#is this post a refutation of the claim that civilizations are defined by caring for their injured? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

gralunaisland · 2 years

Text

Part 1 of "Why Gray is NOT a Tsundere"

(An Anti-gr///via Post)

[Links to Part 2 and Part 3 are linked here and at the end.]

One of the most commonly used arguments to demonstrate support for the gr////viugh ship is that even though Gray rejects juvia’s advances countless times, they still belong together because “Gray is a tsundere”, and therefore he actually likes everything juvia does and has been attracted to her and her antics since the beginning.

Despite these particular Pros loving to paint themselves as “guardians of Japanese culture”, using "culture" as an argument that the Japanese love stalking and obsession, I believe they are willfully ignoring what a tsundere actually is in anime in order to claim Gray's loved juvia all along.

To help demonstrate that, I will proceed to prove that every single main character in Fairy Tail is a tsundere based on their definition.

I shall also be trying to counter all (and I mean all, so every little point... whew this is going to take a while...) the points made in this post, recommended to me by a helpful anonymous asker a long time ago, from the @f*ckyeahgr*via page, where the poster (Author) tries to prove that Gray is in fact a tsundere. (This takes place in Part 2.)

(In Part 3, I’ll give my own examples with pictures of Gray very clearly not being a tsundere.)

Really, the purpose of this post isn't to prove that Gray never likes juvia in the material, because clearly Mashima and his weak will bent to the desires of the Pro fandom in 100yq to force these two together, but it's just to prove that it's not like Gray loved juvia all along, which some Pro's try to defend to their grave. The importance of proving that is that it will show that Gray hasn't been a willing participant in juvia's harassment.

The only feasible reason he could ever like juvia later is thanks to the guilt juvia caused him to feel from her almost dying, as well as Stockholm Syndrome from being gaslit and manipulated into thinking they loved each other, all that as well as being written into a shell of his former character who acts more like juvia than himself, but that is beside the point of this post.

Finally, a disclaimer: my frustration is mainly directed at juvia and specifically at people who use these arguments to try to make their opposition look stupid, and it's just my frustration with this argument. Please know, in the end, these arguments are just for fun, and I don't actually have beef with Pros as human beings. Also, please no raids on that blog (which actually might be retired by now lol) or on the user who posted it. We're all civil enough people here.

Pheww, buckle in, guys, this is going to be kind of a tough one. (As well as super long and suuuper in depth).

Definition of Tsundere given by Pros:

One of the biggest difficulties with combating this argument is that the actual definition of "tsundere" isn't really used by Pros; they just use a similar idea related to a tsundere, and then claim that they're right based on their own definition.

One person who participated in my 'Request for Discussion' post commented something along the lines of "Gray is a tsundere because he doesn't talk about his feelings with anyone". I would like to quote them directly, but when I went back to check what they said, it seems they have deleted all their comments. (Interesting. That seems to be a regular occurrence with Pros on my blog).

In another instance, the person who wrote the 'why Gray is a tsundere' post that I'll be refuting in part 2 of this post, (Note well, I'll refer to them as 'Author' from now on, and the quotes from their post shall be orange), even though they never actually take the time to define what they think a tsundere is, said this about Gray:

"Again, [Gray] is HARSH and TSUNDERE towards those he cares the most about. He has insulted Natsu, Lyon, Ur, Erza (calls her a monster) and [j]UVIA. And, he also is embarrassed when his true feelings come to the surface, and tries hard to keep them private. He doesn’t want people to know HOW MUCH he cares, and because of that, he rarely talks about his feelings to anyone, let alone directly to the person he’s having those feelings for."

It's quite similar to what the first Pro said, though more in depth. For them, it boils down to "not talking about his feelings". I'll circle back around to this later.

First, let's take the Pros' definition of tsundere and run with it:

Let us say that the term 'tsundere' really only means that the tsundere doesn't talk about their feelings a lot with other people. (Remember, this is what Pros mean when they say what a tsundere is even though that isn't the actual definition.)

Then yes, Gray is a tsundere.

But here's the clincher.

If he is, then so is everyone else who exists in the Fairy Tail universe.

Yay, you win! Everyone, including Gray, which is the important part, is a tsundere!

Doesn't that sound completely ridiculous?

Of course it does. Let's break down that extremely faulty reasoning.

