Another Attack On CRT

 Unless you're a religiously conservative Christian, disagreement or a lack of conformity is not considered an attack. But when the disagreement goes beyond a difference of opinion into attempts to silence someone or some group, then we have an attack. And that is what we have a review of CRT by a group called Independent Women's Voice. (click here for their page on CRT).

Their review of CRT follows in the same vein that religiously conservative Christians practice when reviewing secular theories and ideologies that they find offensive. That kind of review paints a picture of their target, in this case CRT, in black-white terms suggesting, if not implying that their target has either no redeemable qualities or qualities that are better learned from religiously conservative Christian sources. 

The Independent Women's Voice gives a completely negative review of CRT. We could compare that kind of review with the kind of review that Martin Luther King Jr. gave to Marxism/Soviet Union Communism in his book Stride Toward Freedom (click here for the chapter of the book on Pilgrimage to Nonviolence). There, on page 92-95, Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of Marxism/Soviet Union Communism, King, unfortunately he seemed to have conflated the two, described it as evil and listed a few key disagreements he had with it. At the same time, he followed William Temple's, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, assessment that Marxism/Soviet Union Communism was a Christian heresy. They called it that because Marxism/Soviet Union Communism both contained some essential Christian concerns for justice with views that were antithetical to Christianity. King concluded that what we need is a hybrid approach to our political and economic system that incorporates both Marxism/Soviet Union Communism with Capitalism. 

The point being here is that while King saw some good in what he considered to be evil, the Independent Women's Voice review saw CRT in almost complete negative terms and as having nothing to contribute to our nation's struggle with racism. And thus, CRT should not be a part of any school program. This black-white view of things which many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are employing is also part and parcel to authoritarian approaches

The Independent Women's Voice group gave several reasons for why CRT is totally wrong enough to be excluded from schools. The initial reasons given include that CRT is divisive, unpatriotic because it teaches that America was founded on white supremacy, causes unnecessary despair, and runs counter to our nation's motto of 'out of one, many.' But what is missing in those objections is the most important issue about CRT. That most important issue is the degree of accuracy by which CRT describes how many Blacks experience racism in our nation. If that its degree of accuracy is high, then these objections fall to the wayside. And so what we are seeing here is a conservative implementation of Post Modernism's outcome-based truth system. That system dictates that if the outcome is undesirable, then the premise(s) associated, whether by accident or not, with that outcome are deemed to be false.

Here we should note that CRT is emerged from Critical Legal Studies (CLS). Though it has some carry over from CLS, it is significantly different from CLS. And CRT is decades old and comes from serious studies in both law and other areas of life such as police enforcement, the judicial system, voting, employment and economics, the environment, political system, and so on. The basic thrust of CRT's message is that how Blacks have experienced racism in this nation is so unique to them that the term racism has been redefined to include personal racial prejudice, racism practiced by our nation's institutions, and in society in general. Thus racism in the U.S. is personal prejudice + both institutional and social power.

The Independent Women's Voice webpage emphasizes how CRT ventures off the beaten path of the Civil Rights Movement from the past and especially from what Martin Luther King Jr taught. What does this webpage review of CRT say about what the Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King Jr. stood for? The Independent Women's Voice webpage said the following:

1. The movement was based on equal opportunity and equal treatment regardless of race
2. Martin Luther King Jr. understood that America was born out of liberty, not racism, and that the time had come that our nation start to fulfill its promises. Also that America was not an inherently racist nation.
3. The Civil Rights Movement was Patriotic by following through with what the Declaration of Independence said that 'all men are created equal.' And so CRT is not the continuation of the Civil Rights Movement.

So at the heart of the issue here is our history and what role racism played and is still playing because of the past. What is also important is what the Civil Rights Movement stood for.

We should note here the distinction between theory and practice. Yes, we have the words of the Declaration of Independence and Amendments from The Constitution. But how close was our practice to those proclaimed principles? For the greater the difference between our practice and our  principles, then it seems to follow that we should judge ourselves by our practices more than our stated principles.

Here we should note that initially the American definition of citizen follows closer to what Aristotle wrote than any other model of thought (click here for the source).  According to Aristotle, participatory citizenship was meant only for men who were not resident aliens or slaves. Aristotle also believed that certain people were slaves by nature.

Compare that with naturalization laws of 1790 and 1795 where citizenship was reserved for only free white people who lived in the jurisdiction of the U.S. for a certain period of time, showed good character and swore allegiance to The Constitution. However, women could not not vote and were not independent citizens until the 1920s. Thus, neither Blacks nor Native Americans could become citizens when this nation was founded. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment when Blacks could become citizens and it wasn't until 1924 that Native Americans could become citizens.

And so when we consider whether this nation was founded on white supremacy or whether our nation was founded on liberty and equality, what does our past say? We should add to the laws regulating citizenship our history of slavery, and Jim Crow laws and culture to answer the question. And we should also ask if it is unpatriotic or simply historical to answer the question by saying that America was founded on white supremacy.

We should note that the patriotism of America's Civil Rights Movement should be qualified if not questioned. Why? For one thing, the American Civil Rights Movement was not a monolithic group defined by Martin Luther King Jr and the SCLC. It included groups like the Black Panthers, groups that called for Black Nationalism, some who called for violence, as well as those groups that peacefully worked for civil rights.

In addition, we could also question whether the patriotism of Martin Luther King Jr. matches the patriotism expressed by this webpage. For  King said the following

1. The U.S. government was 'the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today' (click here for the source). We should note the other criticisms that King had of U.S. policies there.
2. Martin Luther King Jr. said that Blacks have had a tougher time struggling for equality than other immigrant groups because of how, from the very beginning, they were objectified, brought here under inhuman conditions,  used as slaves and stigmatized because of their color. That no other ethnic group was used as slaves in in the U.S. (click here for the source, advance to the answer to the question at around 13:48 of the interview). We should note the other things said by King in that interview including his supportive comments about those young black activists of his time who were rejecting the bourgeois values of White America.
3. We could also add King's criticisms of Capitalism and partial agreement with Marxism/Communism found in King's Stride Toward Freedom, which was previously cited.

Yes, progress has been made and this has been admitted to by CRT teachers and promoters, but we still have systemic racism  in the nation. At least that is what CRT teachers and promoters are saying. And they base than on the racism practiced in the areas of life already mentioned before.

In addition, we should add another point about the Independent Women's Voice webpage that challenges the connections between CRT and the work of King and the Civil Rights Movement. In his interview that was previously cited, King states that his earlier work, which consisted of working for desegregation and the Voting and Civil Rights Acts, were struggles for dignity. He was then, in May of 1967, turning his attention toward achieving 'genuine equality' in the U.S. And by that he was referring to outcomes including economic ones. The measuring the presence of racism by the lack in the equality of outcomes was referred to by Kimberlé Crenshaw in her article on race the valid use of anti-discrimination laws (click here for the article). Or we could go to the writings of Anthony Cook on Martin Luther King Jr. 

Will stop here rather than go through the whole webpage. Hopefully I fairly represented the gist of what the webpage was about. Also, I hopefully showed where the webpage seems to be out of touch with the history and character of the U.S., CRT, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Civil Rights Movement. But that is for you to decide should you venture to read through or listen to the resources provided.

Do Critics Of CRT Always Know What They Are Talking About?

