Today’s social network dumpster dive brings us Awkward Moments Children’s Bible, and a picture of what is quite possibly the bravest thing I have seen on Facebook. Like, ever.
It’s a trick question. We’ll get to that shortly.
According to what science? Certainly not the science that states that a woman is physically weaker than a man; only religion states that. What of the science that shows how female brains do not complete certain tasks as well as male brains, that women fall slightly behind men in general IQ tests? What of the science that says the human brain is flawed or that we are pretty meaningless compared to the rest of the universe?
To be fair, there is science that supports the poster’s claim that this girl is likely to be more intellectually capable than girls with swarthier skin. There is science to back up the claim that this girl likely has more potential for greatness than those of other races. There are studies that show men across the ethnic spectrum prefer white aesthetics, there are markets in Africa and Asia for “whitening creams.”
Of course, this science (actual science) would likely be perceived as “damaging” to the person who made this photo. Probably because the “science” presented on this poster isn’t science at all, but some mishmash of materialism and projected feels. Pop science. Black Science Man “science.”
Of course you fucking love science; otherwise you would be horrified at what you are doing to that child you’re supposed to love.
*According to what religion? *We can safely assume that she is speaking of Christianity, that horrible and oppressive thing wherein we worship a God that offered Himself as a sacrifice in our place. A religion that believes the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Christianity believes man is weak, flawed, broken? Perhaps, yet it is significant to note that He walked this earth as one of us.
We can also assume she is writing of Original Sin, that struggle against concupiscence that nevertheless says we are something, that we can be capable of so much more. The mother does not see that despite our flaws, we can overcome them and become something justified in the eyes of an omnipotent being.
You expect simultaneously too much and not enough when you see Original Sin and the evils of this world as a failure of God’s will. An omnipotent being can, has and will continue to use man’s wounded nature to achieve something even more meaningful. As St. Paul wrote:
“Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.”
To be a Christian is to accept the paradox of perfectly-willed imperfection, that even from the most depraved wickedness and profound human failing can come something even more worthy in His eyes.
To be Christian is to see the corpus on the crucifix and see, not simply the weakness and failure of man, but our God achieving His glory.
The mother does not see this, is violently opposed to the idea of Christianity, and it is frightening to see why. According to this woman, Christ endured His passion for nothing. Christ was nothing and* for nothing*. Nothing being… What? Psychological projection is a monstrous thing to behold, especially when it’s framed by the smiling innocence of narcissism’s collateral damage.
“That story in the Old Testament about sending his son to die” was the first time “love” was used in the Bible. The “love” shown in the story of Aabraham and Isaac was thoroughly irrational, and therefore thoroughly human. For love is not rational, love is not factual, and neither is it reasonable. Love is a belief, one of the oldest beliefs, older than even Christianity. It was a prefigurement of things to come, “for God so loved the world.”
The mother does not see this, she sees very little indeed. In her rebellion against irrationality she has rebelled against something very fundamental to our existence. She has blinded herself to much of what it is to be a human and, most importantly, a mother. There is no “family,” only “my daughter.” There is no God, only facts and reason and logic. Her “love” is conveyed in labels: smart beautiful, full of wonder… Her daughter should be more than just material things, conceivable and measured ideas. In her crusade for sterile and inhuman rationality, the mother has rebelled against love; is it any surprise to see no mention of a father figure in this picture and screencap? You killed God, and all you got for it was a single-mother household.
To answer the trick question above: what I believe is the most damaging element in this picture is a mother that can never believe in her daughter, who can only see her smiling child as a sign holder.