Refuting the Pros' Definition of Tsundere:

Let me ask you this:

Just how much do people in Fairy Tail actually talk about their feelings in normal circumstances on a regular basis? Literally, we should all take a moment to think about this.

Lucy's dad died? Well, she doesn't talk about it to anyone, not even to her best friends, Natsu and Happy, who followed her silently to his grave. She breaks down all by herself, alone in her apartment. Does she talk about how much losing Aquarius' key hurt her? Nope, not even that. She never even confides in people on how she likes Natsu, which is prime gossip material and not as private as a thing as grief for a dead parent is. Does any of that mean she's a tsundere? Not at all.

Natsu is super expressive, honest to the point of being ignorant and just plain dumb sometimes. He declares to anyone and everyone all the time just how much he cares for his guild, but does he sit down with people and talk about how Igneel leaving really made him feel, how abandoned and lonely he felt? Never. Talking about feelings is just not Natsu, and yet he's still clearly not an actual tsundere.

From Erza to Happy to anyone else in the whole anime, no one really goes out of their way to have a casual deep chat about their feelings ever, specifically about personal emotional trauma, but even about mundane feelings in general. Most of the time, they're all just chilling and goofing around and making jokes, because that's what you do with friends- not talking about your inner, personal turmoil doesn't make you a tsundere, i.e. it doesn't make you someone who's always irritable until they learn to be more open with people they like.

Anyway, these feelings and the words that describe them are just ripped out of them while they are fighting for their lives, which of course for them is quite often. Otherwise, they don't talk about it really, not even with the people they're closest to, and that's okay. It's their personal business. These are things that are good to process by yourself for yourself, and you really don't owe other people to let them in on your life. (*COUGH* if only juvia would leave Gray to his personal business *COUGH*).

Gray is no exception to any of this. He doesn't talk about his feelings much... but like I said, no one does. And it's not like he only confides in juvia, which you'd think would be the case if he were really a tsundere with juvia. (NO WONDER he doesn't talk to her about his feelings! Beyond just the fact that she never listens to him anyway, when he was sad after learning about Ultear's sacrifice, noticing it during the GMG parade, juvia told him she didn't know what was up with him, but that it was rude of him not to smile. she doesn't even ask him if he's ok, she just says he's being inconsiderate. Wow, I don't cuss much, but she's actually such an ass.)

And it's not like he never shares his feelings because even just one instance is when Wendy asks him if he’s okay after he learned about Ultear’s time spell during the Dragon King Festival-- hey look at that, juvia, Wendy actually cares how he's doing-- and he actually opened up immediately about what happened and his past to her. That's insanely not tsundere because Wendy is even a newer member of Team Natsu (I personally don't consider her as such), and yet Gray is comfortable enough to tell her his life story.

Even since the Galuna Island arc, which was basically Gray's full introduction to the readers/watchers, his emotions about Ur were open, raw, and visceral. Lucy for one was really concerned for him because it was clear that Gray was beyond upset once seeing Deliora. He was also so broken and betrayed by Lyon, and none of those emotions were hidden from anyone.

These are just a few examples of Gray not being embarrassed to let people know his true feelings, which directly contradict what the Pros were trying to prove.

But is Gray a tsundere in regard to the ACTUAL definition?

Let's look at the actual definitions of tsundere, compare Gray with them, and see if he fits the bill, shall we?

Well, here's some actual definitions I've found:

Wikipedia's:

"Tsundere is a Japanese term for a character development process that depicts a character with a personality who is initially cold, stern, stoic, harsh, temperamental, hotheaded before gradually showing a warmer, friendlier side over time."

2. Another longer, more in depth one from a website dedicated to the Dere types:

"Tsundere is a stock love interest who is usually stern, cold, and sometimes hostile to the person they like and others. They will occasionally let slip their warm and loving feelings hidden inside. They hide their feelings due to being shy, nervous, insecure, or simply unable to help acting badly in front of their crush.

The Japanese term "tsundere" refers to an outwardly violent character who "runs hot and cold", alternating between two distinct moods: "tsuntsun" meaning "aloof or irritable", and "deredere" meaning "lovey-dovey".

