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

[Bootstrap]

Two thoughts Ken:
1. I don't need a critical line of inquiry e.g. CRT, to see that there are extant inequalities in outcomes in the Black population as a whole. Indeed, I don't even need a Critical Theory to ask the question of 'why is it so?' or 'Might there be some injustice at work here?'

You might not, but a lot of people apparently do as there is a tremendous amount of denial about the continued existence of racism and systemic racism in our society. Some of it right here on Mennonet.

Well that's a reframing of my words into CRT language.

So let's drop the effete academic language.

Why do people on MN instantly jump in when a black person is killed by police, insisting that it was justified, long before they could possibly know the facts? Why do people insist that black people have no right to be upset - even in cases that juries later decide were clearly murder? What does the Bible say about this kind of gossip? Why these campaigns to shut down empathy for those affected by this?

That's not 50 years ago. And that's what prompted the Black Lives Matter movement. Not Hegel. This is happening all over America, it's becoming a constant drumbeat in American politics. Do you think it affects black people?

People appeal to individual sincerity - "I'm not racist". To me, Bell's valuable insight is this: it's better to measure the ways these behaviors affect black people's lives and the way they are perceived by others in our society. Are you tearing down or building up?

[HondurasKeiser]

Why do people on MN instantly jump in when a black person is killed by police, insisting that it was justified, long before they could possibly know the facts? Why do people insist that black people have no right to be upset - even in cases that juries later decide were clearly murder? What does the Bible say about this kind of gossip? Why these campaigns to shut down empathy for those affected by this?

That's not 50 years ago. And that's what prompted the Black Lives Matter movement. Not Hegel. This is happening all over America, it's becoming a constant drumbeat in American politics. Do you think it affects black people?

I don't know if people here on MN have done what you're accusing them of or not but to my knowledge I never have so I can only answer for myself.

[Ken]

By way of example in the form of an axiom: Ibram X. Kendi and Angela Davis both tell us that:

1. The opposite of racist isn’t “not racist”. It is “anti-racist”.
2. To be antiracist is to view the inequities between all racialized ethnic groups as a problem of policy.
3. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups.
4. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an anti-racist. There is no in-between safe space of “not racist”.

Not much nuance or room for competing explanations there.

That is just a sweeping statement of philosophy, not a specific response to a specific policy problem. But think about what she is saying. It is EXACTLY the same message as is explored in novels like To Kill a Mockingbird.

The actual Angela Davis quote is the following: In a racist society it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be anti-racist.

She is saying that if you live in a society in which there is immense structural racism (in the example of To Kill a Mockingbird it was rural Alabama in the 1930s). Then it is not enough to simply go about your life being 'non-racist'. You have an obligation to actually OPPOSE the racism that permeates the society around you. That is the conclusion that Atticus Finch reached in the novel. That it was not enough to just mind your own business if you live in a racist society. You need to confront it. Do you disagree?

Is she using hyperbole? Yes. I don't think it is literally true that every single institution in the US has a connection to race. I don't think my mother's gardening club has much connection to race. But generally speaking when we are talking about large powerful institutions that affect people's lives I do think it is true.

[HondurasKeiser]

Well you gave me quite a few problems that contain nuances. What are the nuanced solutions and how is CRT-influenced thinking at work in those solutions?

I'll give you another example of CRT-influenced policy that has negative, though not unforeseen consequences. The Soros-backed prosecutors that have determined to not prosecute low-level crimes and to prosecute high-level crimes for lesser degrees. This was done principally, though not exclusively in the name of the anti-racist effort to balance the disparity in incarceration rates between white and minority prisoners.

Here's George Soros in his own words: "Why I Support Reform Prosecutors" (It's pay-walled)

Here's James Kirchick at Tablet highlighting the Soros angle to the story:"The Sanctification of George Soros"

The scope of Soros’ efforts has been extensive. Through a combination of direct contributions to candidates, subventions to political action committees, and funding of other third party groups via his Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent upwards of $40 million over the past decade helping to elect some 75 prosecutors in metropolitan areas ranging from Los Angeles to Philadelphia, Manhattan to St. Louis.