 Christopher Rufo (click here for a bio) has put his two cents into the collection plate of anti-CRT articles. His name has appeared in a blog article here before when I wrote on a story about Disney. Chris Rufo had provide short film clips from Disney executives that tried to support the writer's contention about Disney and what they were trying to do to children. Anyway, Rufo is an activist and he directs documentary films and that is worth noting considering what will be pointed out here in the article being reviewed.

Last year, Rufo wrote an article criticizing CRT which was posted on the Hillsdale College website. In that article, Rufo both refuted CRT and gave advice on how to oppose it (click here for the article). And considering Rufo's resume on directing documentary films and his positions at conservative think-tank organizations, his article has some significant errors.

The basic thrust of Rufo's article is that because CRT is a Marxist venture, it is out to destroy Capitalism and the American way of life and thus it must not only be rejected, but vigorously opposed. Rufo cites some examples of life-as-we-know-it-threaten proposals made by CRT proponents. He first claims that Cheryl Harris has called for 'suspending private property rights, seizing land and wealth and redistributing them along racial lines.' Rufo doesn't provide the source for his claim here. The statement might refer to statements made in a Harvard article written by Harris called Whiteness As Property. In that article, Harris refers to Whiteness of property because of the expected value in terms of how one will be treated.¹ We should note that Marx addressed property the way he did because of the power that property gave the person who who owned it. I didn't see Rufo's claim verified though she did talk about 'distributive justice.' In talking about distributive justice, she said the following (click here for the source):

Distributive justice as a matter of equal protection requires that individuals receive that share of the benefits they would have secured in the absence of racism.

At least one conservative reacted to this statement as being in favor of black superiority. But later on in the Harvard article, Harris also wrote that she has not intention of promoting black superiority. In fact, she sees Affirmative Action as being based on 'antisubordination' (click here for the same source as above).

Rufo also claims that Ibram X. Kendi's has called for some new independent department that would have the power to eliminate any law from any level of government and curb the speech of political leaders according to anti-racist guidelines. And that such a department would not be accountable to the voters. Again, Rufo provides no source that would give evidence to his claim. Rufo's description of Kendi's idea wrongly adds much to what Kendi was proposing (click here). Kendi claims that his concept of of a department that would evaluate legislation would benefit people of all races, not just blacks (click here). In addition, Kendi compared the kind of work that he wants this department to do with what the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) does. Here we should note that the CBO acts in an advisory role only. Finally, the creation of the kind of department that Rufo says Kendi wants is Constitutionally impossible without revising The Constitution. Revising The Constitution is not a quick and easy job.

Rufo also mentions Kendi's opposition to Capitalism. But Rufo doesn't mention why Kendi oppose Capitalism. Kendi's reason can be found in an interview he took part in with hosts from the Democracy Now program (click here for the source and proceed to the 13:40 mark). He states that from the beginning of America's history, Capitalism and racism have been so intertwined that they have become inseparable. And while Rufo focuses on Kendi's view of Capitalism, he forgets some of what Martin Luther King Jr. said about Marxism and Capitalism as well as how King saw racism and economic exploitation as being inseparable (click here, start with pg 92, and there, forward to the 21:04 mark of the interview ). And certainly, the history of Capitalism in our nation is replete with instances of economic exploitation.

Rufo continues with his warnings by claiming that CRT is calling for Marxist revolutionary changes in America that would violate what we have become accustomed to here such as equality under the law, individual rights, freedom of speech, and federalism. But one has to ask Rufo if opposing what CRT wants to do implies that systemic racism no longer exists in America. That point will be addressed later.

Rufo then attempts to describe  how CRT will accomplish its goals. But to do so, he has already identified from where CRT came. Rufo claims that CRT comes from Marxism and started in the 1990s. And though he doesn't say 'Marxism alone,' he mentions not other source for CRT. 

But there are problem with Rufo's description of CRT's origins. First, CRT started in 1989, if not earlier as will be referenced later (click here) and emerged from Critical Legal Studies (CLS). CLS did have its roots in Neo-Marxism via Critical Theory. But CRT has differences with CLS. In addition, it can be very well viewed as a continuation of the work started by the Civil Rights Movement especially the part that was under the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. Rufo neglects this fact.

Evidence of the ties between CRT and the work of Martin Luther King Jr. can be seen in the works of Anthony Cook and Kimberlé Crenshaw. While Cook writes explicitly about King and what he sought to do, A Crenshaw 1988 article criticizes Critical Legal Studies, from which CRT emerged, and Reagan's colorblind approach to addressing racism².  Reagan and the conservative approach to racism had declared that the legal battle against racism ended in the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. And thus, the conservative battle against racism could only be seen in the confrontation of racism practiced by individuals.

In the 1967 King video previously cited, King spoke about his earlier work as being a struggle for dignity. Then King went on to say that the struggle he and others are involved in are now addressing 'genuine equality' (go to the 12:30 mark of that video). And what King had in mind there was for economic equality between blacks and whites which stands in sharp contrast to the decades-long growing wealth disparity both between the races and between the classes. In her article, Crenshaw contrasts the Reagan's colorblind approach that revolves around 'equality as process' vs. 'equality as result.'  Crenshaw's view was that without equality as result, there is not proof of equality as process. 

In addition, the Reagan and conservative view assumed that structural racism ended with the passing of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of the mid 1960s. The racist practices that continued after the passing of the Civil and Voting Rights Acts include Redlining, racial disparity practiced by law enforcement and seen in the Judicial System (see Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow), environmental racism (click here),  racial discrimination in employment, and voter restriction laws that affect black voters more than white voters. And, btw, I know that I am leaving out some other areas in which structural racism is practiced.

I could continue with Rufo's article but there are a few main observations to make. First, Rufo's descriptions of both Marxism and CRT portray both as monoliths. Rufo does not acknowledge what Dr. Robert Romero has pointed out is that CRT has branched out with different teachings in CRT which sometimes conflict with other teachings. In addition, CRT did not emerge in a centralized way. Rather it is a 'diverse field' of study that looks at the role racism played in the development of US laws and policies. In addition, Romero gives specific examples of how Christian faith influenced CRT (click here for source). Then again, we should remember that CRT is, in part, a continuation of the work of Martin Luther King Jr. which points to another example of Christian faith influencing CRT.

Likewise, Rufo's describes Marxism as if it was monolithic goes against history and the present. Rufo describes Marx as believing in revolution to solve the oppression of workers by the bourgeoisie. He also seems to think that the regimes in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, China, and Cuba give a whole picture of what Marxism in practice was all about. 

We should note that not all socialists have promoted revolution. For example, when the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks met in a soviet, or committee, meeting, the Mensheviks walked out in protest against the Bolshevik desire for revolution because Mensheviks were stagists. That is that the change of Russia's economy back then should be gradual. Members of other socialist parties in Russia walked out of the Duma, Russia's legislative body, in protest against the coup that Lenin and the Bolsheviks had orchestrated. And for some who initially supported the Bolshevik take over of the government, there were the Kronstadt sailors who  later on fought the Bolsheviks, some to their death, because the Bolsheviks did not return power to the people.

What Lenin and the Bolsheviks created and was imitated by others was challenged by some other Marxists. For example, Rosa Luxemburg described Lenin's regime as a bourgeois dictatorship rather than a proletariat dictatorship (click here for the source). She said that not because of any participation by Russian capitalists. She said that because Lenin's regime was organized in a top-down fashion used by the bourgeoisie in their businesses. The proletariat dictatorship would employ a bottom-up organization. We should note here that Luxemburg did cut Lenin some slack because of the fighting that was occurring at that time. But it shows that Lenin's regime was not as Marxist as many supposed. And that would put other so called Marxist regimes in question.