Tsundere is a Japanese term for a character development process that depicts a person who is initially cold (and sometimes even hostile), before gradually showing a warmer, friendlier side over time"

3. And one last one for good measure from Urban Dictionary:

"Tsundere (ツンデレ, pronounced tsɯndeɾe) is a Japanese term for a character development process that describes a person who is initially cold (and sometimes even hostile) before gradually showing a warmer, friendlier side over time. The word is derived from the terms tsun tsun (ツンツン), meaning to turn away in disgust, and dere dere (デレデレ) meaning to become 'lovey dovey'."

(Yes, they are pretty similar, but I think it's important to show the solidarity and regularity of the definitions over the different sites. Plus, they each give their own nuance).

So, does Gray fit the bill?

Something to note about tsunderes is that they're not only cold and harsh to their love interest; they tend to be cold and harsh towards everyone because that's a core part of their personality, that they're socially awkward at dealing with people. If Gray truly is a tsundere, then he should demonstrate his tsundere characteristics with more people beyond his rejections of juvia.

Looking at definition 1:

Here, it says tsundere is more than just how a person acts mean to someone they really like, it's a whole character development process of a whole personality. Gray's personality from the beginning has had nothing to do with being cold, stern, stoic, or harsh. Yes, he's temperamental and hotheaded sometimes, but that's in terms of his rivalry with Natsu and other guildmates, which isn't the tsundere kind where his temperamental side hides a secret feeling (which it does not ofc). Gray is far from stoic, as he's lively and vivacious from the very first episode he's in. He's not cold, he's got great humor and is passionate. He's not a mean person, he just has friendly rivalry with his friends. Even with meeting Lucy for the first time, he was immediately friendly to her and required no "warming up" to be close with her. Remember, here it's not saying tsundere is specifically just for romance.

Looking at definition 2:

Even this one specifically notes that tsunderes are usually "stern, cold, and sometimes hostile" with "the person they like and others". Remember, it's a part of their overall personality. The tsundere behavior is a character trait that doesn't just apply to their romantic interest, so, again, that means we'd need to see Gray's tsundere-ness affecting all his relationships.

A prime example of a tsundere is Nakiri Erina from Food Wars: Shokugeki no Soma. She's not only standoffish to Yukihara Soma, whom she clearly has a crush on, but to most people in general, she doesn't know how to be friendly. It's a part of her character. She was raised in a harsh environment and was isolated, so it makes sense.

Gray on the other hand? Is not socially awkward and has no problem making friends (again, look how quickly he got chummy with Lucy). He's not standoffish at all and is far from cold and "aloof or irritable" to anyone. Even to juvia, which is the important thing to Pros since they want to say he's a tsundere with her, he's not really cold... he's just supremely unnerved and made uncomfortable by her.

He's never even mean to her, he just rejects her and tries to get away from her sometimes. And he's not even doing that all the time! On the rare occasions that juvia is able to keep herself mostly from drooling all over Gray, like when he taught her how to eat that burrito, he's actually friendly to her. But only when she's not being an absolute weirdo and creep. That's not him being a tsundere, that's him being a nice guy, but being understandably creeped out by juvia's outlandish and disgusting behavior.

And when he's being nice to her, he's not being "lovey-dovey", he literally just treats her like a normal friend. It's only during 100yq that Gray actually begins to show he has romantic interest in juvia, and I'm not counting that because that's Mashima's idiocy, and Pros have been claiming Gray's been a tsundere since forever, so they can't even use 100yq as proof.

Looking at definition 3:

Again, Gray doesn't take time to warm up to people, the reason Gray "turns away in disgust" is because juvia is a disturbing individual, and lastly, he certainly doesn't ever act lovey-dovey with juvia in the main story of FT.

My conclusion after looking the definitions is that Gray is therefore not a tsundere, as it's not a core part of his personality and character to be initially cold or aloof towards people, and because he never actually acts cold or aloof with juvia, only uncomfortable and disturbed in a rightly manner.

(Feedback on anything in this post is appreciated!)

Edit: Just to make it clear, due to a kind suggestion by my good friend, @youthinkofacoolname, I have split this behemoth of a post into 3 parts so it's less intimidating and more digestible, and then tagging the next part at the end so it's easily accessible. So, here's the link to Part 2!

Part 3 is here as well.

45 notes · View notes

pamphletstoinspire · 6 years

Photo

Moral Relativism and the Culture of ‘Meh’ by Bill Donaghy

The culture of “meh” is the withered fruit of moral relativism.

