Communism and the Civil Rights Movement

[Bootstrap]

It would be interesting to see Bootstrap see any kind of morality outside of his hobby horse of "fighting racism" and "fighting white supremacy", as if those are the core of what the gospel consists of.

In sharp contrast, the New Testament (and indeed the entire Bible) never discusses these topics at all, but rather describes a different sort of origin for the evils in the world and the evil we see man doing to man.

Ultimately, if I wanted a primer in Critical Race Theory, I wouldn't come to MennoNet to read about it, and I wouldn't go to Mennonites to talk about it either. I wouldn't bother with Christians at all. So can we get back on topic here?

Could you please quote something I have actually said, a full paragraph or so for context, to help me understand what is giving you that impression? I have quoted the Southern Baptist Convention's official statement, not Critical Race Theory. I don't think I'm much influenced by Critical Race Theory, it's certainly not what I read or quote.

I have asked specific questions about what we, as Christians, should have done back in the time of MLK. If you were a member of a white church, and members of a black church raised these concerns with you, how would you have responded? Do you think the New Testament writings on Jews and Greeks give us any clues? These are the kinds of questions I ask about other moral questions all the time here on MN. Could you perhaps answer them here?

If you have a better handle on morality, what the Bible teaches, and how we should respond to things like the abuses and injustices to black people in the time of MLK, please ignore my clumsy attempts to reason about these things as a Christian and share your superior knowledge instead.

[Josh]

Could you please quote something I have actually said, a full paragraph or so for context, to help me understand what is giving you that impression? I have quoted the Southern Baptist Convention's official statement, not Critical Race Theory. I don't think I'm much influenced by Critical Race Theory, it's certainly not what I read or quote.

You sure about that?

I have asked specific questions about what we, as Christians, should have done back in the time of MLK. If you were a member of a white church, and members of a black church raised these concerns with you, how would you have responded? Do you think the New Testament writings on Jews and Greeks give us any clues? These are the kinds of questions I ask about other moral questions all the time here on MN.

If you have a better handle on morality, what the Bible teaches, and how we should respond to things like the abuses and injustices to black people in the time of MLK, please ignore my clumsy attempts to reason about these things as a Christian and share your superior knowledge instead.

The original topic was about "Communism" and the Civil Rights Movement. I think it goes without saying that the civil rights movement had both good and bad elements; it obviously had a very heavy leftist influence in it. Can you show the maturity to talk about the topic at hand without constantly bringing race into the discussion? (If you really must talk about such things, then perhaps you could talk about how to deal with abuses and injustices without resorting to political action and allying with the left; that would actually be a useful topic, but I'm not sure you'd even be willing to cede any ground to admit that there is anything wrong with being fully allied with the left and seeking to enact morality via political means.)

[Bootstrap]

Could you please quote something I have actually said, a full paragraph or so for context, to help me understand what is giving you that impression? I have quoted the Southern Baptist Convention's official statement, not Critical Race Theory. I don't think I'm much influenced by Critical Race Theory, it's certainly not what I read or quote.

You sure about that?

You could go back and read what I have said in this thread. I don't think you'll find anything on Critical Race Theory or quoting the people behind it. You will find me quoting Southern Baptists.

I have asked specific questions about what we, as Christians, should have done back in the time of MLK. If you were a member of a white church, and members of a black church raised these concerns with you, how would you have responded? Do you think the New Testament writings on Jews and Greeks give us any clues? These are the kinds of questions I ask about other moral questions all the time here on MN.

If you have a better handle on morality, what the Bible teaches, and how we should respond to things like the abuses and injustices to black people in the time of MLK, please ignore my clumsy attempts to reason about these things as a Christian and share your superior knowledge instead.

The original topic was about "Communism" and the Civil Rights Movement. I think it goes without saying that the civil rights movement had both good and bad elements; it obviously had a very heavy leftist influence in it. Can you show the maturity to talk about the topic at hand without constantly bringing race into the discussion?

You want to discuss Martin Luther King and Civil Rights without discussing race or the black church? I'm not sure how that makes sense. Can you explain?

Martin Luther King was no Communist. In his day, teaching that blacks should be able to eat in the same restaurants and use the same bathrooms and drink from the same drinking fountains was considered liberal. Teaching that the KKK should be stopped was considered liberal. And it was laws, enforced by government, that took away these basic freedoms. The people who are always talking about government overreach should be shocked by that level of government overreach.

A moral compass is about right versus wrong, not left versus right. If they considered equal rights for blacks to be "left" back then, that doesn't change the fact that it's basic human decency. Biblical morality is not about modern American political factions. And as Christians in white churches, I think we should remember this:

If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

So back in the time of MLK, what would we want for our black brethren in Christ? How would you have responded? That's a question you seem to be repeatedly avoiding.

