The Meaning of Racial Slurs

One of the first things that one learns in a language is to understand the meaning withint context. Without understanding the context, one is bound to misunderand what is spoken or written. Today's poltical correctness has done just that. It takes "racial slurs" out of their contextual situatedness and misunderstands the intent of such "racial slurs".

Today's "political correctness" doesn't leave any room for affirming social norms. Social norms are what first formulated the "racial slurs", but the political correctness of our society isn't able to use such "racial slurs" for fear of personal insult, or being divisive. Political correctness has undermined the cohesiveness in our cultural values and norms. As a result, our society suffers.

Martin Luther King, Jr. epitomized a social transformation in our society, but such transformation was not to usurp the values and norms of culture itself, such as hard work and industry, but to call the nation to a more ethical or principled judgment about "people of color". He wanted the nation to be united by "character", which upheld the values of creative industry, hard work, productivity and giving back to society, as well as giving equal opportunity to those who'd been second class citizens.

Today's "civil rights" mentality undermine the "right to free speech" when it has racial implications. Such speech occurs because of the value of social norms. The "slave-owining class" had certain expectations about their human capital. They wanted strong and able men and women to work the farm, do the housework and alleviate the upper class from similar duties. But this "norm" came about almost 100 years after our Founding. Our Founding was based in the Protestant work ethic, where all that were able bodied helped.

The Protestant Work Ethic was the hard work and industry that produced prosperity for the "founding generation".  The Indians were useful to help the founding generations to know how to cultivate and live "in the wild". But, while the "founding generation" learned from the Indian, the Indian was not viewed as an equal, but as a "savage". The savage acts out of instinct and not out of rational principle. Such judgment upheld the social value of law and education. A civilized society did not function on or by instinct, but by a government. Today, mulitculturalism undermines American society and it 'founding values' because of political correctness.

Racial slurs like, "He's acting like a nigger",  has a valid use in language and culture. "He acts like a nigger" came from a culture that valued hard work from the slave. Is the value of hard work still important to our culture, or is "political correctness" a more important value to our society? What we have lost is both the distinction of character when it comes to the worker or the "owner". The worker should work to the best of his ability, while the owner has an obligation to treat the employee with equal respect and honor. Our cultural value is "equal under law".

I think "political correctness" has undermined our society's virtues and furthered society's vices. No longer is there any speech that discriminates, or oppressess. And there can't be any social taboos, or mores that are limited by such language. Surely, one would not want to be labeled as "acting like a Nigger", freeloading off their "masters". Nor would one want to be labeled "acting like a Jew", and be understood to be materialistic and greedy. These colloquialisms have lost their force in society, because of political correctness.

Because Political Correctness has undermined the force of social taboos that uphold society's norms that benefit society and its people, we have lost as a nation, and our culture's values have shifted from hard work and prosperity to entitlement and sloth.

Choice, Conviction, and Commitment

What makes humans different from other animals? Both conservative and liberals will agree that choice is a value to/for humans. Animals do not make choices, do they? They are herded, trained, modified, by humans (the more intelligent animal) or act instinctively for survival.

Although humans do act to survive, we can use our reason, and our choice to control ourselves as to the means of meeting the need to survive and flourish. We do not have to kill another human because we need to survive. Self-control is what civilizes man. It is his conviction about another's right to existence that limits his "right to life" at all costs. So, besides choice, there are convictions that are important values to society or civilization.

Convictions are about cultural reference points. American culture is defined by the Constitution. Fortunately, in the West we value the individual and uphold his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our commitment to such values cause us to value another's right to liberty, as well. Liberty of conscience is an important value for the Founders, as it protected diverse convictions.

Today on a news program, it was argued that a Supreme Court Justice should believe in "rights" as given by a Creator, so that the Constitution is interpreted as an "originalist". But a Supreme Court Judge argued that one should not have these "religious qualifications/tests for a Supreme Court Justice, or for any office, for that matter. I agree with her, because a justice should be blind to any personal opinion or prejuidice in regards to the Constitution and the case brought before the Court. If a justice was too ideological, whether conservative or liberal, then it might inhibit justice because it would limit the judge's ability to hear without prejuidice or bias concerning the issue or the person involved. All citizens, no matter if they believe in a Creator or not, are to be given the right to Representation before the law!

