HomeArticlesAnti-Racism: A New Religion that Needs Critical Study

Comments

Anti-Racism: A New Religion that Needs Critical Study — 2 Comments

  1. Gordon, I am not attracted to critical theory, nor to this sort of critical analysis of what is going on in America today. It smacks too much of dichotomies, dialectics, and all that Marxist drivel that paints the world in black and white, as good vs evil.
    To me, awareness of racism, including structural racism, is rooted in Protestant Christianity; we can see it in the writings of Walter Rauschenbusch, Reinhold Niebuhr, and ML King, among others. So I reject those who would want to label the desire to lift up leaders who would lead America based on a more inclusive perspective as contrary to Christianity, unless you mean a certain narrow strain of White Evangelicalism. Rather, I see it is part of a growth process towards a more perfect union that Americans confront the sin of racism and put it to rest. I see no reason to distrust such leaders (who now populate the Biden administration) any more than I distrusted leaders of the previous administration (who, I must say, were substandard in many respects).
    Finally, I believe churches of all stripes should take the lead in promoting a more inclusive America, as this will ultimately lead to a better Christianity that will be more ripe for revival, on the godly foundation of accepting the universal brotherhood (and sisterhood) of all people as God’s children.

    • Andrew, Thank you for sharing your beliefs. While this critical theory is not attractive to most people, it is widespread and causing a destructive effect on society. Hopefully awareness of the value of each human being can grow and develop and the racism and violence “wokeness” is unknowingly exacerbating can end. “Wokeness” is an initial awareness or waking up, like the birth of a child opening its eyes to the world and screaming and waving its arms. It needs parents, and will not grow up by itself. This is a test for unificationists who exemplify “true parentism.” Otherwise a likely outcome is portrayed in Lord of the Flies.

      I am not sure why you consider Biden appointees in the government to be “leaders.” I view independent thinking and acting for the sake of the whole as aspects of genuine leadership. It is doubtful genuine leaders would receive a party endorsement or appointment because independent thought would be a threat to the donors who hold the party hostage to their special interest objectives–which are mostly against the interest of the whole. Tulsi Gabbard being called a Russian spy is the way parties treat independent thinking of their members. I don’t think this can be fixed without removing party names from ballots, so that people vote for representatives of the citizenry, and not the party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>