We should also note that Lenin denigrated Marxist Leftists who challenged him by calling them 'infantile.' And so there was a division between how Lenin ruled and what those Marxists on the Left believed. 

We should also note some else about Marx especially regarding his insistence on the abolition of private property (click here for the source):

Is not private property abolished in idea if the non-property owner has become the legislator for the property owner? The property qualification for the suffrage is the last political form of giving recognition to private property.

Nevertheless, the political annulment of private property not only fails to abolish private property but even presupposes it. The state abolishes, in its own way, distinctions of birth, social rank, education, occupation, when it declares that birth, social rank, education, occupation, are non-political distinctions, when it proclaims, without regard to these distinction, that every member of the nation is an equal participant in national sovereignty, when it treats all elements of the real life of the nation from the standpoint of the state. 

The monolithic way that Rufo has portrayed Marxism and CRT could never account for the above alternative way that Marx described how the abolition of private property could work because the only way he has seen such an abolition implemented is through what was done in the Soviet Union, China, and so on. Also, Rufo may not see the goal in Marx's proposed abolition of private property. The purpose of Marx's proposed abolition of private properties was not to expand the powers of the state. Rather, it was to level the playing field for non-property owners with all property owners so that there is equality between them. That is because Marx so strongly associated property with political power.

Today, Marxists are still made up from a diverse group with some emphasizing political ideology while others promoted workers control of production. 

Also, while Rufo noted that the Marxist dream of workers taking control over industry did not materialize, he overlooks the violent history America's labor unions and how they gained certain employment rights and benefits for their workers against the strong wishes and actions of their employers. Some of those unions leaned very heavily toward the Left. The violence often was initiated by owners used proxies or the police forces to silence unions, especially their leaders.

Besides his monolithic portrayals of CRT and Marxism, Rufo overlooks a vital part of CRT. Rufo fails to consider whether CRT adequately describes how blacks experience racism. Part of his failure is because Rufo so concentrated on some solutions proposed by CRT proponents. But it might also be because Rufo seems to have the conservative view of racism in America. That view says that the Civil Rights Movement ended all systemic racism in the US by the mid 1960s. That doesn't mean that conservative believe that racism is dead here. It just means that they believe that racism exists on an individual basis only.

What CRT does is to redefine racism according to how it is experienced by many blacks. So the value of CRT should first be measured in how well it describes black experience with racism in this nation. While whites might experience racism in terms of personal prejudice, CRT claims that blacks experience racism through both personal prejudice and by society because of the systemic racism still exists in our nation. Some of the writings of Tim Keller, a conservative minister and leader from the Reformed tradition, acknowledges the existence of systemic racism. And he does that even though he is not a fan of CRT.

The fact that there are religiously conservative Christians who recognize the systemic racism that still exists in our nation with some of them, such as Jemar Tisby, Robert Romero and some of the people Romero mentioned in a video previously cited shows that the battle over CRT should not be fought over religious lines lest Christians take verbal aim at fellow believers for whom Christ died. This recognition that there are Christians who recognize the contributions of CRT as well as those, like Rufo, who totally oppose even the existence of CRT goes against what seems to be an unspoken assumption by Rufo about the relationship between Christianity and CRT. Rufo's beliefs about racism in this nation seems to be in agreement what the Reagan Administration and conservatives like Thomas Sowell believe.

And perhaps because of Rufo's beliefs about the current state of racism here, he has failed to adequately portray CRT, which he seems to regard as an enemy of the US,  But we might want to ask Rufo and other conservatives about the state of racism in our nation prior to what he believes was its eradication here. For even here, there seems to be a wide disparity between what Rufo acknowledges by his focus on slavery and CRT's claim about the profundity and pervasiveness of the belief in white supremacy by many Americans which existed since the European settling of this nation. An example of that disparity can be found in Rufo's failure to mention the plight of Native Americans when discussing CRT. Some of the CRT promoters I've read also include how white supremacy affected the lives of Native Americans.

We should make one other point here. Toward the end of the article, Rufo seems to brag about his efforts to silence CRT and stop it from being taught in various places like at the workplace and at schools. He says that he does that in part to defend free speech. How ironic.

References

    1.    Whiteness As Property, by Cheryl Harris, from a Harvard Article, Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement, pg 276-291, The New Press, 1995.

    2.    Race, Reform, And Retrenchment: Transformation And Legitimation In Anti-Discrimination Law, by Kimberlé Crenshaw, Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed The Movement, pg 103-122, The New Press, 1995.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 22, 2022

 Around June 16

To Bruce Frohnen and his article on what a true patriot, or conservative patriot, such as Edmund Burke is like. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

There is more than one way to define what a conservative is. One way is to consider the context of location and ideology of a given individual. But such a context makes the definition of a conservative a floating definition. What is a conservative in the US was not what a conservative was in the Soviet Union. And what is a conservative capitalist is not a conservative Marxist. Thus, from this perspective, the often used distinction between conservatives and progressives fails us not just because what is a conservative and what is a progressive are contextually defined, but also because the contextual basis for the definition of a conservative ensures that neither conservatives nor progressives are monoliths.

Another approach to defining what a conservative is is to describe what one would call the ideal person and then call that person a conservative. That seems to be the approach used above. For how ideal is the person who can decipher what we should conserve from the past and what we should change. The problem is that we are all trying to preserve what we value from the past and to change what we think needs to be changed. But such does not make us all conservatives.

A similar problem exists when it comes time to the definition of a 'patriot.' The love of one's own nation is identified as part of patriotism and, just by that alone, it is easy to see how patriotism can become the opiate of nationalism. So Frohnen distinguishes between a 'true' patriot from a 'false' one. Of course, the ideal version of a patriot is the true patriot and, in this article, is embodied by Edmund Burke. And so one gets the impression that definitions are being crafted for the benefit of a message.

So then the article tries to define a conservative  and a true patriot by using broader or absolute standards such as those provided by Natural Law and Western Civilization. So-and-so is a conservative because they promote the following of Natural Law. Such is appealing when using an assumed universal definition of Natural Law. The problem is that Natural Law means something different to different people. Hitler believed that nature teaches us the survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism has its own either deliberate or default mode of survival of the fittest in a Capitalistic nation in order to prevent big government and to cut the social responsibilities of companies to society. The result is that people are more likely to be left to either fend for themselves or hope that a private charity group will help them. T

o those in the LGBT community, the same-sex behavior seen in hundreds of if not over one thousand species is proof that homosexuality does not go against Natural Law.  

And what about using one's work to continue Western Civilization, which includes Christianity, common law, and constitutionalism? Does a true patriot and conservative then promote practices and beliefs that break with what was promoted and used in Western Civilization? And while Frohnen's hero of the article, Edmund Burke, objected to Britain's imperialism, much of Western Civilization involves European imperialism including the colonization of the Western Hemisphere. With imperialism being so much a part of Western Civilization, how is it that remaining true to Western Civilization makes one a true patriot.

We live in a multiethnic, multicultural, multireligious society. So how does Frohnen's idea of a true patriot, which includes the Christian version of Natural Law along with the task of preserving Western Civilization, which is basically white,  work without being oppressive to some who have a different understanding of Natural Law and come from a civilization other than Western Civilization? After all, according to Frohnen, we should be willing to fight and die for the universal principles that our Christian, European heritage has provided.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 17

To Heidelblog and Jon Payne for the part of Payne's article quoted by a Heidelblog post about Christians who agree with parts of theories like CRT, Critical Theory, and Intersectionality. The quote and the article presents these Christians in a very negative light. This post appeared in Heidelblog.