Americans value the right to dissent and resist a government that does not respect liberty. And liberty is  about differences of value in choice, conviction and commitment.

Other Racial Issues

Issues such as race have various emotional responses due to one's experience, understanding and conditioning. We, in America, have the "ideal" that all are created equal and should be represented by "law". These are citizen rights.

But, with today's climate of radicalization of religion, race seems to matter more. Americans and others in the West have experienced, and seen what happens to those who dismiss the danger of radical religion. So, in today's climate, we not only divide ourselves along racial lines, but religious ones, as well.

Just yesterday, a Muslim prindipal dismissed a Christian teacher. My husband told me that it was due to his Christian faith. Because Americans are "taught" that toleration is the highest virtue, we tend not to try to distinguish when we need to. Just as the lady who called the police was "at fault", even though she did what was reasonable and upheld the standards of good citzenship, Islam has a "favored" status when it comes to discrimination. And African Americans have favored status as it concerns Affirmative Action.

Minority rights grants a prividledge to those on the basis of their skin color or their religion. Is this just? When we try to rectify the past, are we harming the future and inadvertedly hindering all of us in being Americans, first? Why are we identifying ourselves as "African-American", "American Indian", or "American caucasian"? We are divided by "racial" and "religious" histories, instead of owning our national history and its development into a nation of diverse peoples, where the individual is acknowledged and valued. The Founding Fathers made our nation a nation ruled by law, and no "special elite", whether religious or racial. This is the freedom and value of being "equal under law".

Instead of identifying along the lines of "group think" which distinguishes what is uneccesary, why not distinguish ourselves as individual Americans? With America's ideals, and progressiveness, do we doubt that we could find a better tomorrow? We need to get back to thinking responsibly about our country and its values, not taking them for granted, but upholding the value of citizenship. And we need to be thankful for the freedoms and all that it allows in our diverse and blessed country.

"Racialized" America

America is known to be diverse in her cultural roots. This is what has made America great, because we have understood tolerance, for the most part. I know our history has contained a "dark" period where slaves were bought and sold, but we have overcome that time, or have we?

We know that America has its "passionate" differences, as otherwise, we would not believe in "free speech". The Klu Klux Klan and the Black Panthers have all "had some voice" in our public square.

This is what has baffled me in regards to the recent "racialization" incidence in Cambridge MA.

I had turned the news on to hear the woman who made the call to the police apologize for any "community upset" that might have occurred due to her call. What? All she did was call the police about a possible burgulary of a neighbor's property! And she was apologizing!!! I thought that we were to "be about community service", and yet, hers was not "approved".

The President responded by demonizing the police officier and the next day apologizing and announcing a meeting with the police officier and the professor involved. Why was the neighbor not called to the meeting? Was she, then considered the culprit? Was she the one being blamed, because she was "white" and her suspect was black?

I know when one has been victimized over a long period that it is hard to build trust. And when the experiences are continually affirmed and conditioned as justification for entitlement, then one wonders where the victim will become the victor. I am weary of this discussion. And it has led many, I believe, to not care.

Minority rights have reverse discrimination as far as I am concerned. The world we live in discriminates. That is how we make judgments and decisions, which are not always because of racial profiling, but because of necessity. The atmosphere has become so violatile that one is "gun shy" for fear of mis-stepping. Who will be offended, and what will be the "costs"?

Although I am glad that we are diverse in our culture, there is a price to pay and the one we have just seen played out before our eyes happens many times everyday around the country. I hope that in trying to rectify the wrongs of the past, we do not oversteer our "balance' and become intolerant to the Caucasions among us..

Frames, Forms and "Formation"

This morning's message was on 'unity" and how important unity was/is. The commendation to corforming one's opinion to the tradition of the text of scripture and the 'form of Christ", was a unified way of understanding, which is based on "tradition", instead of "agreeing to disagree" (reason). Christ and who he has been undestood to be as the Chruch (tradition) has interpreted his life (doctrine) is to be the "form". But, is this necessarily true?

The "pastor" suggested a "faith," that was mindless and not based on reason. Reason subverts faith, in this scenario, because "ideas" were viewed as "endless speculation" and "not after Christ" (text). I disagree. Will the pastor "tolerate" (live in unity) with my disagreement? Or do I have to conform to this pastor's understanding because she is after all the "leader"? I think not.

