We're Second-Class Citizens!

In our nation's history, those with darker skin were once relegated to the position of second-class. But today, a whole new group of "second-class citizens" is creeping to the forefront. Who is this group? They are us. I am, as most of you know or can easily discover, a light-skinned, Christian, conservative, "straight", and male. For the liberals, these are 5 strikes against me. The Civil Rights movement, composed of the feminists and the anti-racism group, denounced the maltreatment of minorities for years -- and rightly so! But now, it has been hijacked; the anti-racism groups by the "sodomy rights" movement and feminist groups by the "reproductive rights" agenda. Instead of promoting equal rights for minority groups, the liberals want . . . special privileges. But not just for any minorities. No, in order to get special privileges and consideration, you must be an "approved minority". I am a minority in several ways; for example, I am partly Jewish and I am homeschooled. But homeschoolers are not an approved minority, because the vast majority of homeschooling families teach conservative, traditional values. And that is a ticket away from approval by the liberal left. There are just a few prerequisites for being a minority that gets special treatment. Besides the normal minorities that no one would dream of flaunting (blacks, women, etc.), or you must live a lifestyle and hold beliefs that conflict with a traditional Judeo-Christian worldview. It is really quite simple. Gays? Sure, you get in. Not only do you get the approved minority stamp, but we will allow you to practice criminal sodomy under the auspices of "equal rights". Yes, we know that it is special, unequal rights, not equal ones, but the government does not need to know that. National Organization for Women? Certainly. Never mind the fact that you push for the wanton killing of millions of innocents yearly. It doesn't matter that those in support of abortion are not really a minority; after all it conflicts with a traditional worldview, so you get extra rights . . . to murder. You want same-sex cohabitation, and you want the government to call it marriage? Certainly. This disagrees with the Bible and with Christian morals, so you get in! We are giving you the extra right to "marry" outside the definition of marriage, but we can just call it "equal rights" and slide you in. I have nothing against true minorities. But I have a definite problem with people breaking God's law and calling it a new minority! "We must be tolerant!" they say. Sure, sure, sure. Then why does your tolerance stop when I stand on God's Word? Today, if we do not somehow demonstrate that we are opposed to God's Word and want license to sin, we are relegated to the position of second-class citizen.
"Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." (John 3:19b-21)
In Him, D3


Anonymous said...

Okay I will bite. What special privilage or right, that other groups have? do you not have? (and is it even a privilage or right you want to have?)

David S. MacMillan III said...

Fair question, 'Non.

No, I don't want to have most of the privileges and special rights that are being given to "minorities".

It seems that all you have to do to break the law nowadays is to claim that you are an "oppressed minority".

That is one facet of this case. People are being given the "right" to call criminal sodomy and cohabitation marriage, the "right" to murder children based on the "right of privacy", the "right" to murder adults because they were "temporarily insane" . . . the list goes on and on.

The other facet revolves partly around the issue of "affirmative action". That is the idea that since certain minorities (African-Americans, for instance) have been given a negative connotation in the past, that they should now be given preferential treatment. Many colleges select blacks based "not on the content of their character, but on the color of their skin," to quote Martin Luther King Jr. Hiring policies discriminate against anyone who is not a minority, rather than it being the other way around. This means that unapproved minorities and majorities are second-class citizens.

I do not support any type of race-based or religion-based or "sexual orientation"-based discrimination. Either way! I do not want people to discriminate for or against minorities!

Unless you are a minority or hold some anti-christian viewpoint, you are deemed to be a second-class citizen by the secular left. It is a simple thing.

David Ketter said...

Alright, D3!!!!! Preach it, brother! Way to go!

Anonymous said...

Okay this is what I find so incrediably confusing. You are claiming you are treated as a "second class citizen", but you can not point to one specific right or privilage that you lack.

It seems to me you are trying to argue that certain tenants of your religion should be the law of the land, I do not agree with that, but your certainly welcome to make such an argument. However, that does not make you a second class citizen.

t1ernd0g said...

Here's a specific right that men are lacking: reproductive rights.

Limiting reproductive rights to women is gender-specific and is therefore unacceptable. If we believe in equal rights, we need to recognize men’s equal reproductive rights and equal right to privacy.

We need to change our vocabulary to eliminate prejudices and negative connotations, and to put a positive slant on these neglected rights of men. Therefore, “rape” and “child molestation” will become the more positive “drive fulfillment”; “domestic violence” and “child abuse” will be appropriately called “anger redirection”; and “victim” becomes the non-prejudicial “facilitator”.

I personally am against drive fulfillment and anger redirection, but every man has the right to choose.

The laws that currently repress these freedoms must fall in landmark Supreme Court cases. Men should educate themselves, recognize their empowerment, and become activists. Society should shrug off the negative connotations of “rape”, “molestation”, “domestic violence”, etc., and these rights must no longer be exercised furtively in back alleys but allowed to be enjoyed in the full light of day, free from disapproval and intolerance. Politicians at all levels should be supported or not based on their support of gender-neutral reproductive rights. After all, it’s my body -- government, keep your laws off it!

We should be prepared to counter the attacks of narrow-minded special interests, who may make claims such as “rape is wrong”, “child abuse is violence”, etc. We can easily poke holes in their arguments, for example by simply countering that if they don’t like “rape”, then they don’t have to have one. In the case of drive redirection via minor (formerly called “child molestation”), it’s obvious that a minor is a post-natal fetus, and a fetus has no rights. The issue of pre-term vs. post-term falls before the more fundamental right to privacy.

Please join with me in embracing this progressive cause.

