Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: the Control of Female Fertility by Angela Franks

Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, Fourth Edition by George Grant

Book Review: What If I Don’t Desire to Pray?

DesirePray

John Onwuchekwa’s book of What If I Don’t Desire to Pray? is part of a “Church Questions” series of quick-reads published by 9 Marks and Crossway. Barely 60 pages, this mini-book can easily be finished in one or two sittings.

I’m often convicted that my prayer life is not as strong as it could be. This appears to be a challenge among other Christians who, like me, were strong skeptics before coming to faith in Christ and who are interested in apologetics and logic-based reasons for following Christ. Unlike others, being motivated to read and study the Bible has never been a challenge for me. I’m wired up to be a reader and my natural tendency to ask questions and seek answers is one of the reasons I was a skeptic to begin with. Yet, as I’ve heard even well-known Christian apologists like Greg Koukl and J. Warner Wallace (both former skeptics) admit, prayer doesn’t always come easily for those wired up like me.

Short books like this can be either so brief they’re little help or their briefness cuts through a lot of unneeded wordiness and gets right to the heart of the issue. Let’s be upfront; a short book like this can’t do the important subject of prayer justice. A book like Tim Keller’s Prayer is much more adequate if you want to tackle the subject more thoroughly. No, Onwuchekwa’s mini-book can’t possibly go into the theology behind prayer or how to make sense of prayer to a God who knows all your thoughts and needs before you say them, but he does tackle (though briefly) exactly what the title of the book tells you is the focus of the book.

What it comes down to for Onwuchekwa is that it’s not about changing your regimen or instilling more discipline. He doesn’t focus on giving tips for prayer strategies or on finding more quality time to pray or on creating a better pray routine (though he does recommend keeping a pray journal of sorts). Instead, he encourages us to focus on the person and work of Christ, which will lead to a deeper desire to grow closer to Christ, and, thus, give us more desire to pray.

Another helpful idea Onwuchekwa focuses on is the importance of corporate prayer and how praying with others can not only teach us how to pray, but grow our desire to pray. This was an important point to add to the conversation. Often books on prayer only focus on individual prayer, but as followers of Christ, we’re part of a body of believers. Your faith is never just about you and Jesus, so it’s a good bit of advice to not neglect praying with your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Onwuchekwa writes, “Passion for prayer is often more caught than taught. In my own experience, I’ve found that nothing increases my desire for prayer more than seeing and being around people who pray… Praying together isn’t cheating; it’s not a loophole. Solo prayers aren’t worth more than corporate ones. Far from being a loophole, corporate prayer is the very tool God gives us to help us get to know him better.”

*Crossway provided a free copy of this book for review.