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

[HondurasKeiser]

If you think they aren’t, Szd, why don’t you start sharing screenshots of them here?

Let's consider this a rhetorical question rather than a dare.

Or perhaps “Would you be comfortable posting the controversial images here?”

[ken_sylvania]

The word "pornography" has an actual meaning. Can you cite specific examples of actual pornography being put into children's libraries? Or is it just messages that you disagree with and wish to censor?

Here are 2 examples: "Gender Queer" & "Flamer". Both are graphic novels with sexually explicit, pictorial depictions that are available to many middle-school aged children across the country.

So I’ve read “Gender Queer” and while there are explicit and frank depictions of sexuality in the book, I don’t think it meets the definition of pornographic.

Regarding a state ban in South Carolina:

https://www.wfae.org/race-equity/2021-1 ... it-obscene

Glenn: So, back to McMaster. He said some images in Gender Queer meet or exceed the statutory definition of obscenity. Is that the case?

Worf: I put that question to a couple law professors specializing in constitutional law because this really is a First Amendment issue. This is what Thomas Crocker had to say.

Thomas Crocker: It almost negligently is wrong because any lawyer knows the definition of obscenity is this exceptionally high bar to meet.

Worf: He’s a professor at University of South Carolina School of Law, the same law school McMaster received his law degree from.

Crocker: In general, they are not prosecuted very often because to meet the level of obscenity is a really, really high bar.

Worf: What kinds things qualify as obscene?

Crocker: I mean, when I teach this in First Amendment it’s really difficult to come up with a work that actually qualifies that has no redeeming artistic, literary merit. You have got to imagine things that I can’t imagine.

Glenn: What is South Carolina’s statute around obscenity?

Worf: Well, the work has to be judged as a whole to lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Mary-Rose Papandrea, a professor at UNC School of Law, says it matches word-for-word the standard the Supreme Court set for defining the category of speech called obscenity that falls outside the protections of the First Amendment.

Mary Rose Papandrea: My understanding is the book is a story about a nonbinary individual and that this would have clear literary, political, scientific, probably artistic value, as well.

Worf: She says under the First Amendment and South Carolina law, there is extra leeway for materials deemed obscene for minors. But even under that standard, she says the book has value.

I think this is really part of a backlash against LGBTQ — this is really an objection to students reading a memoir about a non-binary person and their discovery of their identity.

Kids, unfortunately, do have easy access to pornography, but it’s not from the school library. Last year, my ninth graders asked me if I knew what Porn Hub was. I’ve heard other students refer to Only Fans. Kids have easy access to material on their electronic devices that is much more explicit and pornographic than anything they’ll find in the school library, but we don’t see their parents taking their smartphones away.

I believe there is, legally and practically speaking, a difference between pornography and obscenity. Legally speaking, most pornography is not obscene. Considering that folks here have been criticizing the book as pornographic (I have never seen it, I don't know if it is or not), I don't understand the relevance of a discussion about SC's obscenity standard.

[Ken]

If you think they aren’t, Szd, why don’t you start sharing screenshots of them here?

Let's consider this a rhetorical question rather than a dare.

Or perhaps “Would you be comfortable posting the controversial images here?”

I was curious so I google searched imagery on that title and there are a few crude sexually explicit line drawings of the sort one sees on the bathroom stall walls of half the high schools in the country. One is based on the figures on a 2500 year old Greek urn sitting in a museum. But I wouldn't call it pornography. No kid is going to seek out this material for arousal or sexual gratification like they would say a swimsuit or lingerie catalog or any of the infinite volume of pornography available on their phones.

There is probably as much sexually explicit content in the average Shakespeare play like Othello or Midsummer Night's Dream as in this graphic novel. The author and publisher indicate that the material is intended for adults and older teens so basically high school and beyond. So it isn't age appropriate for elementary school kids and I doubt anyone ever claimed that it was. Neither is Hamlet. I don't have any particular problem with it in high school libraries.