And here's the The Atlantic piece by Nellie Bowles again describing what went on in Boudin's D.A. office: "HOW SAN FRANCISCO BECAME A FAILED CITY"

It is difficult to remember now, but the Boudin election was thrilling for the city. It occurred during the heights of rage against President Donald Trump, when more and more people were becoming aware of police violence against Black people and demanding criminal-justice reforms. London Breed, the city’s first Black female mayor, wanted a liberal moderate for D.A., but Boudin ran to the left as a fierce progressive ideologue whose worldview was shaped by his imprisoned parents, members of the Weather Underground. He was a public defender, not a prosecutor at all. He had worked in Venezuela and in 2009 congratulated the former dictator Hugo Chávez for abolishing term limits. Boudin was a charismatic figure. His campaign manager called him “a national movement candidate.”

The Police Officers Association fought hard against him, spending $400,000 on a barrage of attack ads, according to the San Francisco Examiner. They didn’t work. At Boudin’s election party, a city supervisor led the crowd in a chant of “F--- the POA.” During his campaign, Boudin said he wouldn’t prosecute quality-of-life crimes. He wanted to “break the cycle of recidivism” by addressing the social causes of crime—poverty, addiction, mental-health issues. Boudin was selling revolution, and San Francisco was ready. In theory.

But not in fact. Because it turns out that people on the left also own property, and generally believe stores should be paid for the goods they sell.

Under Boudin, prosecutors in the city could no longer use the fact that someone had been convicted of a crime in the past to ask for a longer sentence, except in “extraordinary circumstances.” Boudin ended cash bail and limited the use of gang enhancements, which allow harsher sentences for gang-related felonies. In most cases he prohibited prosecutors from seeking charges when drugs and guns were found during minor traffic stops. “We will not charge cases determined to be a racist pretextual stop that leads to recovery of contraband,” Rachel Marshall, the district attorney’s director of communications, told me.

Boudin is a big proponent of “collaborative courts” that focus on rehabilitation over jail time, such as Veterans Justice Court and Behavioral Health Court, and under his tenure they tried more cases than ever before. In 2018, less than 40 percent of petty-theft cases were sent to these programs, compared with more than 70 percent last year. Marshall said it was the judges who decided which cases to divert, not Boudin, and eligibility rules for the collaborative courts have loosened in recent years. But critics also pointed out that Boudin got fewer convictions overall: 40 percent in 2021, compared with about 60 percent under his predecessor.

About 60 prosecutors had left since Boudin took office—close to half of his team. Some retired or were fired, but others quit in protest. I talked with two who joined the recall campaign. One of them, a homicide prosecutor named Brooke Jenkins, told me she left in part because Boudin was pressuring some lawyers to prosecute major crimes as lesser offenses. (Marshall said this was “a lie.”) She couldn’t be part of it. “The victims feel hopeless,” Jenkins told me. “They feel he has lost their opportunity for justice. Right now what they see and feel is that his only concern is the criminal offender.” (I wouldn’t be surprised to see Jenkins run for D.A. herself, though this isn’t something she’s floated yet.)

I remember starting a thread about this Soros-backed progressive prosecutors project a few years ago but for the life of me I cannot find it now.

[Ken]

Well you gave me quite a few problems that contain nuances. What are the nuanced solutions and how is CRT-influenced thinking at work in those solutions?

I'll give you another example of CRT-influenced policy that has negative, though not unforeseen consequences. The Soros-backed prosecutors that have determined to not prosecute low-level crimes and to prosecute high-level crimes for lesser degrees. This was done principally, though not exclusively in the name of the anti-racist effort to balance the disparity in incarceration rates between white and minority prisoners.

Here's George Soros in his own words: "Why I Support Reform Prosecutors" (It's pay-walled)

Here's James Kirchick at Tablet highlighting the Soros angle to the story:"The Sanctification of George Soros"

The scope of Soros’ efforts has been extensive. Through a combination of direct contributions to candidates, subventions to political action committees, and funding of other third party groups via his Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent upwards of $40 million over the past decade helping to elect some 75 prosecutors in metropolitan areas ranging from Los Angeles to Philadelphia, Manhattan to St. Louis.

And here's the The Atlantic piece by Nellie Bowles again describing what went on in Boudin's D.A. office: "HOW SAN FRANCISCO BECAME A FAILED CITY"

It is difficult to remember now, but the Boudin election was thrilling for the city. It occurred during the heights of rage against President Donald Trump, when more and more people were becoming aware of police violence against Black people and demanding criminal-justice reforms. London Breed, the city’s first Black female mayor, wanted a liberal moderate for D.A., but Boudin ran to the left as a fierce progressive ideologue whose worldview was shaped by his imprisoned parents, members of the Weather Underground. He was a public defender, not a prosecutor at all. He had worked in Venezuela and in 2009 congratulated the former dictator Hugo Chávez for abolishing term limits. Boudin was a charismatic figure. His campaign manager called him “a national movement candidate.”