I find that unity is not about beliefs (text and tradition), as beliefs will always be formulated differently, depending on one's frames and the forms, which represent the highest value of a certain individual. Even in using "Jesus, as the Christ" as the "form" universally, is invalidated, because there are so many ways that his life has been understood. So, unity cannot be in beliefs, because otherwise, we would have to agree about things that it is impossible to agree about. We have different ways of understanding, formulating and thinking about "reality". These ways of understanding are not absolute, as they represent certain contexts of personal, and cultural "conviction".

So, what is unity about? Unity is about attitude toward another's right to exist. The other has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Prejuidice is a pre-judging according to some "group" standardization and understanding. There is nothing wrong, in fact, it is informative in some settings to understand another groups "convictions", ideas, and opinions, as this helps the sociologist, and anthropoligist to "diagnose" how a certain culture "functions".

Functioning cultures are those that are based on an "ordered government". The differences of government depend on the ideas that "form" that government. Government is about equality and law. Therefore, government should be a way to protect individual rights under law. Other forms of government are based on absolute power, domination, and even anarchy.

Therefore, unity has to allow diversity, otherwise, unity commends conformity, which is domination of another's view and how they have come to understand and formulate their reality. And domination is not "good government'.

Belonging, Belief, and Behavior "Revisited"

On Richard Beck's 'Experimental Theology" he wrote about "Third Places". I think these "third places" are what humans need in their experience of life. It is one of the basic needs of being human. It is the need to "belong". Humans are social beings.

Behavior that is inclusive is also about belonging to the "human race". This is about being and acting humanely.

Beliefs, though, can inhibit humans from crossing the divide of difference and acting in a humane way. Many times these inhumane ways of behaving is because of a person's understanding of "god". And other times, prejuidice is due to conditioning within a certain social context.

In America, we live with difference, as we live in a diverse culture, although Beck seems to think that we don't. I guess it might depend on if we have ever lived in a city, even in surburbia. Larger populations in America are almost always diverse.

Human love to categorize, generalize, and universalize. This is one way that the social sciences understand the 'human". But, while social scientists generalize, humans are also unique individuals, with personal experiences, personal values, and personal gifts that go beyond their identification to a certain specification.

Some behaviorists think that change to an individual happens because of exposure. But, this is not always the case. Research has shown that not only do some people "read" their bias and prejuidice into a situation or encounter with another different from themselves, but there is also a type of 'prejuidicial personality type.

So, while instigating behavior is an important factor in evaluating or determining research for social scientists, it is a variable that is not easily "controlled" or evaluated as to its universiality.

In postmodernity's need to find "reason", human experience is the only "universal" human category. And the category itself is very diverse in its true understanding.

Misunderstandings and Such

I have been told that I "take the ball and run" when I respond on another blog site. I have been told more than once, so there must be some truth to this. As I reflected on this, I have some 'theories about why this may be so...

1.) these who say I am "re-inventing the wheel" may have certain understandings that I do not have, so my response is "off kilter" to them. I have a different frame of reference than theirs. For instance, if someone thinks that you should be feeling guilt about something, then they will think that you "project" your guilt in your responses. They are prejudiced in a certain way, because of their own personal convictions, or bias.

2.) I have different definitions to my words, therefore, when I read their site, I "hear" something different from what they meant.

3.) I have different "interests" so what I extrapolate takes the discussion in a different direction from the one intended..

4.) I have a learning disorder.

Which one (or all) is true? and how do I know? or how do I find out?

Richard Beck's Monsters and Hospitality and World Affairs

Richard Beck's "Experimental Theology" blog is an interesting blog site by a Christian psychologist. He has recently been talking about "monsters and hospitality". He identifies our psychological responses/reactions to these monsters, as a projection of self. This morning's report on the news made me wonder about this theory's practicality, when it comes to world affairs.

Prejuidice is the result of an "us/them" dichotomous mind-set. Social psychologists understand the dynamics that lead to humanitarian disasters, like genocide. Although humanitarians may desire to break down the walls of these identifiying barriers to "commonality", these identifiers are a necessary boundary line that defines "self" and "other". "Monster" is a term that Beck identifies as a "them", less than human label. Without identifiers we cannot discriminate or think, make decisions, as we must make judgments when we determine a course of action, which demands that we make distinctions. Multiculturalism leads to a non-discriminatory mind-set.

