What are your thoughts re Hegelian Dialectic & CRT in the Church?

[temporal1]

Falco:
.. In this video, Aaron Sibarium discusses the ways in which Woke ideologues are taking over law schools, and what can be done about it.

This is really what it's all about:
when Antonio Gramsci said, "we must re-evaluate what it means to rule," this is exactly what he meant.

He was telling his acolytes to become teachers, to get into administrative positions, to create bureaucracies and NGOs.
Administrative positions, bureaucracies and NGOs are all ways to effect government policy.

Regarding churches, the same pattern. How to effect the tail wagging the dog.
Years ago, on MD, Valerie described this happening in churches. No matter churches are then divided, split, lost.

Healthy human reasoning longs to be constructive, to leave the world a better place.
It’s a different mindset to see prevailing at all costs as the end goal. As-if pride were enough. It never is.

- - - - - - -

Thomas Sowell speaks on these topics.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4508

[Falco Underhill]

Healthy human reasoning longs to be constructive, to leave the world a better place.
It’s a different mindset to see prevailing at all costs as the end goal. As-if pride were enough. It never is.

This reminds me of something.

There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

-- Daniel Webster

Scratch the surface and you'll see Libido Dominandi (lust for domination) at work. It's the human predicament.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/minervawis ... nandi/amp/

15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. ....

Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. -- Romans 7

[Falco Underhill]

We all have such good intentions, don't we?

If only someone would just give us the POWER we'd all make it so much better, wouldn't we?

[Falco Underhill]

As for the whole "neomarxism" stuff? That is all YOU overlaying the writings of an old irrelevant 1960s leftist writer Herbert Marcuse (who died over 40 years ago) onto a present day movement. And who obviously was NOT writing about the social justice movements of today, two generations after his death.

Two generations ago, and we still live very much in the logic of that essay, imo. He was one of the key persons who helped give birth to the social justice movements of today.

Books have been written on the relation of today's social justice movements to Herbert Marcuse — not by conservatives opposed to social justice movements but by contemporary social justice theorists themselves.

Here's one quote from Wikipedia about Herbert Marcuse's influence on social justice movements today.

Marcuse's thought remains influential in the 21st century. In the introduction to an issue of New Political Science dedicated to Marcuse, Robert Kirsch and Sarah Surak described his influence as, "alive and well, vibrant across multiple fields of inquiry across many areas of social relations."[46] Marcuse's concept of repressive tolerance attracted renewed attention following the 9/11 attacks.[47] Repressive tolerance is also relevant to 21st century campus protests and the Black Lives Matter movement.[48]

Note that it specifically says how his repressive tolerance is especially relevant to Black Lives Matter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse

If you don't understand Marcuse’s concept of repressive tolerance, you have no idea why leftist protestors today will shout down conservative speakers and even riot just to prevent their views from being heard on campuses today.

They believe there can be no equality between "fascist" (often, conservative) and "antifascist" speech. Toleration of "fascist" speech is in their view "repressive tolerance," and that cannot be tolerated.

That is why they are opposed to what Marcuse called the "fallacy of free speech."

The concept of repressive tolerance as expressed by Herbert Marcuse in a famous essay by that name is still very much alive today. It is a foundational neomarxist concept. Ideas have consequences and can often survive for generations. This is just one of those neomarxist concepts by Herbert Marcuse that is still very much in play today.

Google Herbert Marcuse and social justice and see what comes up. There's plenty on it. It isn't me making stuff up.

[Ken]

If you don't understand Marcuse’s concept of repressive tolerance, you have no idea why leftist protestors today will shout down conservative speakers and even riot just to prevent their views from being heard on campuses today.

They believe there can be no equality between "fascist" (often, conservative) and "antifascist" speech. Toleration of "fascist" speech is in their view "repressive tolerance," and that cannot be tolerated.

That is why they are opposed to what Marcuse called the "fallacy of free speech."

Oh I know what it is and the amount of conservative speech that is being "shut down" on college campuses and elsewhere around the country is actually trivial compared to the amount of conservative censorship, much of it at the behest of the government such as is happening in Florida and other southern states. Look at the lists of books being censored in school and public libraries around the country. That is entirely the result of conservative protestors who show and demand that those voices be silenced.

Every time I hear some news report of a conservative speaker being shouted down and silenced I read closer and find out that isn't actually what happened. Or it is the same few examples involving agitators like Milo Milo Yiannopoulos keep being cited over and over again.

What do you think would happen if say an LGBT rights activist sought to speak at Liberty University and the invitation of some students there? I can tell you what would happen. They would not be shouted down because they would never be given a public forum to speak in the first place.

I personally don't like any of it on the left or the right. But I would also note that no one is "OWED" a lucrative public speaking opportunity at a university public or private. The whole speaking circuit in which notable public figures make hundreds of thousands of dollars circulating around giving public speeches at universities and corporate events is an enormous grift and honestly not one dime of tax dollars should support it. If they want to speak in public, come speak for free. Politicians on both sides of the aisle cash in on that grift and it is frankly unseemly, especially when paid for by student fees as is usually the case. If my fees were paying for home high-priced speaker to come to my campus I would feel entitled to show up and use my free speech rights to give a piece of my mind too.