Perhaps you’ve seen the Walking Dead? I don’t mean the TV series, I mean the actual zombies walking past, driving cars, eating food with glowing faces hunched over a device, even ringing up our products at the register all the while plugged in, or tuned out, glazed over, not present. And as they flick through their feeds on those shiny screens, the mantra they mumble is “meh.”

“Meh” is an interesting addition to the modern lexicon. Actually it’s not interesting at all. It’s synonymous with the French word ennui (dullness) and the German word weltschmerz (world weariness). It’s boredom, blandom, what-else-is-on-dom. “Meh” is the insipid shrug of the shoulders after one has tasted everything and then waves it off like a spoiled prince. I want to propose in this article that the culture of “meh” in which we are living is the withered fruit of moral relativism.

Thanks to the “perfect storm” of a post-Enlightenment philosophy that’s uncoupled faith from reason, a post-Christian society that’s removed God from the world, and a post-analog technocracy that gives us a direct and unmediated connection to “everything” through a touchscreen rather than being touched by an encounter with reality, we’ve been set adrift into the murky fog of moral relativism. All we can see is our own hand before us. All we’re encouraged to care for is the cubicle of our own comforts. There’s no larger, harmonious plan. There’s no transcendent purpose to a human life, no ultimate destination, and certainly no solid ground of objective truth wherein we could cry out from our individual little boats “Land ho!” Land? No. In the words of singer/songwriter John Mellencamp, “… Close the deal, close the door. Forget about the colors that you knew before. It’s just beige to beige. That’s all it is these days …”

The Spiritual Poverty of Our Age

Speaker and author Chris Stefanick says “Relativism is the idea that there is no universal, absolute truth but that truth differs from person to person and culture to culture. In other words, truth is relative to what each person or culture thinks.” Now we could easily get philosophical in this article about relativism. We could trace the intellectual roots of it and refute it with equally intellectual arguments, but I’d like to talk less about the roots and more about the fruits; the actual ramifications of what moral relativism has done and is continuing to do to us as a people.

Relativism has been called “the spiritual poverty of our age” by Pope Francis and “the greatest problem of our time” by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. Why? Because relativism places us in utter isolation from others, placing us in our own little worlds where your truth is not my truth, and the only law is that your stuff not touch my stuff. Or in more sophisticated jargon, “So long as you’re not hindering society or harming other people with said behavior or beliefs, it’s OK.” Moral relativism is a kind of velvet anarchy wherein we all query together with Pontius Pilate, “What is truth?”

The epitome of relativistic thought could be summed up in the 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey Supreme Court decision upholding the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision. Writing for the majority in Casey, Justice Anthony Kennedy claimed that “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Sounds nice and ennobling until you imagine seven billion humans actualizing the idea in everyday life. For instance, one could say, “I believe I have the right to define my own traffic laws.” But when the rubber meets the road, we all know this can’t work. The ideology crashes to the ground once it’s grounded in reality.

Here’s another example. Person A says, “I feel that killing those I disagree with is my truth, and a good for me.” Persons B through Z say, “That conflicts with our values, and we feel you should be locked up immediately.” If person A truly has the right to define his own truth, what right do people B through Z have to tell him that his desire to kill people is not justified?

Relativism is ultimately inhuman. It seeks to detach humans from the core relationships they are designed for; with God, others, and the natural world with its inherent laws. The “I” becomes the center of the universe and the ultimate arbiter of all things. But to be human is to be in relation, to give and receive, to enter into a mystery larger than ourselves. As Thomas Merton once wrote, “The fact remains that we are invited to forget ourselves on purpose, cast our awful solemnity to the wind, and join in the general Dance.” This takes a leap of faith and of trust. A step outside of our comfort zones and off of our ideological couches.

Reality: The Antidote

The antidote to relativism is an encounter with reality. The prolific author G.K. Chesterton was an “expert” in this encounter. He wrote once in a letter to his fiancé:

“I do not think there is anyone who takes quite such fierce pleasure in things being themselves as I do. The startling wetness of water excites and intoxicates me: the fieriness of fire, the steeliness of steel, the unutterable muddiness of mud. It is just the same with people … When we call a man ‘manly’ or a woman ‘womanly’ we touch the deepest philosophy.”