Jon Payne's complete article is linked to below:

    https://gospelreformation.net/the-courage-to-be-presbyterian/

What is really apparent among some religiously conservative Christian leaders, especially those who are from the Reformed Tradition, is this. Their black-white view of Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, Marxism, Intersectionality, and other views is demonstrated by the pejorative labels and descriptions they give to these views so that they implied that Christians can't hold to any significant portion of those views without compromising their faith. 

In so doing, these leaders act as if they have everything to teach creators and promoters of those theories and nothing to learn from them. Such a view is arrogant and that arrogance runs contrary to God's Word. In addition, their black-white views indicate that they have embraced authoritarianism. That is also demonstrated by how they speak with and about other fellow believers and religiously conservative Christian leaders. That kind of authoritarianism is the kind that can enable people to either follow abusive leaders or be those kind of leaders themselves. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 18

To R. Scott Clark and his article imploring Christians to be involved in politics as individual Christians in order to oppose non-conservative political agendas. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The above article moved me to want to be involved in politics. That is that the above article is promoting bigotry and discrimination against the LGBT community in the name of Christ. It is not enough for Clark that the Church, rightfully, calls those in the LGBT community to repentance in our evangelism. Now, employers should be free to look at those in the LGBT community and assume that they are not fit to represent their businesses as employees.

What is so radical about demanding that those in the LGBT community be treated as equals in society? During Jim Crow, those who worked to promote full equality for Blacks were called 'radicals,' 'agitators,' 'communists,' and 'troublemakers. Are we seeing a repeat here?

While many religiously conservative Christians, particularly those who follow the Anabaptist tradition, want to shun politics, others, like Clark, as evidenced in the above article, want Christians to be involved in politics in order to send the LGBT community back to the margins of society. At least that is one of the reasons Clark wants Christians to be involved in society. The apparent irony is that Clark, a 2Ker, wants Christians to promote at least a partial return to Christendom..

Of course what is left off of Clark's agenda listed above is war, militarism, guns, poverty, economic exploitation, and climate change to name a few issues. What is suggested then is that God's Word clearly stated that we should have laws that address Christian sensitivity and fear of a growing LGBT influence but it is silent on other issues.

The above is nothing more than a call for Christians to support the kind of right-wing political views held by Clark and others. Non right-wing views are demonized in the above article. When will Clark realize that he has partially conflated the midwest political views he grew up with with his Christian faith? When will Clark realize that he is no longer supporter of democracy, but rather a supporter of some level of Christian control over society?

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For June 15, 2022

 June 3

To Heidelblog and Scott R. Swain for Heidelblog's partial quoting of Swain's article on the importance that tradition plays to faith. This was posted in Heidelblog.

Swain's original article can be found at:

    https://www.scottrswain.com/2022/05/12/on-tradition/

We want the transmission of the faith to be relevant without changing the core of the faith. The question is, where do we get that core from?

Certainly the Scriptures are our first and ultimate source. But traditions can be helpful provided that they are not put on too high a pedestal and that we understand where our traditions might be more influenced by the times and culture of those whose writing became our traditions than on the Scriptures.

For us Reformed people, we have to acknowledge that there are parts of our traditions that carry different priorities. For example, what our traditions describe the Godhead and soteriology are more important to pay attention to than what the parts of those traditions that talk about how we relate to society or each other. For if we put all of the parts of our traditions on the same footing, either we will easily compromise the most basic and essential parts of our traditions or we risk putting our traditions on such a high pedestal that they compete with the Scriptures for importance. And if we rely too much on our traditions to understand the Scriptures, the Scriptures themselves become subject to the man-made canon of our traditions. 

One other point should be made here. If we put too much emphasis on our traditions, and thus putting them on too high a pedestal, we will  fall prey to an authoritarianism that makes us vulnerable to relying too much on human authorities rather than properly submitting to the authority structures God has placed over us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 7

To R. Scott Clark and his article that tries to partially criticize winsomeness in discussions about the faith. Here, winsomeness is called a synonym of being nice. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Authoritarians don't like to be nice, neither do those who lack self-control. Donald Trump is an epitome of anti-winsomeness, but one doesn't have to be a Trump to cross the line in how we respond to people. Here we are not talking about watering down the truths we confess, we are talking about how we confess those truths before others.

In Galatians 6, Paul tells us to be gentle in how we correct fellow believers who have fallen into sin. One reason for being gentle is that we too could easily fall into sin. And if we are called to be gentle with those who have fallen into sin, how is it that we have the license to be aggressive with or even hostile toward those in our Christian intramural debates or in defending what we believe before unbelievers? After all, gentleness and self-control are part of the fruit of the Spirit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 8

To Heidelblog and Carl Trueman for the Heidelblog post that quotes a part of Trueman's article that speaks against Pride Month for the LGBT community. Thie appeared in Heidelblog.

Carl Trueman's full article can be found at:

    https://wng.org/opinions/welcome-to-pride-month-christian-1654083759

When, in the article cited, Trueman wants to separate what the government allows people to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms from Pride month, he is forgetting 1 facet of marginalization: that which is practiced by society.

Pride Month is, in part, about equality for those in the LGBT community in society. So if the state doesn't criminalize the LGBT community but society is free to punish those from the LGBT community, what has been gained by the LGBT community? In fact, isn't this part of the objections to the legalization of same-sex marriage by many fellow religiously conservative Christianas? That if same-sex marriage is legal, then it is regarded, in society, as being equal to heterosexual marriage.

Should Christians participate in Pride Month? I don't believe so. That is because we shouldn't be celebrating sin. But should we agree with the need for the public recognition of Pride Month? Yes, that is if we believe that those in the LGBT community should enjoy full equality in society. And we can't separate the issue of full equality from Pride Month though Pride Month says more than that.

It's odd that Trueman's article favorably compares opposition to racism with opposing Pride Month. After all, the former opposes bigotry while the latter celebrates and promotes bigotry.

We need neither the state nor society to confront the LGBT community. Rather, the preaching of the Gospel and Church discipline for those who persist in sexual immorality is all we need in speaking against the sins practiced by the LGBT community. For us to enlist society or the state to further challenge the LGBT community will not only display a presumption of self-righteousness on our part, it will cause those in the LGBT community, and perhaps others, to see the Church's oppression before they hear the Church's evangelism.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 11

To the Heidelblog and Aaron Rent for Reno's article that was partially quoted in the Heidelblog post. In particular, the comment below addresses the title of this Heidelblog article. This post appeared in Heidelblog.

Aaron Reno's full article can be found at:

https://aaronrenn.substack.com/p/the-three-worlds-of-evangelicalism-7fc?s=w

Post Modernism has certainly led the charge in determining how Christianity is perceived in our nation today. But Post Modernism was not targeting Christianity per se as it was targeting all groups that claimed to have an exclusive possession of the truth. Also, Post Modernism's reaction was result based. Under Christianity, especially white,  religiously conservative Christianity, many groups had been sorely oppressed and marginalized in America. And that is a truth that we white religiously conservative Christianity has yet to come to full grips with both intellectually and emotionally. That Is why we have failed to adequately acknowledge and appreciate the fallible attempts by those promoting CRT, those in BLM, and those in LGBT community to tell us how we have, and still try to, oppressed and marginalize others. Since their attempts are fallible, they are wrong in some of the things they are saying. But the gist of what they are saying about us is correct.