News flash. Most kids don't actually go to the school libraries to check out books these days. They go there to get their Chromebooks fixed or to check out a loaner Chromebook if they forgot theirs at home. They go there for a quiet place to study or to print documents. They sometimes get sent there if the teacher has nothing for them to do. Or if they need help doing research on some topic. And often just to check out assigned reading texts for classes if the school manages assigned texts through the library rather than classroom teachers as many do. School librarians are professionals and they have limited budgets and shelf space and have to select works that are going to be of interest, value, and engaging for a very wide variety of students. I tend not to second guess them just like they don't second guess how I teach DNA replication or acid-base reactions.

Again, we got off on this side track because of claims that it is actually the left trying to censor speakers on the right. When I think it is entirely accurate to state that the bulk of censorship efforts in this country are actually attempts by people or organizations or politicians on the right to censor content they find objectionable. Much of it related to racism and LGBT topics in general and not pornography.

[Josh]

Again, we got off on this side track because of claims that it is actually the left trying to censor speakers on the right. When I think it is entirely accurate to state that the bulk of censorship efforts in this country are actually attempts by people or organizations or politicians on the right to censor content they find objectionable. Much of it related to racism and LGBT topics in general and not pornography.

Accusing the right wing of being categorically racist is a rather tired debate tactic I wish you'd stop doing.

And no, the right wing isn't trying to "censor" legitimate literature. But obscene and pornographic literature is not needed. Are you arguing that it is?

[Ken]

Again, we got off on this side track because of claims that it is actually the left trying to censor speakers on the right. When I think it is entirely accurate to state that the bulk of censorship efforts in this country are actually attempts by people or organizations or politicians on the right to censor content they find objectionable. Much of it related to racism and LGBT topics in general and not pornography.

Accusing the right wing of being categorically racist is a rather tired debate tactic I wish you'd stop doing.

And no, the right wing isn't trying to "censor" legitimate literature. But obscene and pornographic literature is not needed. Are you arguing that it is?

This whole thread is basically an attempt to question or "censor" the subject of systemic racism from being discussed in churches and schools by trying to link critical race theory to Marxism.

I am not accusing the right wing of being categorically racist. I am accusing the right wing of attempting to censor discussions of racism or systemic racism in both churches and schools. There is a difference.

[Falco Underhill]

Again, we got off on this side track because of claims that it is actually the left trying to censor speakers on the right. When I think it is entirely accurate to state that the bulk of censorship efforts in this country are actually attempts by people or organizations or politicians on the right to censor content they find objectionable. Much of it related to racism and LGBT topics in general and not pornography.

Accusing the right wing of being categorically racist is a rather tired debate tactic I wish you'd stop doing.

And no, the right wing isn't trying to "censor" legitimate literature. But obscene and pornographic literature is not needed. Are you arguing that it is?

This whole thread is basically an attempt to question or "censor" the subject of systemic racism from being discussed in churches and schools by trying to link critical race theory to Marxism.

No it isn't. Discussed in church or school is fine, I've said that.
Accepted as authoritative beyond question, no.

By the way, CRT IS in fact linked to Marxism. Neomarxism is linked to Marxism. If you still don't get that you're clearly in denial about it.

[Bootstrap]

Here's something I find uncomfortable about this thread.

According to the courts, George Floyd was murdered. Breona Taylor was murdered. Ahmad Arbery was murdered. I could go on and on. The jury is in, the facts have been heard. But these cases only succeeded because people made a lot of noise, there were real attempts to bury them.

And in every case, there seems to be an attempt to shut people up if they are concerned about this. I don't think most of the people who are upset about this are Marxists, I think a LOT of people don't like police killing civilians. And if we don't like the idea of a police state, that's the way it should be. That's not Marxism, it's basic human rights.

Why do you think most Marxist governments were overthrown? Don't the same principles apply when our own government does these things?

[Josh]

Here's something I find uncomfortable about this thread.

According to the courts, George Floyd was murdered. Breona Taylor was murdered. Ahmad Arbery was murdered. I could go on and on. The jury is in, the facts have been heard. But these cases only succeeded because people made a lot of noise, there were real attempts to bury them.