[Falco Underhill]

If you don't understand Marcuse’s concept of repressive tolerance, you have no idea why leftist protestors today will shout down conservative speakers and even riot just to prevent their views from being heard on campuses today.

They believe there can be no equality between "fascist" (often, conservative) and "antifascist" speech. Toleration of "fascist" speech is in their view "repressive tolerance," and that cannot be tolerated.

That is why they are opposed to what Marcuse called the "fallacy of free speech."

Oh I know what it is and the amount of conservative speech that is being "shut down" on college campuses and elsewhere around the country is actually trivial compared to the amount of conservative censorship, much of it at the behest of the government such as is happening in Florida and other southern states. Look at the lists of books being censored in school and public libraries around the country. That is entirely the result of conservative protestors who show and demand that those voices be silenced.

Every time I hear some news report of a conservative speaker being shouted down and silenced I read closer and find out that isn't actually what happened. Or it is the same few examples involving agitators like Milo Milo Yiannopoulos keep being cited over and over again.

What do you think would happen if say an LGBT rights activist sought to speak at Liberty University and the invitation of some students there? I can tell you what would happen. They would not be shouted down because they would never be given a public forum to speak in the first place.

I personally don't like any of it on the left or the right. But I would also note that no one is "OWED" a lucrative public speaking opportunity at a university public or private. The whole speaking circuit in which notable public figures make hundreds of thousands of dollars circulating around giving public speeches at universities and corporate events is an enormous grift and honestly not one dime of tax dollars should support it. If they want to speak in public, come speak for free. Politicians on both sides of the aisle cash in on that grift and it is frankly unseemly, especially when paid for by student fees as is usually the case. If my fees were paying for home high-priced speaker to come to my campus I would feel entitled to show up and use my free speech rights to give a piece of my mind too.

This liberal society can only last as long as we can tolerate free speech. That has always been the bedrock of modern liberalism. Behind this refusal to tolerate free speech there is lurking totalitarianism, you can bet that.

The point of my reply, however, was the relevance of Herbert Marcuse and neomarxism in general to today's leftist social justice movements.

If you want CRT taught in schools I want fair criticism of it as the neomarxist critical theory that it is taught in the schools as well.

[Ken]

If you don't understand Marcuse’s concept of repressive tolerance, you have no idea why leftist protestors today will shout down conservative speakers and even riot just to prevent their views from being heard on campuses today.

They believe there can be no equality between "fascist" (often, conservative) and "antifascist" speech. Toleration of "fascist" speech is in their view "repressive tolerance," and that cannot be tolerated.

That is why they are opposed to what Marcuse called the "fallacy of free speech."

Oh I know what it is and the amount of conservative speech that is being "shut down" on college campuses and elsewhere around the country is actually trivial compared to the amount of conservative censorship, much of it at the behest of the government such as is happening in Florida and other southern states. Look at the lists of books being censored in school and public libraries around the country. That is entirely the result of conservative protestors who show and demand that those voices be silenced.

Every time I hear some news report of a conservative speaker being shouted down and silenced I read closer and find out that isn't actually what happened. Or it is the same few examples involving agitators like Milo Milo Yiannopoulos keep being cited over and over again.

What do you think would happen if say an LGBT rights activist sought to speak at Liberty University and the invitation of some students there? I can tell you what would happen. They would not be shouted down because they would never be given a public forum to speak in the first place.

I personally don't like any of it on the left or the right. But I would also note that no one is "OWED" a lucrative public speaking opportunity at a university public or private. The whole speaking circuit in which notable public figures make hundreds of thousands of dollars circulating around giving public speeches at universities and corporate events is an enormous grift and honestly not one dime of tax dollars should support it. If they want to speak in public, come speak for free. Politicians on both sides of the aisle cash in on that grift and it is frankly unseemly, especially when paid for by student fees as is usually the case. If my fees were paying for home high-priced speaker to come to my campus I would feel entitled to show up and use my free speech rights to give a piece of my mind too.

This liberal society can only last as long as we can tolerate free speech. That has always been the bedrock of modern liberalism. Behind this refusal to tolerate free speech there is lurking totalitarianism, you can bet that.

I agree entirely. That is why I find censorship so egregious. Whether it is conservative ideas being censored such as Viktor Orbán's views on Christian nationalism and racial purity, or progressive ideas like institutional racism. CRT, or LGBT rights.

I'm glad we can find that common ground.

[Josh]

I don’t find all censorship egregious.

I don’t want homosexual pornography stocking the shelves of the children’s section of the local library, for example.

[Ken]

I don’t find all censorship egregious.

I don’t want homosexual pornography stocking the shelves of the children’s section of the local library, for example.

I don't want any pornography in the children's section of my local library, whether it is gay porn or straight porn. Luckily I'm quite confident there has never been any porn on those library shelves, even in this somewhat liberal community. And I'm pretty sure the computers in the children's section have porn filters as well.

[Falco Underhill]

I don’t find all censorship egregious.

I don’t want homosexual pornography stocking the shelves of the children’s section of the local library, for example.

Agreed. I think a free exchange of ideas among adults at college is one thing, and there's a proper place for that. Children need to be protected.