Truth is touched when we touch and allow ourselves to be touched by the “holy sacrament” of the Real. Touched by earth and sea and sky, and above all through the presence of another face. Another voice. The German philosopher Josef Pieper saw this encounter with reality as a key to transcendence for everyone.

“Anybody can ponder human deeds and happenings and thus gaze into the unfathomable depths of destiny and history; anybody can get absorbed in the contemplation of a rose or human face and thus touch the mystery of creation … Everybody, therefore, participates in the quest that has stirred the minds of the great philosophers since the beginning.”

German-Canadian neurologist and psychiatrist Dr. Karl Stern, a Jewish convert to the Catholic Faith, once wrote, “the very fact that our first encounter with matter is one of tasting it and taking it in could be used as a refutation of all dualistic philosophies” that separate soul and body. French poet and dramatist Pierre Albert-Birot wrote, “I feel that the world enters into me like the fruits I eat, indeed I feed on the world.”

To rediscover the Real, and to walk again in the way of Truth, we must untether ourselves from false philosophies like relativism and reestablish our natural relation to reality, to the wonder of being alive! Again, G.K. Chesterton wrote:

“I put that beginning of all my intellectual impulses before the authority to which I have come at the end; and I find it was there before I put it there. I find myself ratified in my realization of the miracle of being alive” (G.K. Chesterton, Autobiography).

Pope Francis saw the challenge this leap of “faith in the real” entails and the battle that would be necessary to set us free from a relativistic culture of “meh” that lives only in a virtual reality of our own design. He saw how many people “want their interpersonal relationships provided by sophisticated equipment, by screens and systems which can be turned on and off on command. Meanwhile, the gospel tells us constantly to run the risk of a face-to-face encounter with others, with their physical presence which challenges us, with their pain and their pleas, with their joy which infects us in our close and continuous interaction” (Joy of the Gospel, 88).

Leaving the Land of the Bland

It’s within this experience of a “real presence” with another where the ideology of relativism dissipates like a cloud. To break free of the gravitational pull of our own self-interests, our own desires, and our own autonomy is the real work! Just before his election to the papacy, Pope Benedict XVI observed that modern society was “building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.” But what a sad land this dictatorship rules over! I call it the Kingdom of Boredom. The Country of Apathy. The Land of Bland. Also known as Hell.

When we finally break free of the isolating fog of relativism through becoming this gift of self we step into the clear light of day. Through empathy and attentiveness to creation and the very real human relationships around us, we begin to understand the truth about God, ourselves, and the natural world. We see the great romance of what St. John Paul the Great called the communio personarum—”the communion of persons.” And within that heart of humanity we find those universal truths that all peoples share in and have shared in from the beginning. We are made for so much more. A Culture of Life and a Civilization of Love!

#the culture of me

2 notes · View notes

raisingsupergirl · 5 years

Text

I Don't Serve the United States

Trump, Jr. said something mean about some teachers last week. Obama declared some states of national emergency a few years ago. Social media is a battleground, and more brothers are turning against each other now than they have since the Civil War. The liberals are all socialist snowflakes, the conservatives are all uneducated fascists, and the libertarians are just happy they got invited to the party. But I've been struggling with something for a while now. It's been a point of confusion bordering on concern for my own moral center. You see, I just can't for the life of me find an ounce of fear or anger for everything going on in our country right now. And for the longest time, I worried that it meant that I was ignorantly blissful. That I didn't deserve to be here. That I didn't appreciate my freedom or my American heritage. Thankfully, I've finally realized the real reason behind my zen.

I had a brief political Facebook exchange recently (yes, it is possible). The original post pointed out that Jesus gave to the poor indiscriminately while current US conservatives seem hell-bent on leaving the poor and needy out in the cold because they somehow don't deserve our charity. I didn't so much address the original political claim as I did the post's bigger assumption. My response was this: "A country with Christians isn't the same thing as a Christian country. Compare the USA to the biblical Israel to see the difference in a religion-centered country and one that has a generic "In God We Trust" written in a couple of places. I love my country, but I have no illusions that our constitution, legislation, etc. have been formed with the New Covenant in mind."