And in every case, there seems to be an attempt to shut people up if they are concerned about this. I don't think most of the people who are upset about this are Marxists, I think a LOT of people don't like police killing civilians. And if we don't like the idea of a police state, that's the way it should be. That's not Marxism, it's basic human rights.

Why do you think most Marxist governments were overthrown? Don't the same principles apply when our own government does these things?

The trials you listed, particularly Floyd, were basically political show trials, of which we seem to have a lot these days.

Could you explain how you think Floyd should have been handled? He was a chronic drug user who was trying to pass off counterfeit currency. How do you think society should handle people like that? If you want the police to handle it, eventually someone will get hurt.

The alternative is complete lawlessness, like we see now in Minneapolis, NYC, SF, and other places. Police departments are finding it hard to hire any cops, since they often get strung up in show trials like happened to Chauvin. Lots of black people have been murdered since Chauvin’s trial - many more than allegedly murdered by police. But since there aren’t enough cops now, the problem is actually getting worse. (Look at just Chicago’s murders since Chauvin compared to 2019, let alone other cities.)

And we live in a worse police state than ever. When faced with inflation, the government’s answer is to hire 85,000 more IRS agents to harass middle class small businesses. That’s what the face of tyranny looks like: you aren’t allowed to have a police department that keeps you safe in your own home and community from violent drug addicts, but you are certainly going to be harassed by well-funded government agents demanding you pay ever higher taxes even as inflation destroys your savings and ability to pay for anything.

[Bootstrap]

Here's something I find uncomfortable about this thread.

According to the courts, George Floyd was murdered. Breona Taylor was murdered. Ahmad Arbery was murdered. I could go on and on. The jury is in, the facts have been heard. But these cases only succeeded because people made a lot of noise, there were real attempts to bury them.

And in every case, there seems to be an attempt to shut people up if they are concerned about this. I don't think most of the people who are upset about this are Marxists, I think a LOT of people don't like police killing civilians. And if we don't like the idea of a police state, that's the way it should be. That's not Marxism, it's basic human rights.

Why do you think most Marxist governments were overthrown? Don't the same principles apply when our own government does these things?

The trials you listed, particularly Floyd, were basically political show trials, of which we seem to have a lot these days.

Actually, I think political show trials is what you see in some right-wing media, a shadow system that claims to take the place of the real trials and the real elections. Without anything like the protections that our court system gives real defendants in real courts. I trust American democracy more than I trust partisan political hatred.

If you reject elections and court trials, how do you think civil society should handle its disagreements? If you don't want a police state, don't you want the courts to have oversight over the police?

And why do you think the "quiet in the land" should be so loud about these things?

[Ken]

Accusing the right wing of being categorically racist is a rather tired debate tactic I wish you'd stop doing.

And no, the right wing isn't trying to "censor" legitimate literature. But obscene and pornographic literature is not needed. Are you arguing that it is?

This whole thread is basically an attempt to question or "censor" the subject of systemic racism from being discussed in churches and schools by trying to link critical race theory to Marxism.

No it isn't. Discussed in church or school is fine, I've said that.
Accepted as authoritative beyond question, no.

By the way, CRT IS in fact linked to Marxism. Neomarxism is linked to Marxism. If you still don't get that you're clearly in denial about it.

Nothing is authoritative beyond question.

There is a very real movement within the right to censor discussions of systemic racism in both schools and churches. Do you deny this? The examples are legion. It is labeled as anti-CRT but the term CRT is so loosely and incorrectly defined as to include virtually any discussion of race and racism.

As for linkages to Marxism? Mostly what we are actually talking about is racism and systemic racism and not CRT, and the people who are concerned about racism and systemic racism in this country are not Marxists. In fact, even most people who actually use critical race theory to explore and analyze specific examples of systemic racism (like housing discrimination, school discrimination, etc.) are also not Marxists. And even if they were, so what? That doesn't negate the issues under discussion.

Once could just as easily link Christianity to Marxism. A lot of Jesus' teachings are overtly Marxist. Or perhaps more correctly we can identify lots of points of overlap between Christianity and Marxism or Marxist theory. Does that negate Christianity?