[The inevitable (and unfortunately required) Disclaimer: I don’t seriously suggest the above, but am making a point. You can use the exact same arguments used by abortion-rights proponents to support rape, child molestation, and violence against women. The logic is impeccable and unassailable, and the conclusion is clear: abortion is a crime of violence as immoral and unacceptable as those other crimes. By reading the above, you see how ludicrous it would be to support these “rights”; the crime of violence we call “abortion” is just as unacceptable.]

Anonymous said...


well your argument is an easy one to quickly refute. No non-christians or non-whites or female groups have the right to rape or abuse children, therefore it is not discrimination or unequal rights for white male christians to not have those rights either.

One additional point, I am sure any women who has been raped would be highly offended by your claim of (you can just choose not be raped).

David S. MacMillan III said...

I don't think you are getting the point, anonymous.

Like I said so plainly, their are two facets to this thing. The first facet:

"Minorities" have the "right" to commit crimes under the curtain of "equal rights" (yes, sodomy is a crime and has been for centuries; a Supreme Court that ignores the Constitution and oversteps its bounds does not change that). They seem to think that since the law allows people with a Judeo-Christian background to marry the opposite gender, the law should allow them (since they lack Judeo-Christian leanings) to commit sodomy with the same gender. And that is just one example.

The other facet:

Basically, the idea of affirmative action. Because legitimate minorities (i.e., blacks) have been oppressed in the past, society at large is overly careful not to offend any who might possibly be part of a minority. This means special programs for gays and lesbians; new, pro-abortion curriculum; hiring practices that select based on "race". In an effort not to step on the toes of any possible minorities, they snub the majority. Tolerance factors a lot into this; they will tolerate anything as long as it does not hint that another view might be incorrect.

Which reminds me of a B.C. comic; one caveman had a sign that said "Down with signs!". As he paraded around the desert, another man saw him, angrily picked up his own sign, and beat the first poor fellow silly. Then he displayed his sign: "We won't tolerate intolerance!"

That speaks for itself.


Great comment t1 and good point. If we substitute the syntax and a few key words in your tirade, it looks a lot like a Planned Parenthood press release.


No non-christians or non-whites or female groups have the right to rape or abuse children. . . .

That's not his point! He means that if women have the "right" to do whatever they want with their bodies, even if it means murdering their own offspring in the womb, that men should also have the "right" to fulfill their sexual drives and we can call the victims "facilitators". This is not about the "non-christian" minority or the "non-white" minority. This is about the female "minority" vs. the male "majority". Women can do what they want with their bodies, why shouldn't men?

He was not saying that women can choose not to be raped. He is saying that men can choose not to rape if they are 'personally against it'. T1 is playing off of the popular catch phrase for abortionists:

Pro-life female: "Abortion is wrong!"
Pro-choice female: "If you don't like it, don't get one!"

and comparing it to:

Anti-rape male: "But rape is wrong!"
Pro-'drive' male: "If you don't like it, don't do one!"

See the difference?

Anonymous said...

Well if I understand correctly, even you agree that you are not being treated as a second-class citizen. So if you want to express your point more clearly you might consider not using as a title "We're Second Class Citizens"

And just one comment on the perverted rape logic, your supposing that if rape were legalized, any male who protested to such a law could be told just "don't choose rape". Your trying to argue that the purpose of rape laws is to protect the perpatrator of the rape...The purpose of rape laws is to protect the VICTIM of rape.

David S. MacMillan III said...

Well if I understand correctly, even you agree that you are not being treated as a second-class citizen.

I am afraid, then, that you do not understand correctly. Obviously the discrimination that takes place pales in comparison to anything that African-Americans used to suffer, but that does not change the facts today.

And just one comment on the perverted rape logic, your supposing that if rape were legalized, any male who protested to such a law could be told just "don't choose rape". Your trying to argue that the purpose of rape laws is to protect the perpatrator of the rape...The purpose of rape laws is to protect the VICTIM of rape.

That is exactly right! "The purpose of rape laws is to protect the VICTIM of rape." And the reason we oppose abortion is to protect the VICTIMS of abortion . . . unborn children.

Anonymous said...

Your suffer discrimination????

Can you give me one example in your daily life of discrmination you have suffered that compares to any of the following examples:

An African American friend of mine who has been pulled over several times, for absolutely no apparant reason.

I personally was verbally and physically abused as a little kid for being non-christian.

And there are several examples in the past 10 years of gays being beaten to death for no other reason then being gay.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

This is a great blog.

Seanny McShawn said...

a Supreme Court that ignores the Constitution and oversteps its bounds

How did the Supreme Court ignore the Constitution and/or overstep its bounds?

David S. MacMillan III said...

Hey Sean,

Nice to hear from you again.

Our Supreme Court has overstepped its boundaries on many occasions. It has also ignored the plain meaning of the Constitution and read between the lines to produce such nonsensical doctrines as "separation of church and state" and the alleged "right of privacy".


For starters, Roe v Wade. Rather than interpreting the existing law, the judges in Roe v Wade made up their own law. They pulled a "right of privacy" out of the Fourteenth Amendment that never existed. I concede that much of the deception perpetrated in this case stemmed from the corrupt lawyers arguing for abortion. But if you read the arguments used to justify abortions, you will see that any focus on law and precedent was lost. Rather, the court looked to whatever miniscule social trends they could find to support their case.

One example that I gave above was Lawrence v Texas. In this case, the Supreme Court used the "right of privacy" so conveniently provided by Roe v Wade and applied it to the crime of homosexual sodomy. They seem to think that a minority trend in fringe society is a valid legal basis for abolishing any laws they wish.

Read Article III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the ability to re-interpet laws that seem on their face to contradict the Constitution. They do not have the authority to legislate from the bench.