Our, that is those who are white, religiously conservative Christians, marginalization is nothing compared with the marginalization that we put others through. And yet, we are very focused on our current state in society.  And we should note that that white, religiously conservative Christianity is not really marginalized in the whole nation like minorities and the LGBT community had been. There are large areas of the nation where such Christianity still holds sway.

Another way to express the last two paragraphs is that we white, religiously conservative Christians have been spoiled by the past so that we are tending to magnify and marginalization we are suffering today. And our magnification of our current marginalization is just another cause for us to lose credibility as witnesses for Christ.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 11

To Anthony Costello and his comment in response to a comment of mine about CRT. His comment appeared around June 10th This was part of the conversations that followed his article entitled "Whiteness" And The Splitting Of The Evangelical Mind. That appeared on the Theological Apologetics blog on Patheos.

Anthony,

I simply accommodated to your language. With some of the above, they denied the pandemic, such as a family member who denied it both before and after having Covid. So it doesn't matter got me which word is used. Not treating the pandemic as seriously as it should be costed lives.

I can't believe you asked the question about whether I have read any CRT. That is simply an attempt to discredit me here. How would know about ties between MLK and CRT without being familiar with both? Listen to the Xander Vanocur interview with MLK, which can be found on Youtube, as he made the distinction between his earlier of struggling for dignity and his latter work of struggling for real equality and then read Kimberlé Crenshaw on the equality of outcomes. Or read Anthony Cook on how MLK deconstructed the Christian support for Jim Crow. Or read Derrick Bell on the possibility of racial equality in today's America or Jayne Chong-Soon Lee as she challenges Kwayne Anthony Appiah's take on racism.

Not only that, the AME has determined to make social justice issues part of their sermons--btw, AME is the only African Methodist Church denomination I have found. And I didn't see any denunciation of CRT by that denomination. However, I did see an interesting quote from a Black leader of the Methodist Church regarding CRT (see https://um-insight.net/pers... ):

First and foremost, Critical Race Theory does not teach that ‘some students are inherently good, and others are inherently bad based on their outward appearance.’ Critical Race Theory takes a critical look at racial justice and the roots of racism in the United States. It focuses on systemic and institutional changes and challenges that lead to racism and seeks to uncover the hidden dynamics that have brought us to where we are in this country.

Contrary to promoting racism, as has been suggested, Critical Race Theory examines the role of race in our justice system and the complex interplay between race, and gender and its impact on minorities. Unfortunately, some groups have co-opted the term and twisted it to serve their own agendas. 

Here's the real problem, You're using a model of thought to deduce the extent to which CRT reflects how Blacks experience racism in this country without regard for the history and real life experiences of Blacks in this nation. And by your model of thought, you seem to have concluded that CRT does not reflect to any degree how Blacks have and still do experience racism in this nation.

And in your comments to me, you use name dropping to defend your case.

Your argument is not very sound. We religiously conservative Christian thinkers often are lured into a temptation that we can define anything in or out of existence through deduction.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 12

To Mark Malvasi and his article that criticizes Nikole Hannah-Jones's 1619 project. Malvasi attempts to steer a course that between Jones's 1619 Project and the vision of America held to by the Patriotic Right. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog. 

So Nicole Hannah-Jones's 1619 Project errs more in interpretation than in facts.  And Malvasi wishes to find a Goldilocks position between the approaches of both Jones and Zinn and that of the American Patriotic Right. And thus Malvasi is seeking to do more than just take an edge off of the historical approach taken by Jones and Zinn.

In trying to curb Jones's interpretation of history, he moves the date for when slavery and race became more of a focal point in the US. He also includes that it was Americans who freed the slaves in the Civil War. In addition, he contends that Jones's interpretation of history accounts for neither abolitionists nor the Civil Rights Movement.

But in all of that, Malvasi might just be a bit too selective with the facts. Race was an issue from the beginning of white America's history. After all, land was being forcibly taken from Native Americans almost from the beginning and captured Native Americans as well as Blacks were being traded as slaves by the Puritans in the latter part of the 1630s.

Yes, Americans freed the slaves in the Civil War. But they had to fight their fellow Americans to do so.

As for the Civil Rights Movement, the bulk of the key leaders from that movement were black, and so what was missing in Jones's description of America regarding that? And being an abolitionist did not imply that one believed in equality. In fact, many black abolitionists soon learned that many white abolitionists were still white supremacists.

And yes, America was not alone practicing slavery and promoting white supremacy. But America seems to have ended slavery later than many other nations did. And we are still battling the notion of white supremacy. While other nations eliminated slavery, the US followed slavery with Jim Crow.

Malvasi wants to select a Goldilocks position in talking about racism and slavery in the US. He wants a position that lies between Jones-Zinn and the American Patriotic right. But I have another suggestion. My suggestion is this, America should treat our past history and present practice of racism in the same way that we want Germany to treat its history of Nazism. To do so would indicate how seriously we are taking both our past and present racism. 

Of course the difference between the two situations is that America is still suffering from horrible problems with racism. Nazism has been relegated to being that of a fringe group in Germany today. Unfortunately, racism here is still too much in vogue.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blog For February 16, 2020

 Feb 8

To Chuck Chalberg and his article on CRT and what is dividing Americans. The comment is directed at only part of the article. The article appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog.

It seems to me that the logic employed by Chalberg in the above article is similar to the logic employed by Post Modernism. For whereas Post Modernism employed an outcome-based truth system to support its rejection of the metanarratives of both Pre Modernism, where the metanarrative is faith, and Modernism, where the metanarratives are science and reason, Chalberg rejects CRT because of what he believes the theory implies: America is a force for ill in the world. Such is assumed false by Chalberg. In addition, Chalberg's division of Americans, where they are divided between those who believe that America has been a force for good vs those who believe that America has been a force for ill illustrates a black-white worldview in that the position not considered is that America has been a force for both good and ill in the world.

It is understandable that American traditionalists, and religiously conservative Christian Americans have a strong tendency to be American traditionalists, would outrightly object to and oppose CRT. That is because such traditionalists have their significance closely bound to believing the best about their country. But how many of those conservative opponents to CRT understand racism from having experienced it as its victims.

It isn't that CRT is without errors. But it is that CRT attempts to describe racial oppression in America from the perspective of how many Blacks have  experienced that oppression. And yet, Chalberg's main concern here is that it describes America as a force for ill rather than for good.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 11

To W. Robert Godfrey and his recorded adult class lesson why Christendom has been replaced. This lesson eventually focuses on the influence Darwin's thinking had as it helped undo Christendom. This recording was posted on the Abounding Grace Radio webste.

This series by Godfrey is meant to calm the uneasiness that many of my fellow religiously conservative American Christians have over  the changes in our society. Our nation and society no longer have a Christian outlook, a.k.a.,  embracing Christendom, on the world. But what we religiously conservative Christians have been oblivious too or have too easily excused is the suffering that Christendom caused. That suffering rivals the suffering caused by Christendom's replacements. Here, we would do well to listen to a Post Modern critique. For Post Modernism had rejected those who make exclusive truth claims because of history, because of the feeling of entitlement that has enabled some to more easily commit atrocities.