The Police Officers Association fought hard against him, spending $400,000 on a barrage of attack ads, according to the San Francisco Examiner. They didn’t work. At Boudin’s election party, a city supervisor led the crowd in a chant of “F--- the POA.” During his campaign, Boudin said he wouldn’t prosecute quality-of-life crimes. He wanted to “break the cycle of recidivism” by addressing the social causes of crime—poverty, addiction, mental-health issues. Boudin was selling revolution, and San Francisco was ready. In theory.

But not in fact. Because it turns out that people on the left also own property, and generally believe stores should be paid for the goods they sell.

Under Boudin, prosecutors in the city could no longer use the fact that someone had been convicted of a crime in the past to ask for a longer sentence, except in “extraordinary circumstances.” Boudin ended cash bail and limited the use of gang enhancements, which allow harsher sentences for gang-related felonies. In most cases he prohibited prosecutors from seeking charges when drugs and guns were found during minor traffic stops. “We will not charge cases determined to be a racist pretextual stop that leads to recovery of contraband,” Rachel Marshall, the district attorney’s director of communications, told me.

Boudin is a big proponent of “collaborative courts” that focus on rehabilitation over jail time, such as Veterans Justice Court and Behavioral Health Court, and under his tenure they tried more cases than ever before. In 2018, less than 40 percent of petty-theft cases were sent to these programs, compared with more than 70 percent last year. Marshall said it was the judges who decided which cases to divert, not Boudin, and eligibility rules for the collaborative courts have loosened in recent years. But critics also pointed out that Boudin got fewer convictions overall: 40 percent in 2021, compared with about 60 percent under his predecessor.

About 60 prosecutors had left since Boudin took office—close to half of his team. Some retired or were fired, but others quit in protest. I talked with two who joined the recall campaign. One of them, a homicide prosecutor named Brooke Jenkins, told me she left in part because Boudin was pressuring some lawyers to prosecute major crimes as lesser offenses. (Marshall said this was “a lie.”) She couldn’t be part of it. “The victims feel hopeless,” Jenkins told me. “They feel he has lost their opportunity for justice. Right now what they see and feel is that his only concern is the criminal offender.” (I wouldn’t be surprised to see Jenkins run for D.A. herself, though this isn’t something she’s floated yet.)

I remember starting a thread about this Soros-backed progressive prosecutors project a few years ago but for the life of me I cannot find it now.

The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Higher than China and over 6-times higher than say Canada. It also has more total prisoners than any other nation in the world including China. Black people are also incarcerated at far higher rates and for longer sentences than White people in the US for the same crimes. A lot of this is due to things like "gang enhancements" cited above.

Is it your estimation that the old way of doing things were going just fine? How many more people need to be locked up before we "solve" crime? How many more trillions of dollars are you willing to spend to turn our society into a police and prison state?

I'm not any particular supporter of Boudin. I haven't followed that issue closely enough to have a specific opinion. But I expect there were a lot of people with entrenched vested interests in the old way of doing business.

What is the Christian approach to criminal justice? Do we make room for rehabilitation and redemption? Our current system for the most part does not. When we make it impossible for former felons to find employment, find housing, go to college, and even participate in society in normal ways such as voting then we basically point them right back to a life of crime with predictable consequences.

[Josh]

Of note is that the people who suffer the most under so-called “anti-racist” regimes, such as Soros-funded DAs refusing to prosecute crime, are disadvantaged minority groups themselves.

Who really suffers the most from rampant crime and disorder? Not wealthy people who can afford to move away. Poorer people, disproportionately black, Hispanic, and immigrant, do, all in the name of “correcting historic injustice”.

Tolerating rampant shoplifting, robbery, and violent crime doesn’t actually help black people, immigrants, or anyone else. It means fewer job opportunities, businesses providing essential goods and services, and living in a state of fear of personal violence.

I consider myself an “anti-racist”, but in order to do lessen the problems and injustice of racism, I feel I must needs be anti-CRT, anti-critical theory, and anti-BLM.