So, I'll admit that my comment is perfectly refutable. The biblical Israel was a mess. They were just as corrupt as modern day America (or anywhere else for that matter), and we certainly have more of a religious framework than some countries. But my point was this—there's a huge difference from our nation and one that develops its government alongside its religion. Judaism was a nomadic tribe that developed into a powerful country (and then two countries), and the one thing that held it together was its devotion to Yahweh, the one true God. So it only made sense that every law and ritual would be centered around that devotion. A lot of it made no social or political sense on the surface. Breaking their ritual purity, Sabbath practices, and Passover rituals were often severely punishable. For example, touching a menstruating woman and then entering the Temple could get you exiled from the country. It doesn't make any sense to us because our laws are set up to maintain the earthly safety and freedom of our citizens, but to Jews, observing these government-mandated rules meant avoiding divine punishment.

By the time Jesus of Nazareth came along, the Jews had some trouble because they were ruled by the Roman government, which was a lot like ours in many ways. In fact, in the New Testament, we find that the Jewish Sanhedrin (their ruling body) had to beg Pontius Pilate (Judea's Roman prefect) to crucify Jesus for breaking their laws because they, themselves, had no legal authority to do so. Since then, the Jewish nation has been somewhat neutered in their legal execution of religious laws because they continue to abide by more widely accepted political practices. But that doesn't mean we don't have a modern-day example to point to. The Islamic nation has continued the Jewish tradition of forming a political system around a religious system. In fact, Islam has been so effective at indoctrinating its Islamic law that it carries out ritual practices with little to no resistance from its "citizens," even known they appall the rest of the world.

So, setting aside any personal opinions of whether burkas and ritual beheadings are okay, does the US government look like the Pakistani government (before the US started trying to supplant the Pakistani government with its own)? Obviously not. A truly "Christian" USA would basically be a nation of hippies having block parties and giving their clothes to each other. In some ways, we would be socialist, but we would be super chill about it. We might have some form of central governing body, but they'd be just as poor as everyone else, and they'd never get anything done because they'd make sure the rest of their brothers and sisters completely understood what they wanted to do before they did it. And after a few years, we'd get taken over and slaughtered by some jerks overseas. And we'd be okay with it because this was just our temporary home, and our real reward was in the afterlife.

Okay, okay, I'm sure this description isn't 100% correct, but who can truly correct me? No one. Why? Because Jesus was clear about the state of our world. There will always be men and women who want to try to claim power for their own. We will always live under the rule of sovereign nations. In Jesus's day, Rome oppressed and controlled the Jews, but it also protected them from other nations, usually. And probably the most significant thing I will quote in this blog post is this little line from Jesus: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

There's a crazy amount of unpacking, studying, and discussion that can come from that one line, but my point is this—Christians do not seek to rule the world. We do not seek to form our own sovereign nation. Why? Because, as I said before, our hope is not that we will create a perfect world with our own hands. Our hope is that we can spread as much Truth (the Good Word preached by Jesus Christ, if you will) and love as possible during our time here, and God will take care of the rest in time. I once told an atheist friend that I would be happy to give up my life if it led to the salvation of another person's soul. He completely shot me down, saying there was no way that was true, but it is. I may not sacrifice my life to save some stranger from dying, but my mortal life is not worth another's soul. And this is the heart of Christianity, whether you think it's crazy or not. And so, you start to understand why I have no hope (or even any desire) that the USA will become a perfect nation as defined by Christianity. And you may even start to understand why it doesn't surprise or upset me that our noblest political leaders continue to fail us time and time again.

My hope is not of this world. I serve the Triune God, not the United States. Jesus commands me to render unto the USA what belongs to the USA because the USA protects me. Its history has given me my present. Its brave soldiers have given me my freedom. Its laws have given me the opportunity to be a Christian without fear. For that, I will always be indebted. For that, I will remain loyal to the USA over other countries, but only insofar as it aligns with my service to God. In short, my eyes are on the long game. There are many of you who think I'm insane, naïve, and a part of the problem. And that's okay. The Christians in the New Testament were hated and looked down upon as well, and Jesus called them blessed. And I'm happy to be a part of that group. I'm far from being a perfect Christian, but that's okay, too, because this isn't about me. It's about whom I choose to follow. And the blind are better off being led by One who can see.

#Christianity #trump #obama administration #obama #politics #border wall #patriotism #liberal #conservative #in god we trust #religion #national emergency

0 notes