Today's news, as well as recent news, has made me wonder about the wisdom of this type of thinking. Russia is now expected to locate bombers in Cuba and Venezuela. Cuba is 80 miles from American shores. What are the reasons? Are we the "monster" and why?

Just last week, Great Britain's prime minister, George Brown, came to meet with our President. Great Britian is one of the closest allies to America. The usual dinner meeting as couples did not occur and a statue of Winston Churchill, a hopitable gesture, was sent back to Great Britian. I do not understand why this action occurred.

In Beck's terms, how are we to not believe in monsters in this world. We must, if we don't want the annihlation of our identifying factors. I think America's identifying factors are worthy ones, but that doesn't mean that some in our system have abused them. Americans, for the most part, are a generous, hospitable, and friendly people. Other nationalities may see us as arrogant, opinionated, rude, crude and naive.

Our seeming arrogance and opinionatedness, is just what our culture allows and condones in our "freedom of speech" and our individual freedoms. We speak our minds, but we also welcome others to as well. Our seeming rudeness is just our lack of sensitivity to a difference in culture, as we, for the most part, are allowed individuality within our culture, so what is a traditional "manner" is not even on the 'radar" of an American. And our naivete' is only because we believe in the American Dream that all men can attain and meet their highest potential, so we are optimist, for the most part. We have a 'can do attitude".

As I defend our cultural misconceptions, I do not deny that we Americans need to understand others a little better, as we don't get "world news" for the most part. And our nation's largness and diversity lends itself to belly gazing without regard for diversity abroad. So, to those whose traditions have been offended, tolerance is a value that could benefit you and your country, as graciousness is about tolerance. And we need graceousness and tolerance to live in this world.

Networks, Individuals and Relationships

Relationships make us human, Relationships sometimesdefine our person, but should not be our sole source of "self". Relationships make for opportunity, as relationships are about connection.

The business world calls "connection" networking. But, what if an individual has no network? What if, for no fault of their own, they have fallen through the cracks of their community? Some think this is the time for those "left out" to "reach out and touch". But, what if the message within the person inhibits them from continuing to "reach out"? Messages are sent by how we exclude another and these messages are internalized. That is why it is important that all have a voice, otherwise, we do disservice to another and end up scape-goating them.

The real issue is that the scapegoat is usually the answer to much of the problem, as the scapegoat covers or takes upon himself the sins of the others. But, the scapegoat suffers, while others go "scot free" in their jealousies, petty competiviness, and superior attitudes toward another make like them. This is not justice, or just.

Discrimination is based on a lie that another is not worthy or to be valued. And discrimination is unloving. Obama represents a new hope that all of us will not continue in the petty bigotedness of the past, but represent a new hope for tomorrow...

I'd Rather Be...

I'd rather be an American today, than anything on earth. America's "ideals" are going to be demonstrated before the world, in Obama's inaugeration.

His inaugeration stands for all the "ideals" I value most, equality, opportunity, hope, and freedom. Mine is not the only heart that is moved by these "ideals". These ideals are what humans are about because humans are made to be free, to experience justice, and to have the hope of opportunity and the freedom of equality....No wonder someone on NPR said the other day that America represents a higher moral order than any other nation!

I'd rather be an American today than be a part of any other country or religion, because America does not discriminate based upon the specificities of one's race or religion. That is what I want to be and be like, because only leaders who represent these values are ones that should be followed!

Covenant and Community

Some in the past have understood covenant as a theological category that changes the way Scripture is views or sectioned. Covenant was an ancient term meaning a blood contract. There have been discussions in the scholorly realm about whether the covenant was undertaken by God alone or if man had any choice in the matter. Covenant theologians do not believe that man is capable of responding apart from Divine initiative. There are variations to how much and when God undertakes these intiatives in the "secret councils" of His Will and Purposes!

Others believe that there is an element in which man can or may respond. Wesleyans and the Methodist''s camps believe in previenient grace where God goes before, preparing the Way.

The Jews understood themselves as God's chosen people therefore, they segmented themselves off from others in their worship services. There was a way to become a part of the covenant and it was a ritual, in which, a man could be initiated into covenant. Other men and the women were left in the outer court (of course, the men and women were separated)...