[Josh]

I’m interested in talking about the civil rights movement as a whole. I’m not interested in criticising MLK Jr specifically, and certainly would never even try to do so in a conversation with you.

There’s a lot to criticise when it comes to the “civil rights” movement. One of the outcomes of it (that has nothing to do with race) was the destruction of stable families and the introduction of no fault divorce. That’s not a good thing, yet it comes directly from the civil rights movement.

[RZehr]

I found this information interesting-

Buffett reiterated a staunchly supportive stance of U.S. corporations and capitalism in his opening remarks, highlighting that five of the six largest companies in the world by market capitalization currently comprise domestic companies. Those five companies are Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Facebook, with only Saudi Aramco of Saudi Arabia coming in as a non-U.S. mega-cap company in the top six.

But only a couple hundred years ago, the U.S. looked like the underdog.

"In 1790 we had one-half of 1% of the world's population," Buffett said. "600,000 of them were slaves. Ireland had more people than the United States had. Russia had five times as many people. Ukraine had twice as many people."

"But here we were. What did we have? We had a map for the future, an aspirational map that somehow now only 232 years later, leaves us with five of the top six companies in the world," he said. "It's not an accident. And it's not because we were way smarter, way stronger or anything of the sort. We had good soil, decent climate, but so did some of the other countries I named. This system has worked very well."

[temporal1]

I found this information interesting-

Buffett reiterated a staunchly supportive stance of U.S. corporations and capitalism in his opening remarks, highlighting that five of the six largest companies in the world by market capitalization currently comprise domestic companies. Those five companies are Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Facebook, with only Saudi Aramco of Saudi Arabia coming in as a non-U.S. mega-cap company in the top six.

But only a couple hundred years ago, the U.S. looked like the underdog.

"In 1790 we had one-half of 1% of the world's population," Buffett said. "600,000 of them were slaves. Ireland had more people than the United States had. Russia had five times as many people. Ukraine had twice as many people."

"But here we were. What did we have? We had a map for the future, an aspirational map that somehow now only 232 years later, leaves us with five of the top six companies in the world," he said. "It's not an accident. And it's not because we were way smarter, way stronger or anything of the sort. We had good soil, decent climate, but so did some of the other countries I named. This system has worked very well."

i found this interesting-
in the last 3-4 minutes, he briefly summarizes how “we don’t know how to create a system that does not produce inequality” -
then compares what capitalism does that others do not ..

but i suggest listening in full.

“Jordan B. Peterson’s Critique of the Communist Manifesto” / 30min.


i believe the underlined words to be proven accurate.
i don’t believe Jesus Christ suggested His followers worry too much about it. He invited His to follow Him, instead.

[Bootstrap]

I’m interested in talking about the civil rights movement as a whole. I’m not interested in criticising MLK Jr specifically, and certainly would never even try to do so in a conversation with you.

There’s a lot to criticise when it comes to the “civil rights” movement. One of the outcomes of it (that has nothing to do with race) was the destruction of stable families and the introduction of no fault divorce. That’s not a good thing, yet it comes directly from the civil rights movement.

I don't think those things come directly from the civil rights movement.

The civil rights movement was about civil rights. Initially, it was about not being enslaved, not having masters who could destroy stable families, sell people off, and use people as they chose. Later, it was about basic human freedom, including the freedom to not be terrorized by groups like the KKK, freedom from lynching, freedom to live a human being.

You don't seem to want to talk about the civil rights that the civil rights movement was about.

[Bootstrap]

I found this information interesting-

Buffett reiterated a staunchly supportive stance of U.S. corporations and capitalism in his opening remarks, highlighting that five of the six largest companies in the world by market capitalization currently comprise domestic companies. Those five companies are Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Facebook, with only Saudi Aramco of Saudi Arabia coming in as a non-U.S. mega-cap company in the top six.

But only a couple hundred years ago, the U.S. looked like the underdog.

"In 1790 we had one-half of 1% of the world's population," Buffett said. "600,000 of them were slaves. Ireland had more people than the United States had. Russia had five times as many people. Ukraine had twice as many people."

"But here we were. What did we have? We had a map for the future, an aspirational map that somehow now only 232 years later, leaves us with five of the top six companies in the world," he said. "It's not an accident. And it's not because we were way smarter, way stronger or anything of the sort. We had good soil, decent climate, but so did some of the other countries I named. This system has worked very well."

That's not surprising. Warren Buffett has always been a supporter of the American system of democracy. So has Bill Gates. People seem to be looking for authoritarians and Communists in all the wrong places sometimes.

[Szdfan]

The civil rights movement was about civil rights. Initially, it was about not being enslaved, not having masters who could destroy stable families, sell people off, and use people as they chose. Later, it was about basic human freedom, including the freedom to not be terrorized by groups like the KKK, freedom from lynching, freedom to live a human being.

You don't seem to want to talk about the civil rights that the civil rights movement was about.

