June 3
To the Cranch blog in response to the article calling on us to live Western Civilization. The comment below was a response to question I asked on that blogpost that no one was willing to answer because I called Western Civilization, white people civilization. This appeared in the Cranach blog on Patheos
Since no one wanted to answer the questions and Steve B. pointed out that neither have I will answer the questions for myself. I will replace the phrase 'white people civilization' with 'Western Civilization.'
#1. How do we want to preserve Western Civilization?
I don't think we should. That doesn't mean that we should throw everything away. Western Civilization is a mixed bag consisting of both good and bad. And we should not allow what is bad in Western Civilization to cause a phobic reaction that would cause us to toss out all that comes from Western Civilization.
Thus, if we are conscious of preserving Western Civilization by living it, not only could we be too hesitant to tossing out the bad parts of Western Civilization in order to maintain enough of it, we will limit how much we allow other civilizations to contribute to our current civilization lest we drift too far away from what some identify as Western Civilization.
#2. Do we want to exclusively keep Western Civilization so that we receive no influences from the civilizations of other races?
No. The real issue isn't staying with the traditions and ideas of Western Civilization even if we filter those traditions and ideas so that we stay only with the positive ones from Western Civilization. The real issue is will we learn what is necessary to survive or even improve. So we should welcome any traditions and ideas regardless of the source if they help us to survive or improve. Also, as we borrow from other civilizations, we have a better inroad into sharing what is positive about Western Civilization.
#3 Do we want to teach that Western Civilization was all good, all bad or a mix?
Again, the answer to that question is found in the answer to question #1. To claim that Western Civilization is all good denies what the Scriptures say about our sinfulness. To say that it is all bad is to deny a lot of history. To say that is a mix satisfies both history and the Scriptures.
#4. And if we want to teach that Western Civilization is a mix, what degree of good and evil should we assign to it?
That question is best answered in a respect back and forth discussion by people who have varied viewpoints.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 4
To R. Scott Clark’s blogpost that contained a Project Veritas report on Antifa. This appeared in Heidelblog.
The first description I would use on the video is 'over dramatic.' Why? It is because I knew most of what was in the video by simply conversing with Antifa at May Day events. I saw them and talked with them before they became known to the public. I knew what they were about and I purposely avoided walking with them in demonstrations.
Antifa is way too small to pose any threat to civil liberties. They believe that they are in a repeat of the pre Nazi Germany years when the Communists and the Nazis had street battles. Thus, they see violence as necessary to battle fascism. But they are not there to fight just anyone, they are there to fight those whom they consider to be fascists or fascist supporters. Other than that, they might practice some destruction of property during events. I am sure if they have on the events I went to because I had left those events early.
But there are other groups that believe that violence is necessary to install needed change in, or overthrow of, the system. I have run into some Stalinists who also believe that they can change things through violence. In 2017, the ADL release reports that stated that right-wing terrorist groups had conducted 150 acts of terrorism in the past 25 years (see https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-report-exposes-right-wing-terrorism-threat-in-the-us ). Odd that while reporting on the use of violence to stifle rights, that that wasn't mentioned.
Black Bloc was a group that we in Occupy were concerned about. Since we were anti-violence, we didn't want them to participate with us. And before Black Bloc, there were anarchists who wore facial coverings to hide their identities not because of the violence they would sometimes practice, but because they were sometimes harassed or attacked after returning from protests. One can learn these things just by asking questions while in public places.
BTW, there are 3 more things to mention here. The FBI has found no evidence linking to the unrest in the current protests over the murder of George Floyd to Antifa (see https://www.ajc.com/news/fbi-finds-evidence-antifa-involvement-national-unrest/qVI3U9wb8Q6u1QEvVsJ7AJ/ ). I would not expect any violence from them in this setting. Also, some of the violence and destruction of property is being practiced by right-wing groups or individuals who want to sabotage the protests. That is some of the violence and destruction, not all. Finally, people who are concerned about passing on reliable information should check the factual reporting ratings of their source. The following link provides such a rating for Project Veritas (see https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/project-veritas/ ).
Finally, for a group to pose an emerging threat, it has to have a sufficient number of members. That has been the problem with Antifa, Black Bloc, and the anarchists. Their numbers are way to small, and have always been that way since I have been an activist. So I would not describe them as an emerging threat to our civil liberties at this time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 5
To R. Scott Clark and his short blogpost that gives a list of references on social justice and racism. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Though there are enough significant criticisms to be made about the set resources on racism referenced above, perhaps one of the most the telling weaknesses of the set of references above is that none of the resources dealing with race come from anyone who suffers as a victim of racism. And that is despite the acknowledgment made in one of the articles that those of us who are white don't experience racism while those who are Black do.
In essence, one of the weaknesses of the set of above resources on racism is that it is like a priest who provides marriage counseling. How is it that a person who has never experienced racism as a victim can tell us enough about racism to know how to properly think about and respond to it? Here we see that theology enables him to do so. And thus, we see one of the purposes of theology to some Christian teachers. That purpose is to give them a seat of honor above and a position of influencing others. Hopefully that isn't the case here.
No comments:
Post a Comment