I find this whole understanding of life very discombobulated. And the questions are many, but they are not new. I am beginning to find it ludacrous to believe, as religion does things in the name of God that is not understandable. Why would a rational person disregard another because of certain religious rituals? Why would they think he were a "dog"? I don't think religion breeds an environment where reason is liked or lived by...it is emotion, feeling, and experience.

Knowledgy, Social Construction and Reality

We form our identities from our cultures, which contain the values, mores, and traditions that define our lives. Identities are culturally bound until education enlightens our minds to another reality, which is larger than our previous "world". This is growth and change.

People who are educated are informed to a larger context than specific communities, or specific cultures. Cultures are defined by religious tradition, which are limited ways of understanding. This limitation breeds environments of prejuidice, as it defines right and wrong upon supernaturalistic understandings, which are usually absolute in understanding.

Reason, on the other hand, is necessary for man's understanding of his own values, opinions, and convictions. It is ethical development, not spiritual development that is a necessary focus.

Although reason is absolute as far as the individual's development in critical thinking and evaluation of convictions, reason cannot be absolute in determination of another's reality. Therefore, in organizational structures, there must be a room for each individual to find their place, or to "get out". Leadership is the determining drivers behind organizations. Each organization has a vision or purpose that drives their goals. These goals must be in line with the individual's desires, convictions, and purposes. This is the proper order and structuring of free socieities.

A "Graced" Theology

I have decided not to be a Christian, but a human. Being human is our first priority, as humans. It is about acceptance of limitations, inabilities, and potentialities, as well. Previenient grace covers all of it, for all of life is graced. That means that all knowledge, and all of life is graced. But, what about suffering? Suffering is about injustice.

We are grace bearers to another. Grace is gifting another's life where it is limited, disabled or hindered. It is a life of humanism.

Just recently, while attending the American History museum in D.C., my husband and I listened to a young African American talk about the Greensboro incidence. The Greensboro incidence was a sit in for civil rights in the 60's and it was done at a Woolworth counter in the name of justice. Justice had not been served to these four African Americans, as they had not been served lunch. This was a lunch counter and the function of a lunch counter was to serve lunch to humans! But, these African Americans had grown up without having the equality of sitting at the lunch counter. Why? Because, they were less than human, as the color of their skin disenfranchised them from the "white elite". As he talked and acted out the injustice, I cried. as I lived through this period in history in the South, as a white American. White Americans were the priviledged class who could choose where they wanted to sit, where they wanted to see a movie, and how they would live their lives, in general. It was freedom to be white, but "our" freedom limited African Americans in their freedom. So, we, Southerners, did not experience "freedom and justice for all"!

I was priviledged on both accounts of being a white in the South, but also, having the priviledge of having an African American "maid" raise me in my younger years. This African American's name was Elizabeth, and I played with her daughter, Geraldine. She was my friend. I didn't see color, although I lived in a "colorful' world. I only knew these African Americans as my friends. I once asked my mother, when I was inquiring about a mole on my body, if Geraldine was "one big mole all over"! Children do not make the distinctions that adults learn to do, and such is the "kingdom of God"....

I think the "kingdom of God" is more about being "human" than about any form of religion, and the ideological "commitments that go along with "religion"!

Group Identity and Prejuidice

Yesterday, in a class discussion on Wiesel's "Night", I asked the class what constituted "group identity". They listed many identifiers such as; clothing, food, beliefs, music, etc. It is in effect, culture. We talked about how we identified, if we did, with each of these identifiers. Then, I asked them how they 'judged" others based upon the differences in these identifiers.

We talked about authority , i.e., parenting, good government and what transpires when there is not good government. What responses should we take when a government is not a good one.

We then discussed how Nazi Germany saw the Jew. Did they know or have the experience of seeing some with "eyes of prejuidice". On what basis did they 'judge' the other and if that judgment was reasonable. We talked of the principle of scapegoating others, as a psychological response, instead of owning our own behavior and opinion. Prejuidice is not necessarily "bad", if their are reasonable reasons why one holds to a certain view, as we are all biased.