While Godfrey reduces what Darwin taught to chance and survival of the fittest and neglects Darwin's concern for justice in this lesson, he claims that Christianity teaches us to love and care for the needy and to act justly. But is that what history tells us what Christians do? In addition, some unbelieving friends of mine criticize Christians for needing the threat of a punishing God to motivate them to love and help others.

Godfrey has an out for Christendom's failures. But he doesn't extend that same out to the unbelieving thinkers and non-Christian ideologies for their failures. Again, Post Modernism seems to have observed that Christendom does not differ from other influences and ideologies in terms of the abuses and atrocities they have caused. Perhaps we should not relish the 'good old days' of Christendom nor should we consider it a mystery why it has been replaced.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feb 12

To Chris Gordon and his article on the danger of drifting away from Jesus because of one's concern with worldly problems. This appeared in the Abounding Grace Radio website.

The above article needs balance for the sake of both Christians and unbelievers. When Dietrich Bonhoeffer visited a predominantly black church with a friend from seminary, he was deeply impressed with how the minister could talk about both the Gospel and worldly problems.  

Both worldly problems and the Gospel need to be preached on and thought about. Why? Well, in the church Bonhoeffer visited, our nation was in the middle of Jim Crow when whites could lynch blacks with impunity. And though the church that Bonhoeffer visited was not located in the Jim Crow region of the US, there was long-standing and harsh racial oppression of blacks everywhere, including the North. Racial oppression had to be preached on in that church because it was a very pressing problem for all of the members of the congregation. 

In white churches, thinking that the need to preach on or think about racial oppression was perceived to be not as great because most, if not all, of the people in those churches were not facing racial oppression.  But racial oppression needed to be preached about there just as much as in the black churches for a different reason. That reason being to warn the members of those churches not to contribute to or participate in the oppression of others.

We need the preaching of the Gospel and the preaching and thinking about worldly problems. That is because the Gospel is not there to provide an escape from worldly problems, but the strength to be faithful while living in the midst of those problems. For the oppressed, the Gospel is there to help them bear through the oppression. For the privileged, the Gospel is there to help them repent from contributing to or participating in the oppression of others as well as to extend help and mercy to the oppressed.

That last point is very significant to our sharing of the Gospel with unbelievers. for failure to understand how the Gospel  should help Christians as either the oppressed or the privileged has led some to discredit the Gospel and even persecute Christians for using the Gospel to escape the problems of the world. Consider the following quote from Vladimir Lenin:

Present-day society is wholly based on the exploitation of the vast masses of the working class by a tiny minority of the population, the class of the landowners and that of the capitalists. It is a slave society, since the “free” workers, who all their life work for the capitalists, are “entitled” only to such means of subsistence as are essential for the maintenance of slaves who produce profit, for the safeguarding and perpetuation of capitalist slavery...

Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze,   in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

Our our concern is not about choosing between preaching and thinking about the Gospel or preaching and thinking about worldly problems. Our concern here should be how to preach the Gospel so that, amongst other things, we can persevere through the problems of the world and hopefully bring others alongside with us.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For July 14, 2021

The comment below was blocked in its original form. Thanks to a hack, it was posted later. 

July 9

To Gene Veith and his blogpost on how Christianity is seeing an increase in adherents in the nation of Iran. At the end, the article states that the increasing influence of Christianity in Iran is a 'blow to Western Secularism.' This appears in the Cranach blog on Patheos.

What is the compulsion to make progress or set backs for Christianity as either a blow to or victory for Secularism? Why not allow for interpretations of the news that assumes a context of peaceful coexistence rather than for some kind of competition for control?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 13

To R.Scott Clark and his blogpost quote from an article by Jon Payne that stated that there is no room for compromise with Side B Christianity and CRT because they are unbiblical. This quote of Payne's article appeared in Heidelblog. 

Jon Payne's article, from which Clark's quote originally appeared in, can be found at: 

    https://gospelreformation.net/the-pcas-bright-future-without-a-bigger-tent/

"We mustn't make room for Side B or CRT"? Does that mean that those who believe to any significant degree in what Side B or CRT are saying must be excommunicated from the Church? That neither view has any truth in them? Is that what is behind that quote?  After all, to take that quote with any seriousness at all and to take what he says later in the article about how there can be 'no compromise,' Church discipline is required on those who advocate any part of either view. Otherwise, the Church could affirm the legitimacy of parts of Side B and CRT.

But my guess is that the PCA doesn't want to discipline those who advocate to any significant degree those questionable views. The conservatives in the PCA just wants marginalize those who advocate such views within the denomination. Perhaps it is out of hopes that such advocates would disappear from the denomination out of attrition. But certainly, this is a control issue. And though such fears are more understandable for the Side B view, such fears over CRT has more to do with what is and is not kosher with the PCA subculture than with the Bible. That subculture being a predominantly an American conservative political one. And that subculture view is more dominated by influences from European and our nation's founding fathers, and thus a white subculture view, than by the Scriptures.

We should note something about racism in the discussion of CRT. While most conservatives who reject CRT want racism to be defined in terms of what it means to them, most of whom are white, CRT defines racism in terms of what it means to the victims of racism. Thus, such a rejection shows a problem that those conservatives have with being self-absorbed. But such a reliance on the past also shows a continuity with the Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking  in Mark 7: those who relied on their traditions to understand the Word of God.

In short, the all-or-nothing approach to Side B and CRT is more out of the most pronounced weakness of conservatism: that they rely too much on the past, here I am excluding the Scriptures, to understand the and respond to the present. And in that sense, conservatives are against the notion of always reforming but are also in danger of associating unbiblical conservative subculture views too closely with the Scriptures.

A Turf War Attack On CRT

 It is as if religiously conservative Christianity was the Titanic and Critical Theories, in this case Critical Race Theory, were an iceberg. The Titanic has struck the iceberg and the captain and crew of the Titanic are trying to cut their losses, but the water keeps pouring in. In the end of the, in this case, podcast, rather than an article, what was a discussion that had positive contributions to make turned into a sinking ship.

On the April 21st Mortification of Spin podcast (click here), Carl Trueman (click here for a bio) and Todd Pruitt (click here for a bio) talk with Gerry McDermott (click here for a bio) about his new book, Race And Covenant (click here for link to the book).

Initially, their discussion concerns this book, which consists of a compilation of essays by some impressive scholars and others of different races about race and God's relationships with nations in general. Spoiler alert here, though the credentials of many of the contributors are impressive and they should be read, most if not all of the contributors have conservative roots and thus the book does not present a balanced approach to the issues of race and racism.

The basic tenet of McDermott's book is that God has a kind of covenant relationship with nations where He will reward those that do well and punish those that do evil. McDermott claims that God does not just interact with people as individuals, He interacts with collectives of people called nations.

That covenant relationship, however, is not like the relationship that God had with Old Testament Israel in that there is no formal written pact between God and any given nation. Rather, the covenant relationship that McDermott is referring to consists of the general principles that God rewards and punishes nations according to their works. And that God will hold every nation accountable.

In the Reformed world, such a concept is consistent with the Transformationalists who believe that the Church should be working to transform the world, including its cultures and its political structures, but not so much with those holding to 2 Kingdom Theology because they tend to believe that the Church, as an institution, should only be involved with preaching the Gospel and disciplining its members.