So the term “civil rights movement” specifically refers to the political, social and theological movement for equal rights for African-Americans. There were other movements that were inspired by civil rights, like feminism and LGBTQ, but they are not considered to be part of the same movement. I wonder if Josh is confusing them or mushing them all under the same umbrella.

The OP is about communism in the civil rights movement, I don’t see how no fault divorce is relevant to the OP.

[JohnHurt]

The civil rights movement was about civil rights. Initially, it was about not being enslaved, not having masters who could destroy stable families, sell people off, and use people as they chose. Later, it was about basic human freedom, including the freedom to not be terrorized by groups like the KKK, freedom from lynching, freedom to live a human being.

What I find interesting is that every member of the KKK in politics, like Strom Thurmond or Byrd, or even outside politics, are all die hard Democrats.

And it wasn't just in the "South", as the KKK was involved in the 1943 Detroit Race Riots, where they opposed Black Housing Projects, and posted signs like this:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_Detroit_race_riot

The Democrats have always been in control of Detroit, and had a very negative view of Black people in the 1940's.

The Democratic party is the reason for the Jim Crow laws, while the Republicans issued the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th,14th Amendments to free the Black slaves.

So why do Black people vote "Democrat" today?

Here is a graph from the Washington Post:



Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... emocratic/

It looks like the Civil Rights legislation of Kennedy / Johnson "bought" the Black vote. Lyndon Johnson said that the money from the Civil Rights and Welfare programs would have the Black people voting for the Democratic party for the next 100 years. Except he did not say "Black people", he used another word.

Buying someone off for their vote is another form of control, or slavery to a system. Using everyone's tax money to buy votes of an ethnic group enslaves everyone that has to pay for it.

To one degree or another, the Democratic Party has enacted the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto as law here in the USA. Socialism has killed the economy of every country that has tried it. And everyone, including black voters, is becoming tired of socialism.

That is why people like Black political leaders Candace Owens and others are encouraging Black voters to leave the Democratic Party. The freedom that everyone wants - is the freedom to escape the Communism / Socialism of the Democratic Party. People want jobs, not another stimulus handout.

This is why Donald Trump was so successful with the Black voters, and received more Black votes than any other Republican Presidential candidate.

My black friends love Barack Obama, but they could not see that Obama made any real difference in their personal lives - while Donald Trump did. That is why so many Black people voted for Trump.

I am not Republican or Democrat, and I don't like Trump, but Trump got rid of an incredible amount of regulations and bureaucracy (i.e. Socialism) and grew a healthy economy. That is the sole reason he is popular with Black voters. Not his hair, or his personality.

For MLK and the Freedom Riders, they did not protest so they could be put on a new "Housing Project" plantation, with free food stamps and having Welfare clerks as their new overseers. They wanted their freedom to start a business, and create jobs for themselves.

What MLK said in his "I Have a Dream" speech, is that he hoped that one day, a man would be judged by his character, and not by the color of his skin. What noble words.

Yet, to the Democrats and the Main Stream Media, it is all about race. Anytime someone is killed by the police, the first question is, what was the skin color of the policeman and the person killed? If the policeman is white, and the person killed is black, an entire city is burned down, due to the racism of the Media and the Democratic Party. If there is any other combination of skin color, the incident is ignored.

Now we have "Critical Race Theory", which is a type of racism against White people that originated from Marxism, and the unworkable "reparations for slavery" - which is wealth redistribution from White to Black based on skin color. These ideas are both from the Democratic Party, and threaten to break this country in half. MLK would not approve. He said it was not about skin color. We should be "color blind". We should be unified, not divided over race.

My question has always been: How can a Christian support abortion, homosexuality, and a blatant form of racism as described above? By "virtue signaling" that we are not racist, we have created another form of racism.

I don't think the Democratic party ever escaped its racist roots, they just changed their tactics.

And they thought they could make MLK into their puppet, to create racial division. For if the people are unified, they will see the political class as the true source of their problems. That is why Hoover had King killed because he would unite all of us, while Hoover left Stokely Carmichael and others to promote racial division and the burning of their own cities.

The "real" Black Panthers formed by Pickney and others in 1967 was about supporting the Black Community. It was infiltrated by Hoover's FBI and turned into a vehicle of racism. This is what they hoped to do with MLK, and he rebuffed them, and paid the price. What a good Christian man, and martyr.

I understand King studied the life of Gandhi on how to overcome political injustice through non-violence. Gandhi corresponded with Tolstoy, who wrote his famous "Letter to a Hindu" to Gandhi on the principles of non-violence. Tolstoy got his ideas by reading and putting into practice the words of Christ, and ignoring Paul, Luther, Calvin and all of the rest.

It was the principles of Non-Violence, as stated by Christ, that made Martin Luther King a Christian. That is why he rejected Communism, abortion, and all of the rest of it.