I asked them how they would "counsel" those who were going through suffering, as we had talked about what was important to do when someone suffered in our last class. When we talked about the reasons for suffering, I used Bart Ehrman's divisions in how Scripture understood suffering; prophetic (sin of the past, that results in present suffering), apocalytic (belief in God's sovereignty, and purpose for the future), and wisdom( cyclic view of history and an acceptance of "no reason"). I then, asked them how each of these views would be understood or felt by Wiesel, if they were "counselling" him. It was a good discussion.

I write all of this because I think it is an important discussion when the West is in crisis with understanding where proper boundaries must be defined and defended. We, in the West, have brought about our own demise in the political and philosophical arena where we have become so tolerant, that we undermine or devalue reason itself. As Christian faith has been based on personal commitment and conviction, the West can no longer hold any resistance to Islam's claim to equal "tolerance" and representation. Certain convictions cannot be tolerated when it comes to human rights. Human rights are undermined in Islam's claim on knowing "Allah's will". Allah becomes an all powerful "EGO" that over-rides rationality and demands obedience and the sacrifice of life to his "glory".

As a nation that believes in the individual's conscience and right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, we must also stand for rationality when it comes to faith and faith claims...

Race, Discrimination, and Endorsement

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama has been labelled by some as a race issue.

I don't know whether anyone really understands discrimination unless they have experienced it. But, reverse discrimination is what Colin Powell is being accused of. Is an endorsement valid just because they happen to be of a certain group, race, ideology, etc.? is this just and right?

Groupism is unjust in so many ways. Groupism is prejuidicial because groups are defined by certain attributes, ideology, etc. Groups are a way for humans to maintain an identity, but the identity is based on prejuidice. Although I recognize and aknowledge the lack of opportunity that many of certain groups have had, priviledging groups has a downside in meeting quotas, when there are not enough qualified candidates to fulfill a certain position. Is this just, even though it is meant to give equal opportunity? Reverse discrimination is also unfair.

The discriminated form a solidarity to gain a power base and then politic for their group's representation, which is good in our free society. But, equal respresentation of the majority's side also needs acknowledgement. This is only maintaining a balance of power and is just and right.

The fact that Obama is able to run and get his party's nomination is proof that our society is overcoming its bias. Hillary Clinton ran against Obama and was a formable foe. She has broken the wall separating the sexes in powerful leadership roles. I think our country has come a long way from 25 years ago. Granted there will always be segments of the population that remain prejuidiced, but, as more and more minorities gain powerful positions, it will become harder and harder to ignore the facts of equality.

I am hoping that Colin's endorsement is not one that is racially motivated. That would illustrate an ultimate prejuidice.

The Face of Evil

Evil has a face, just as God does. Just as God's face is seen in humanity, Evil also is seen in human form.

Elie Wiesel in "Night" writes that evil was found in the faces of the Germans who brought them unwillingly to the concentration camps and gas chambers. In the name of "purification", Jewish men, women and children were stripped of all that was human; dignity, respect, choice, family, and life, itself.

What was this evil? It was political, spiritual, and physical. The idea sparked in Hitler's mind, spread throughout the nation of a "purified people", the Arian race, and scapegoated the Jew.

John Wesley opposed what he called "enthusiasm". I believe that this is needed in Christian evangelical circles. Uninformed enthusiasts call for "total commitment" to herald in God's Kingdom. This is nothing new in Church History. People throughout the ages have thought that the "end times" were near and sold all they had to "give to the poor". What is so wrong about this style of "commitment"?

Psychologist would describe those who "set themselves apart", as a "form of "ethnocentric cleansing". Humans love to distinguish themselves from others, as this bring identification. It creates the "I". There is nothing wrong about being different from others, but when there is a dismissing of the "other", then all kinds of atrocities happen. These atrocities have borne the spectrum from political "ethnic cleansing" of the Serbians/Bosnians; the spiritual in the "heresy trials" throughout Church History; and the social, in immigration policy, "gang" formation, or class envy/snobbery.

Whenever humankind has formulated a hierarchal view of itself, mankind has lost in human resources, and lives. Our country's balance of power is a necesary 'balance" to man's inhumanity to man. Checks and balances are needful where there is no "other". Us/Them thinking is a distinguishing "difference", but also can be the beginning of prejuidice. We must not commit acts in the name of any "God", country, people or "cause" that is unreflctive and ignores the "other" in its inception.

This is the beginning of Evil. God warned Cain, that "sin was croutching at the door.