 An implication, which is explicitly stated in the podcast, that comes with McDermott's premise is that Christians should be aspiring to loftier goals for their nation than what unbelievers aspire to because God has these national covenant relationships with nations. In their discussion, they agreed that such aspirations do not imply the desire to install Theonomy with the kind of expectation that we are then safe from Christian political overreach. 

 If only that was the case. We don't live in a Black-White world where the only way Christians can try too hard to control government is to have the government respond to their concerns is with theonomy. Jeff Halper has provided insights on a helpful distinction between an ethnocracy and a democracy (click here). Though the term 'democracy' is not included in the link, Halper has defined it in terms of a state of being in his book, An Israeli In Palestine. He defines democracy there as where a given nation belongs to all of its citizens equally. An ethnocracy is where a given nation belongs to one particular group more than any other group despite the use of democratic processes in choosing leaders.

Thus, Christians do not have to force Theonomy on a nation for the nation to belong to them more than to any other group. And thus by denouncing Theonomy, those in the podcasts did nothing alleviate fears that Christians would not seek too much power in our nation.

At this point, the podcast went ok. We should recognize that conservatives have a significant amount to bring to the table regarding race. And thus one should not dismiss McDermott's book. Rather, one should read it to see the perspectives the writers in his book bring to the discussion on race.

However, things took a wrong turn when McDermott was asked about Critical Race Theory (CRT). There, the graciousness that McDermott rightfully demands for the conservative contributors to his book was not shown to CRT. Whatever good McDermott said was in CRT was also in the Gospel. And since McDermott saw CRT as being destructive and offering nothing else that has not been offered in other places, McDermott and the podcast hosts of Trueman and Pruitt denounced CRT as being a false religion that is toxic to the discussion on racism.

It might be helpful to read this link and that link to compare what the 3 of them said that CRT teaches. What they said included:

1. Racism is ordinary and systemic
2. Race is and is not an artificial construct
3. There is a unique voice of color that must be assumed not only that it is competent, but that it is superior to the voices of whites
4. That the liberal order, which includes enlightenment principles, neutral principles of law, and merit, is oppressive
5. That the color blindness taught by Martin Luther King Jr is oppressive
6. White privilege is a reality and is at the heart of systemic oppression
7. Minorities should not be expected to fit into American society
   

 Now realize that the above list is not just a list that they claim CRT teaches, it is a list of teachings that they are critical of. 

The issue in the first item in the list is whether they are disagreeing with whether racism is systemic. For it seems that that claim should be based on observation and whether racism can be seen in at least some of the different systems relied on by society. Here, all we need to do is see if racism is systemic is whether racial prejudice is exercised by law enforcement, the judicial system, the economic system, and in voting. For it seems obvious that we see racial discrimination exercised in those areas if not in other systems our society depends on. An if that is the case, where is the complaint' that CRT has really nothing to offer on the discussion on racism?

Here we should note that McDermott does not deny that racism has been and still is a significant problem here. In fact, McDermott sees our nation being punished by God for our nation practicing slavery and Jim Crow. But the question is whether racism in our nation is still systemic.

The issue regarding the second item is whether CRT teaches that the concept of race is both is and is not a biological concept. McDermott claims that CRT is inconsistent on this point.

The issue regarding the third item is to what extent is the unique voice of color so much more informative than the voices of whites regarding racism and its solutions.

The issue regarding the fourth issue is not just how accurate is the claim that the liberal order is oppressive, but why is such a claim being made. Is it being made by observation? If so, how accurate is that observation? Here, we might want to listen to the unique voice of color since they are experiencing oppression. They might be seeing harmful things in what we have taken for granted.

The issues in the fifth item do McDermott et. al. rightly understand Martin Luther King Jr. when he talked about color blindness? Is not mentioning the race of those who oppress and those who are oppressed what MLK meant when talking about color blindness? In addition, do McDermott  et. al. understand that MLK stated that racism is part of a triplet of evil that included economic exploitation and militarism? Do McDermott and friends understand the continuity that exists between CRT and what MLK both spoke about and experienced? After all, MLK worked for justice during Jim Crow with its laws and culture. MLK was working not just to change people's hearts, but also to peacefully overthrow oppressive systems and laws.

The issue with the sixth item is whether McDermott and other conservative allies deny that white privilege exists. I wonder because I finally began to understand what white privilege is by listening to a religiously and politically Black conservative  talk about where he sees white privilege in his teaching profession.

The issue with the seventh item is whether minorities feel like they can fit into American society. Here, we should expect various statements that both agree with and disagree with that claim.

McDermott and the others then go on to claim how CRT is a religion that preaches a false Gospel. And the question here is whether any nonChristian ideology presents itself as a religion given the approach that McDermott, Trueman, and Pruitt take to CRT.

My own take on CRT is that like other approaches to undoing social injustices it promotes a phobic approach. Yes, it has a lot to contribute to the discussion on racism if not the redefinition of racism. For CRT teaches that racism is the combining of racial prejudice, which CRT states that everyone has, along with social and institutional power that is oppressive against people of color. To see how social power can be oppressive, one should listen to James Baldwin's argument while debating William F. Buckley (click here for the debate and go to the 14:02 mark of the YouTube video). Granted that Baldwin's argument is based on his life experiences during Jim Crow, the issue is whether all of what he has experienced has been eliminated with the dismantling of Jim Crow.

In saying that CRT promotes a phobic approach is not to disagree with all that CRT. It is asking whether some of the approaches to undoing racial oppression is based on all-or-nothing thinking that prevents us from making distinctions between those factors that are accidentally associated with the racial oppression people of color have faced from those factors that are contributors to that same racial oppression. In other words, does CRT throw out the baby with the bathwater in its approach to racial oppression? If it does, then aren't McDermott, Trueman, and Pruitt are taking the same throw the baby out with the bathwater approach to CRT that CRT is taking to the status quo.

In the end, by taking their all-or-nothing analysis of CRT, it seems that McDermott and some other conservatives see themselves in a turf war over the narrative of racism with CRT. After all, McDerott, Trueman, and Pruitt are very disturbed over the number of Christians who believe that CRT has much to contribute to understanding and dismantling racism And the problem with that approach is that it tries to compel us to either accept what conservatives like McDermott have to say about racism or what CRT has to say  take a hybrid approach. With the hybrid approach, we would think for ourselves by trying to take the best insights from both groups. McDermott and friends do not want any person, believer or non-believer, to see CRT as having anything significant to say about racism in this nation and how to provide at least a partial solution to it.

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For October 14, 2020

 Sept 18

To Andrew Latham and his blogpost that accuses Marx and Engels as being racists and of early founders of Marx as embracing slavery. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

I cannot speak much to racism in Marx except to say that what is written above does not make him stand out from either most leaders in America or from people like Tocqueville. Whereas Marx saw in Germany the hope for the future, Tocqueville saw in Great Britain the superior society. In addition, Tocqueville wrote about Blacks and Native Americans in similar ways as is being attributed to Marx and Engels above. And yet that seems to not have been important enough for Latham to mention. And unlike Tocqueville, Marx did not get to witness what was going on in the United States.

But as for slavery, Latham fails to mention Marx's relationship with Abraham Lincoln. It has been summarized as one where they communicated and Lincoln learned from Marx without becoming a Marxist (see  https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/07/27/you-know-who-was-into-karl-marx-no-not-aoc-abraham-lincoln/  ). Marx spoke against American slavery in class terms. He corrected the perception that London's media presented of our Civil War which was that of a battle between protectionism vs free trade. Marx said that it was about slavery (see  'The North American Civil War (October, 1961) in   https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/internationalist/pamphlets/MARX-on-Slavery-OptV5.pdf  ). In Marx's congratulatory letter to Lincoln for winning a second term, he criticized the South by calling it an 'oligarchy of 300,000 slave holders and described the Southern cause as 'property against labor' (see   https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm ). In 1861, Marx called slavery a horror (see  https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/11.htm ).