Shall I go so far as to say if you do not join me, then you must, by Davis’ definition, be a “racist”?

[Josh]

The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Higher than China and over 6-times higher than say Canada. It also has more total prisoners than any other nation in the world including China. Black people are also incarcerated at far higher rates and for longer sentences than White people in the US for the same crimes. A lot of this is due to things like "gang enhancements" cited above.

Have you stopped to consider who the victims are of these criminals you complain are locked away at a rate 6 times too high?

What race do you think they are?

[Ken]

The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Higher than China and over 6-times higher than say Canada. It also has more total prisoners than any other nation in the world including China. Black people are also incarcerated at far higher rates and for longer sentences than White people in the US for the same crimes. A lot of this is due to things like "gang enhancements" cited above.

Have you stopped to consider who the victims are of these criminals you complain are locked away at a rate 6 times too high?

What race do you think they are?

Of course. But I am also willing to LISTEN to those communities of color when it comes to identifying problems and solutions in the area of criminal justice.

Are YOU?

[HondurasKeiser]

Well you gave me quite a few problems that contain nuances. What are the nuanced solutions and how is CRT-influenced thinking at work in those solutions?

I'll give you another example of CRT-influenced policy that has negative, though not unforeseen consequences. The Soros-backed prosecutors that have determined to not prosecute low-level crimes and to prosecute high-level crimes for lesser degrees. This was done principally, though not exclusively in the name of the anti-racist effort to balance the disparity in incarceration rates between white and minority prisoners.

Here's George Soros in his own words: "Why I Support Reform Prosecutors" (It's pay-walled)

Here's James Kirchick at Tablet highlighting the Soros angle to the story:"The Sanctification of George Soros"

The scope of Soros’ efforts has been extensive. Through a combination of direct contributions to candidates, subventions to political action committees, and funding of other third party groups via his Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent upwards of $40 million over the past decade helping to elect some 75 prosecutors in metropolitan areas ranging from Los Angeles to Philadelphia, Manhattan to St. Louis.

And here's the The Atlantic piece by Nellie Bowles again describing what went on in Boudin's D.A. office: "HOW SAN FRANCISCO BECAME A FAILED CITY"

It is difficult to remember now, but the Boudin election was thrilling for the city. It occurred during the heights of rage against President Donald Trump, when more and more people were becoming aware of police violence against Black people and demanding criminal-justice reforms. London Breed, the city’s first Black female mayor, wanted a liberal moderate for D.A., but Boudin ran to the left as a fierce progressive ideologue whose worldview was shaped by his imprisoned parents, members of the Weather Underground. He was a public defender, not a prosecutor at all. He had worked in Venezuela and in 2009 congratulated the former dictator Hugo Chávez for abolishing term limits. Boudin was a charismatic figure. His campaign manager called him “a national movement candidate.”

The Police Officers Association fought hard against him, spending $400,000 on a barrage of attack ads, according to the San Francisco Examiner. They didn’t work. At Boudin’s election party, a city supervisor led the crowd in a chant of “F--- the POA.” During his campaign, Boudin said he wouldn’t prosecute quality-of-life crimes. He wanted to “break the cycle of recidivism” by addressing the social causes of crime—poverty, addiction, mental-health issues. Boudin was selling revolution, and San Francisco was ready. In theory.

But not in fact. Because it turns out that people on the left also own property, and generally believe stores should be paid for the goods they sell.

Under Boudin, prosecutors in the city could no longer use the fact that someone had been convicted of a crime in the past to ask for a longer sentence, except in “extraordinary circumstances.” Boudin ended cash bail and limited the use of gang enhancements, which allow harsher sentences for gang-related felonies. In most cases he prohibited prosecutors from seeking charges when drugs and guns were found during minor traffic stops. “We will not charge cases determined to be a racist pretextual stop that leads to recovery of contraband,” Rachel Marshall, the district attorney’s director of communications, told me.

Boudin is a big proponent of “collaborative courts” that focus on rehabilitation over jail time, such as Veterans Justice Court and Behavioral Health Court, and under his tenure they tried more cases than ever before. In 2018, less than 40 percent of petty-theft cases were sent to these programs, compared with more than 70 percent last year. Marshall said it was the judges who decided which cases to divert, not Boudin, and eligibility rules for the collaborative courts have loosened in recent years. But critics also pointed out that Boudin got fewer convictions overall: 40 percent in 2021, compared with about 60 percent under his predecessor.

