Russ Douthat on Critical Race Theory

[Josh]

She’s saying that the only “good white people” are ones who explicitly make “anti-racism” their main focus.

I disagree with that, simply because scripture never teaches anything she’s saying. The Bible doesn’t teach us to think in terms of race.

[Bootstrap]

She’s saying that the only “good white people” are ones who explicitly make “anti-racism” their main focus.

Nope. Go back and read the last post, she is not dividing people into "good people" and "bad people" at all, she is not saying people need to make "anti-racism" their main focus. You are putting words into her mouth, she did not say the things you put in quote marks. Seriously, go back and read the previous post that you replied to and see how her quote addresses the issues you just raised. Or if I missed something, please provide the quote from her, in her own words, with a link to the source.

For instance, when her daughter asked if people are good people or bad people, she responded this way:

... she would ask me all the time, is that person good or bad momma? Are they good or bad? And I’d say most people are both.

One of the things I like about Russ Douthat's article is that he says we can listen and take what is good without swallowing everything wholesale. And I also like the fact that he is reading and engaging with the things he is analyzing.

I disagree with that, simply because scripture never teaches anything she’s saying. The Bible doesn’t teach us to think in terms of race.

If the New Testament is any guide, living together as Christians, across ethnic and cultural lines, is something that requires a lot of work. This is a major theme in most of Paul's letters. It's a major theme in Acts.

But of course, CRT is not about the church. Still, if it's hard for Christians, it may be hard for countries.

[Josh]

Simply put, I don’t think virtue and righteousness flows from anti-racism, anti-racism, or fighting oppression. That’s simply not what New Testament victorious Christian living is.

It’s very obvious the writer thinks it is virtuous to agitate and push for political change. I think it’s virtuous to avoid being involved in politics at all. So and and I are immediately going to be at odds.

We run into trouble here because she asserts that not fighting for the political changes she wants automatically makes me a racist. So, in other words, to live out my Christian convictions, I must needs be what she considers to be the most wicked kind of racist. That sets us at odds.

She needs to repent, forgive, and move on from worldly forms of coercion and control - to follow the gospel. Only then will she find peace. There will never be any peace or justice in worldly systems. That is only found in kingdom of heaven, and in Christ’s church. Reforming government and society to be a travesty of Christ’s kingdom results in a cruel mockery and caricature of “justice”, and results in the kind of gross culture wars we see today.

[Bootstrap]

We run into trouble here because she asserts that not fighting for the political changes she wants automatically makes me a racist.

Could you please provide a quote - with a link - where she says anything like that?

[Josh]

We run into trouble here because she asserts that not fighting for the political changes she wants automatically makes me a racist.

Could you please provide a quote - with a link - where she says anything like that?

I can't find the quote, although I probably could if I searched long enough. It was in some news outlets last year.

I'll leave you with another choice quote from her, cited by CBS which I found on Twitter:

And violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man's neck until all of the life is leached out of his body. Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. And to put those things- to use the same language to describe those two things I think really- it's not moral to do that.

Do we really want to look to someone who thinks that burning down buildings and looting retail stores is not "violence"? She simply supports a particular political agenda and is in favour of using violence and intimidation until she gets her way.

[nett]

We run into trouble here because she asserts that not fighting for the political changes she wants automatically makes me a racist.

Could you please provide a quote - with a link - where she says anything like that?

I think asking for a source for this is disingenuous boot. Do you really think Nikole Hannah-Jones does not espouse mainstream CRT orthodoxy on this topic?

https://global.cornell.edu/themes/silence-racism

To be an antiracist, you have to dismantle structural inequality.

[Ken]

We run into trouble here because she asserts that not fighting for the political changes she wants automatically makes me a racist.

Could you please provide a quote - with a link - where she says anything like that?

I can't find the quote, although I probably could if I searched long enough. It was in some news outlets last year.

I'll leave you with another choice quote from her, cited by CBS which I found on Twitter:

And violence is when an agent of the state kneels on a man's neck until all of the life is leached out of his body. Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. And to put those things- to use the same language to describe those two things I think really- it's not moral to do that.

Do we really want to look to someone who thinks that burning down buildings and looting retail stores is not "violence"? She simply supports a particular political agenda and is in favour of using violence and intimidation until she gets her way.

She's not wrong. Treating property and human life as equivalent is not biblical. In the Bible Jesus distinguishes between destruction of property and violent acts against people.

According to John 2:13 he did not hesitate to wreck destruction on the moneylenders in the temple: "And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade"."

By contrast: Killing has always been the worst of sins. The 10 Commandments contains no prohibition on destruction of property but it does on killing, as Jesus reminds us in Matthew 5:21: “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."

That doesn't mean that property destruction is not a crime, or should be aided or abetted or excused in any way. But it is not equivalent to murder legally or morally or biblically or by any other criteria. I'm surprised that you of all people would place equal value on human life and material possessions.

[Josh]

You don’t think burning down buildings and smashing windows is “violence”?

[Ken]

You don’t think burning down buildings and smashing windows is “violence”?

The WHO defines violence as follows:

"the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

But the point isn't to engage in pedantic arguments about the meaning of the term "violence" for which there are dozens of definitions, expansive and narrow. You can find expansive definitions that include harm to property. And you can find narrower definitions focused on harm to people. The point is that destruction of property and murder are not equivalent. Not legally. Not morally. And not biblically. That is the point that Jones was making. And she is entirely correct. I would think that someone who claims to be "pro-life" would agree.

[Josh]

Burning down buildings and other things is arson, which has always been considered a violent crime and definitely does often kill people.

I really can’t believe you’re standing here telling me that violent crime is OK. Smashing windows, throwing Molotov cocktails, and lighting buildings on fire is violence. Period. It is exactly the same kind of thing as “police brutality”.

If you don’t want a violent, repressive police state, a good place to start is by not tolerating riots and property crime. When windows get regularly smashed, people start wanting more police, and stop caring about the civil rights of the windows-smashers. When homicides are at sky high rates like in Philadelphia this year, the citizenry eventually wants anything that will make it stop. Young children keep getting killed, caught in the crossfire. And no, we don’t have a “pandemic” of “gun violence”. A bad, wicked person decided to pull a trigger. The duty to the state is to restrain and punish that person who pulled a trigger, and to be a “terror to evildoers”. The police should be a terror to someone thinking about pulling that trigger.