Yes, Marx made more than just mistakes with some of his views, though it is very debatable whether those who committed great atrocities while claiming to represent him were actually following what he  wrote. Rosa Luxemburg, a socialist contemporary of Vladimir Lenin criticized Lenin's regime as imitating a bourgeoisie dictatorship in its structure and operation. Why she said that is the real issue. For Lenin did everything to ensure that proletariat rule would not be his way of governing Russia (see  https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm ). In fact, none of the big 3 leaders of the Russian Revolution were Proletariats. Rather, they led a vanguard movement equating themselves with Marx's revolution. We should note that it was their vanguardism, not Marx's teaching, that led to their tyrannical rule in Russia and we could say the same of Mao in China. We should note that because our 2 major political parties portray themselves as vanguards as well.

So why was the above article written. My guess is that it was written to inspire people to view Marx in all-or-nothing terms and thus to reject anything associated with Marx. And if I am correct, by doing so, Latham is speaking as an authoritarian which is something for which we should all condemn Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, and Castro for ruling like one.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 24

To Sir Roger Scruton and his article that heavily criticizes the replacement of classical music with avant-garde. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.

The only problem that occurs when discussing the classical tradition and avant-garde is when we try to force a false dichotomy between the two onto the listener. Just because avant-garde might, in many cases, better express the world in which we have been living doesn't mean that we can dispose of all of the music from the past. Likewise, just because of the magnificent contributions and works of the classical period doesn't mean that we should disregard boundaries crossed by avant-garde music.

While Scruton uses the views of the music critic Robert Reilly to make his case. And while Scruton tries to establish Reilly's musical authority to speak on such matters by presenting him as a kind of Renaissance man, I would like to think that Leonard Bernstein also possesses significant enough credentials to speak about music. He talks favorably about Schoenberg's explorations and achievements while telling us that we cannot escape the past (see  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olwVvbWd-tg  ).

We see 12-tone scales and other more exploratory approaches to music in some Jazz artists. Why? it is because they believe that the rules and new boundaries set are tools rather than goals. After all, music is first about communication rather than about techniques and tools. Music, like all of the arts, are to reflect life rather than try to meet some idealistic standard.

And in reflecting life, music is a barometer for where we are as a people. Rather than criticize avant-garde, I would hope that Scruton would spend his time on what the overly simplistic approach to music that we see in pop music tells us about people in general. How the rejection of complexity in music indicates that we have a population that believes that life must simple. And in so believing, we see more and more people becoming unable to see reality for what it is because they cannot tolerate complexity. And that is where avant-garde comes in.  It has simply introduced more complexity and is overly criticized by some because they cannot accept that complexity.

Thus, there is no reason to either reject classical music or avant-garde or any other approach to music that tries to adequately reflect the the complexity that is so much a part of life in every age.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sept 24

To G. Shane Morris and his blogpost that claims that it is progressives, not evangelicals who are obsessed with sex. This appeared in the Troubler of Israel blog on Patheos.

IMO, the above article indicates that Morris is too defensive to understand the complaints made about us religiously conservative Christians. Here is the complaint, that in terms of legislation and politics, many religiously religiously conservative Christians are obsessed with controlling the sexual practices of fellow citizens, especially those who are unbelievers, while we say nothing about America's immoral wars and support the cutting of social safety nets by the government.

If we can disagree with other religions while fully supporting their right to meet and practice, how is it that we are unable to to disagree with the sexual practices of unbelievers while allowing them the freedom to follow their own sexual mores? The concern from many unbelievers isn't about us agreeing with their sexual practices and relationships. Rather it is about us imposing our sexual mores on them. For the most part, religiously conservative Christians have fought tooth and nail against full equality for the LGBT community. And we have done so partly because such equality would cause us to have more contact with them than we care to.

At the same time, many of us religiously conservative Christians express no qualms when our nation separates kids from parents and locks everyone up. Many of us show no concern about the cutting or reducing of social safety nets nor do we want to admit that there is systemic racism in our nation. We even cheer the sending of our troops into harm's way while sharply condemning as being unpatriotic those who oppose, or even question, our wars.

Certainly some of us believe that the Church should be in charge of helping the needy. But America's conservative Church has no such interest in helping everyone. Don't we understand why many conservative churches move out of urban areas into the suburbs? And yet some of us want the conservative Church to take care of all who are in need.

In addition, the note by Iain Lovejoy noted the problem with the field hospital.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 6

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that accuses CRT of suppressing dissent. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Odd that Clark would take one school's attempt to accommodate CRT and attribute that to CRT as a whole. I suspect that Clark's real objection is the basic tenet of CRT: that this nation was founded on and still revolves around white supremacy. I think that Clark denies that the nation is still based on white supremacy, as well as some other supremacies. The inclusion of other supremacies comes with the addition of Intersectionality.

In addition, CRT says that because of the current systemic racism that exists in this nation, we do have to review and even redefine some of our basic institutions.

Part of CRT is based on the works of Martin Luther King Jr. And here we should note that  King battled against a large white supremacist culture that, with the help of laws, enforced that white supremacy on this nation. Thus, racism wasn't only an individual sin, it was a corporate, societal sin. The response of color blindness forgets the disadvantages that systemic racism brought to many people of color. Thus color-blindness and meritocracy only furthered those disadvantages and inspired those who hold to hyperindividualism to continue to believe in white supremacy because they overlooked the disadvantages from which many people of color were performing with. Many liken all of that to a race where the starting line for those with privilege is significantly closer to the finish line than the starting line for those who have been marginalized. To then judge people based on when they cross the finish line might seem fair, but it is far from fair.

Thus, one has to question whether a person who opposes racism as an individual but does not oppose systemic or institutional racism is still adequately opposed to racism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oct 13

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost that celebrates the removing of the Pulitzer Prize from and criticism of the 1619 Project. This appeared in Heidelblog.

The key problem with  the 1619 Project was not with facts but the interpretation of the facts. It employed all-or-nothing thinking by reducing the founding of America to the issue of slavery.

The conservative reaction to the 1619 Project by some religiously conservative Christians often employs the same type of thinking. And the reason for that is partial conflation of Christianity with American Patriotism. This is seen in their use of the parallel of America's founding fathers to America with the Apostles to the Church. And in doing so, they put America's founding fathers, and America itself, on too high a pedestal.

As for why the American Revolution was fought, there was no one single issue. That the British were interfering with the colonialists westward expansion that would take land from the Native Americans is certainly  one reason. Defense of slavery was another reason why some of our founding fathers sought independence from England. How the Sommerset case was reported, especially with how the judges words about how slavery was not consistent with English law was taken out of context. Thus,, many wrongly thought that his decision spelled the end of slavery in England and the colonies. So it is quite reasonable to see that continued belonging to the UK posed a threat to slavery and thus provided another, but not the only, reason why some of the founding fathers, many of whom were slave owners, wanted to break away from England.

Of course those two reasons alone break the idealistic parallel that many religiously conservative American Christians want to maintain between the role that our nation's founding fathers played with the creation of American and the Apostles' role in establishing the Church.