Category Archives: Discrimination

Dr. Jack C. Askins, M.D.: THE DISCRIMINATION OF VACCINE STATUS 3 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Dr. Jack C. Askins, M.D.

Discrimination definition from Merriam-Webster
discrimination noun
dis·​crim·​i·​na·​tion | \ di-ˌskri-mə-ˈnā-shən
Essential Meaning of discrimination:
the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups
of people

Most people know the definition of discrimination, particularly when applied to certain
situations such as race, age, gender, housing, disabilities. We have all become very sensitive
and responsive to these issues. But now we are seeing discrimination that may not be
recognized as such. Let me explain.

City managers, local judges, and others are now deciding who qualifies for sick leave payment
based upon their Covid-19 vaccination status. The assumption has been vaccination results in
immunity. That assumption might have been valid one year ago but the science and the data
now overwhelmingly demonstrates vaccine status does not equal immune status with these
genetic “vaccines” for Covid-19.

Try to look at it this way: Could an employee donate their sick time into the pool and specify
that it only be used for white people? How about someone of Christian faith specify their sick
time only be given to fellow Christians? If you are a follower of Islam or the Jewish faith, well,
no sick time money for you. What if the city manager is Republican and decides the sick leave
policy only applies to Republicans and not to Democrats?

Of course, these are absurd examples and would be immediately rejected and the person
proposing such a thing would be rightfully labeled a racial or religious bigot. And what does
politics and political party affiliation have to do with infection and sick leave? Obviously,
nothing.

Paid sick leave is to be about the objective determination of health status, not vaccine status.
Unfortunately, the public health establishment led by the CDC and what has become to be
widely recognized as the politicized Covid response narrative, have convinced local political
and business leaders and half of the population that vaccine status determines a person’s
immune status.

Even a casual review of the Covid 19 infection data of the past few months, and particularly
with the emergence of the omicron variant, would lead a reasonable person to conclude a
“vaccinated” person is infected as easily as an unvaccinated person. The Covid “vaccines”
have not delivered on what was promised.

But don’t just take my word for it. Even the CDC, has now said the “vaccinated” are infected
and transmit the virus as easily as the “unvaccinated”. And the “unvaccinated” is not a
monolithic group, but rather, a group comprised of both never infected and previously infected
people. The previously infected now have natural immunity and are less likely to become
reinfected than the “vaccinated” group. The CDC has now finally recognized natural immunity
to the Covid virus is superior to vaccine immunity.

Just like the discriminatory practice of restricting sick leave based upon racial, religious, or
political party affiliation, basing sick leave only upon “vaccine” status is discrimination, straight
up, and has nothing to do with the public health goal of reduced transmission of the virus to
others.

And keep in mind the often raised argument for vaccination to reduce severity of disease is a
treatment argument and not a vaccination argument. The primary public health indication for
vaccination is to reduce infection, replication, and transmission of a virus. These genetic
“vaccines” have been shown to have failed those public health endpoints. These inoculations
may reduce severity of disease in the high risk patient, but that is not the issue when decisions
are being made about 5 days paid sick leave.

So let us move beyond uninformed and misinformed perceptions of the science and beyond
the politics of division and discrimination as we make decisions dealing with this scourge of
Covid 19. Sick leave pay should not be based upon “vaccination” status.

“Dr. Jack C.  Askins, M.D. is a cardiologist in Wichita Falls, TX. This is the first article in a series of four he has authored that we intend to publish here. His reasoned scientific voice needs to be heard during these times as the COVID-19 Vaccines have become politicized through government mandates. We are encouraged by his boldness and expertise that he brings to the subject.” 

Bill Lockwood: “Therapy” for White Teachers? 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

 

by Bill Lockwood

It is heartbreaking to confess, but America is in the midst of a Marxist Revolution. This is strictly an anti-God, anti-Christian assault—and it is occurring right now. As time progresses, it will only intensify.

The New York Post (5/26/21) reports this week that “Team Biden wants white teachers to undergo anti-racist therapy.” Money is already being designated for this purpose under the cloak of COVID-19 relief funds. “Congress allocated nearly $200 million in COVID-19 relief funds for K-12 schools over the past year. While this money was intended to help reopen schools and mitigate learning loss, President Joe Biden’s Department of Education is encouraging school districts to spend some of it on a different purpose: providing ‘free, antiracist therapy for white educators.’”

Biden’s operation is called the American Rescue Plan which advocates “intervention” to “respond to students’ academic, social and emotional needs.” Team Biden’s guidance booklet for spending these ARP funds suggests that INCLUDED in the “students’ social and emotional needs is “disruption of ‘whiteness’ and the propagation of the Critical Race Theory.”

Therapy? Therapy or Psychotherapy is defined as the “process of working with a therapist to develop coping skills “to treat specific mental health conditions.” Normally those conditions fall into the category of “depression, anxiety, trauma” or some of the challenges we face on a daily basis. This prescribed therapy implies that “white people” have mental health issues by virtue of being white. This is the Critical Race Theory.

The former Soviet Union brainwashed an entire population with the notion that belief in God, or conservative and/or biblical-based values, is equivalent to a mental health problem. Such citizens were labeled as “mentally unstable”, then incarcerated for being out-of-step with the official state dogma.