About 60 prosecutors had left since Boudin took office—close to half of his team. Some retired or were fired, but others quit in protest. I talked with two who joined the recall campaign. One of them, a homicide prosecutor named Brooke Jenkins, told me she left in part because Boudin was pressuring some lawyers to prosecute major crimes as lesser offenses. (Marshall said this was “a lie.”) She couldn’t be part of it. “The victims feel hopeless,” Jenkins told me. “They feel he has lost their opportunity for justice. Right now what they see and feel is that his only concern is the criminal offender.” (I wouldn’t be surprised to see Jenkins run for D.A. herself, though this isn’t something she’s floated yet.)

I remember starting a thread about this Soros-backed progressive prosecutors project a few years ago but for the life of me I cannot find it now.

The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Higher than China and over 6-times higher than say Canada. It also has more total prisoners than any other nation in the world including China. Black people are also incarcerated at far higher rates and for longer sentences than White people in the US for the same crimes. A lot of this is due to things like "gang enhancements" cited above.

Is it your estimation that the old way of doing things were going just fine? How many more people need to be locked up before we "solve" crime? How many more trillions of dollars are you willing to spend to turn our society into a police and prison state?

I'm not any particular supporter of Boudin. I haven't followed that issue closely enough to have a specific opinion. But I expect there were a lot of people with entrenched vested interests in the old way of doing business.

What is the Christian approach to criminal justice? Do we make room for rehabilitation and redemption? Our current system for the most part does not. When we make it impossible for former felons to find employment, find housing, go to college, and even participate in society in normal ways such as voting then we basically point them right back to a life of crime with predictable consequences.

You seem to be doing that which you like to ding Josh for: ascribing motivations or ideas to me that I did not write or even imply.

I recognize the problems inherent in the American criminal-justice system and what's more I don't need a critical line of inquiry to see those problems. I have no vested interest in keeping it from being reformed. My point in throwing up the example of Soros-backed prosecutors and the disastrous effects they're having on their cities, and specifically minority communities, is that CRT-influenced solutions, inasmuch as they cannot allow for nuanced solutions because such nuance implies that there's more to a problem than simply group power and group injustice, necessarily end in immiseration.

In point of fact, I agree with Bowles from her piece when she writes:

Of course there is good in what Boudin was trying to do. No one wants people incarcerated for unfair lengths of time. No one wants immigrants’ relatives to be killed by MS-13. Few of Boudin’s policy ideas—individually, and sometimes with reasonable limitations—are indefensible. (Ending cash bail for truly minor offenses, for instance, protects people from losing their job and more while in jail.) But as with homelessness, the city’s overall take on criminal-justice reform moved well past the point of common sense. Last month a man who had been convicted of 15 burglary and theft-related felonies from 2002 to 2019 was rearrested on 16 new counts of burglary and theft; most of those charges were dismissed and he was released on probation. It really didn’t inspire confidence that the city was taking any of this seriously.

Boudin’s defenders liked to dismiss his critics as whiny tech bros or rich right-wingers. One pro-Boudin flyer said stop the right-wing agenda. But the drumbeat of complaints came from plenty of good liberals, and so did the votes against him. If it were only the rich, well, the rich can hire private security, or move to the suburbs. And many do. They’re not the only people who live here, and they’re not the only ones who got angry.

[joshuabgood]

You seem keen on condemnation of "White America" or the "White Church" but who decides what redemption even looks like or when it has finally occurred?

I am not keen on condemnation and that isn't a word I used. Would you care to respond to the substance of what I wrote with a charitable interpretation?

Because redemption and peacemaking are hard surely doesn't mean we shouldn't therefore pursue redemption and restitution as a church, does it?

You wondered aloud about the culpability and liability of we modern-White Christians for events that occurred 50 years ago. Who determines my culpability/liability?

Not quite. I noted the conservative white church in the 60s was largely silent regarding racism. And as recently George Ws presidency , IFB folks openly and formally had racist policies regarding inter racial dating at their colleges, see BJU.

I further noted that in all contexts, including the modern one, one can make a case that Biblically and empirically society is as a whole to some extent liable for their members actions. And I explained it. I'd like to know if you accept the idea that a society/family to some extent does bear culpability as a whole...or do you see it purely from an individualistic sense and the individual is in no way morally connected to his family, tribe, upbringing, or society?