Oct 28
To R. Scott Clark and Tim Sandefurr on Clark’s blogpost that quotes and article from Sandefur stating that the 1619 Project was dead because it missed the idea that freedom was the core of America’s founding. This appeared in Heidelblog.
Sandefur’s article is
https://thedispatch.com/p/the-1619-project-an-autopsy
The 1619 Project didn't get the facts wrong, but it did partially misinterpret some of the facts in an effort to emphasize the role that slavery and white supremacy played in the founding of our nation. While King is quoted above about America's promissory note, he and others spoke of two Americas. King noted that there is an America that enjoys prosperity and an America that is ruled by poverty. Thus, to quote King and say that freedom is the single element that makes America, America is to ignore not only our history and the current situation, it is to ignore what King saw in America. In one speech King said the following about the 2 Americas (see https://billmoyers.com/2013/04/10/dr-kings-two-americas-truer-now-than-ever/ ):
“There are literally two Americas. One America is beautiful for situation. And in a sense this America is overflowing with the milk of prosperity and the honey of opportunity. This America is the habitat of millions of people who have food and material necessities for their bodies, and culture and education for their minds; and freedom and dignity for their spirits…
“…Tragically and unfortunately, there is another America. This other America has a daily ugliness about it that constantly transforms the buoyancy of hope into the fatigue of despair. In this America millions of work-starved men walk the streets daily in search for jobs that do not exist. In this America millions of people find themselves living in rat-infected vermin-filled slums. In this America people are poor by the millions. They find themselves perishing on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity.”
The racial divide that has always been a part of America points to 2 Americas along a racial divide. From slavery to Jim Crow to now, we see an America whose history is replete with systemic racism. That is because America is built on white supremacy, something that even found its way in our Constitution.
Of course challenging the self-flattery of the Conservative view of America and its past challenges the credentials that Authoritarian Conservatives have assigned to our nation's founding fathers. Like all of us, our nation's founding fathers have mixed records of nobility and sin. But Authoritarian Conservatives want to overstate their nobility while minimizing the atrocities they committed--yes, owning slaves is an atrocity.
As for the 1619 Project, its only fault was that of applying reductionism to American history in trying to recognize how important a role slavery played in the founding of our nation. For while the 1619 Project initially stated that America was founded solely on slavery, in reality, slavery played a major role in America's founding along with some other issues. There were several parts that make up the core of the founding of America and slavery and white supremacy were parts of that core. Thus, the 1619 Project was wrong because it overstated its case about slavery and America. Thus, to totally reject what the 1619 Project claims is the flip side of the coin of believing everything that the 1619 Project initially said. Just like our nation's founding fathers had mixed records of being right and practicing sin against others, so to the 1619 Project is a mixed bag that has important contributions to make in understanding America while also containing some major flaws.
But such a review of the 1619 Project is difficult for Authoritarian Conservatives to accept because part of being authoritarian is that one tends to view the world as being black or white.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 29
To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that quotes and article by Ryan T. Anderson which lists alleged negative repercussions that the Equality Act could have on the religious liberty of religiously conservative Christians. This appeared in the Heidelblog
Anderson’s article:
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/05/07/nancy-pelosis-equality-act-would-undo-trumps-most-significant-achievements/
Even though the right to an elective abortion was about equality, to tie that with the Equality Act neglects the fact that the Act is about discrimination, not abortion per se. The Act is about reversing the long history of discrimination and even persecution of those from the LGBT community in and by this nation.
If there is a tie between the Equality Act and abortion, then the evangelical shame is to fail to recognize the legitimate parts of the Equality Act which acknowledges and opposes the discrimination and persecution of the LGBT community in this nation. How is it against religious liberty to so recognize, and then denounce, that discrimination and persecution? It is a shame not to recognize and try to reverse that discrimination and persecution while opposing whatever advantage that the Act gives to the access to elective abortion.
The opposition to the Equality Act isn't about religious liberty, it is about defending the privilege of a subset of those in the Christian religion. And the privilege being sought, for the most part, is that of the right to marginalize those from the LGBT community. We should note that the difference between privilege and liberty is the absence of equality in the former. Where there is equality, there is no privilege. Where there is no equality, difference become privilege for some and marginalization for others.
Finally, regarding bathroom and locker room situations, perhaps the fault lies with the Christian community here. Some Native American tribes recognized up to 3 or 4 genders. They recognized men who were more feminine in their interests and pursuits and women who were more masculine in their interests and pursuits. And perhaps our insistence on recognizing only 2 genders forces those who don't identify the biological sex of their birth to choose the only remaining option: the gender of the opposite sex.
Remember here that we are talking about society, not the Church. That because the Church cannot and must not recognize or acknowledge one's freedom to identify as the gender that does not match the sex they were born with or do the same with those whose sexual orientation is for members of the same sex, doesn't mean that the Church should require society to follow suit. Otherwise, the Church is demanding religious privilege for itself and marginalization for those who hold to different religiously based views of sexual orientation and gender identification.
No comments:
Post a Comment