Christians: it is a late hour in our once great Republic. The labeling is already occurring as the table is being set for broad-scale persecution. Time to gird up the loins of our minds and hearts and vow to re-dedicate our lives to Jesus Christ.

Bill Lockwood: Systemic Racism and The Remedy for Discrimination 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

The word “discrimination” has come to take on negative connotations in our modern culture. In reality, the word is “neutral”—simply referring to the process by which one recognizes and understands the difference between various options. We must, for example, be able to “discriminate” between good choices and bad choices; between right and wrong. Sometimes the word can be used to refer to a refined taste in foods or arts—the ability to distinguish between good and better.

In our culture, however, the primary association of the word is “unjust” treatment of different peoples based solely on race, or class, or gender, etc.

In the New Testament, the letter of James addresses unjust discriminations in chapter 2. He commands, “Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons” (2:1–KJV, ASV). “Respect of persons” is partiality.

The partiality James criticizes in the text is partiality based upon wealth and social status in the worship assembly. In the Roman world in which Jewish Christians lived, there were various strata of society, just as today. The Christians addressed had shown partiality to visitors based upon their social status and wealth alone (see James 2:2-3). James asks; Do you not make ‘distinctions’ [discriminations] among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? (v. 4).

Verse 6 indicates that the wealthy had even used legal means to oppress the poor. Oppression comes from a Greek word that means “to exploit.” That exploitation included Christians being “dragged before the judgment seat” by some of the wealthy. Contextually, the idea is clear that legal means had been utilized to oppress believers. The background for James’ inspired remarks is the Old Testament.

Leviticus 19

Behind James 2:1-4 is Leviticus 19:15. Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great; but judge your neighbor fairly. The Mosaic judicial system is instructed to show no partiality—either to the rich, or to the poor. Judgment should be even-handed.

James’ application of the Leviticus passage is simple. Show no favoritism. Treat all equally. But what is the remedy for such favoritism—in a church, or at the bar of justice? Would it not be simply “Stop it”?

What one does not hear is the inspired writer suggesting that in order to rectify the wrong of favoritism, that preferential treatment ought be practiced in the opposite direction—by showing “bias” to the poor from this point forward. No, the remedy is to treat all equally. Actually, for James to have commended more partisanship tilted in the direction of the poor would be to practice what he condemns!

Imagine another case. Can one suppose Moses would order that past or historical legal injustices against the poor in Israel, in violation of Leviticus 19:15, should be remedied by now encoding into the system that every other poor person that came before the bar of justice be exonerated based upon the fact of his poverty alone? That would be injustice itself. An atrocity.

One does not remedy injustice by encoding into law more injustice.

But this is exactly what America has done. Racial quotas in employment, education, grading in college, federal assistance, housing and even in legal punishment have become part of the law. Liberal thinking tells us that racial quotas, for example, are a means of diminishing racial discrimination in the past. These new racial quotas are enforced by government fiat.

However, when a racial quota is encoded into law, upheld by the Supreme Court, that establishes favoring a particular racial minority that is perceived to have been popularly discriminated against in the past, we are actually establishing a racism within the system itself. This is SYSTEMIC RACISM. Not only so, but the quota itself discriminates against all others by law that do not fit into that racial minority. This is the real “systemic racism” in America. All in the name of “fighting discrimination.”

It is difficult to imagine a greater injustice to society. Yes, we do have “systemic racism” in this country—in favor of minorities and against the white majority. Brainwashing of an entire culture.

Bill Lockwood: Methodist Church Asks the Elderly to Leave the Congregation 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

 

by Bill Lockwood

This headline appeared last week in The Washington Post. The Cottage Grove United Methodist Church on the outskirts of Minneapolis-St. Paul, is a small dwindling church of about 30 members that has put in place a new “strategic plan” for church growth among “younger people” such as Millennials. A major part of that plan, which one 70-year-old member calls “age discrimination,” is to ask the elderly to leave and worship elsewhere.

After this news went national, Dan Wetterstrom, the “head pastor” of the church, claimed that these allegations of “age discrimination unfairly represented the strategy for a church that has been on the decline for two decades.”

Instead, he explained, the church’s services are “being cancelled” and will re-open after a major refurbishing of the building, its staff, and its worship services, including replacing the traditional hymnals. A church memo also recommended that “current members stay away for two years, then consult with the pastor about reapplying.” That is according to the local news outlet, the Pioneer Press.

“The plan is to shut down the church in June and reopen later this year with a new pastor, new programming and building updates ‘aimed at engaging more members of a growing community.’” “While older members will not be physically barred from attending, the expectation is that they will not.” Wetterstrom added, “We are asking them to let this happen. For this to be truly new, we can’t have the core group of 30 people.”

So, it is technically not “disinviting” the elderly. They are only “physically shutting the doors” and the current elderly membership must “re-apply” to get back in after a recommended two-year absence.

Bruce Ough, the Methodist “bishop” of the Dakotas-Minnesota region and provides oversight to congregations, defended the strategy as part of a “relaunch effort” that has been “successful in other parts of the region.”

It is difficult to know where to begin to comment on such items as this. It does give a frightening insight into the mindset of many Americans which sees the elderly as a hindrance instead of an opportunity to serve. No wonder many churches have completely capitulated to a godless culture that demands the ceasing of preaching against sin.