This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke

User avatar
By thepostman
Registration Days Posts
#625476
That is partially true but the other part is there are people who are absolutely triggered when they hear the word diversity. So instead of actually reading what is being communicated they single in on the word diversity or "old white guy" and ignore the substance. It happens here all the time and I think because of that things get lost in translation due to neither side having the ability to see pass their biases and pre-conceived notions.

I'm of course not without fault in this. I have my own biases and am working hard to try to get past those but this discussion remains circular because we are far too stuck in our own heads.
User avatar
By Just John
Registration Days Posts
#625543
cruzan_flame13 wrote: April 28th, 2021, 12:45 pm
stokesjokes wrote: April 28th, 2021, 12:14 pm It’s perhaps a clunky and jarring way to say it, but Jon’s not wrong about the old white guys. The fact is, the board would be well-served to have a variety of backgrounds, cultures, and genders represented. The problem isn’t with old white guys, the problem is with only old white guys. The same problem would exist if the board was all young women or any other monolithic representation. If everyone is coming from the same perspective, they are going to have huge blind spots that having diversity would fill and help balance.
:roll:

I will say that all "white", "black" or others are not the same. People are from different regions of this country which are not alike. Also, they should have the same mindset if it comes from the word of God. Talking about diversity, race, etc from the modern definition has nothing to do with God but just the twisted ideology of the world. By the way those concepts are all derived in the Social/Marxist ideology and look what that has done to several countries in the 19th/ 20th century and see how it's still going in this country and other developed countries. We need Humble and Virtuous slaves of God (that's right, I said slaves) to take these position and make sure that Christ is the true impact in everything the LU is involved in (academics, athletics, local/state/national/international missions). Feelings do not matter in this case. Of course these individuals will still need accountability and they should concur and recognize this notion.
Your eyeroll aside, I didn't see anywhere in Stoke's post where he said anything about such red herrings. He didn't say anything about a diversity of core-beliefs or fundamentals of the faith. He simply said "a variety of backgrounds, culture and gender" and "different perspectives". We were all taught in Christianity 101 that the Gospels are essentially the same story, written from a different perspective, even though it was all God-inspired. We should welcome different perspective. Iron sharpens iron.

In the same way, I contend the "same" mindset does not "come from the Word of God". Mindsets are not doctrine, they are distinct to individuals. Think of Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15. Paul didn't want to take Mark along on their next missionary journey because Mark had abandoned them earlier. Barnabas on the other hand wanted to take him. Who was right? It wasn't a doctrinal issue, it was a different mindset. Paul viewed Mark based on his past mistake where it appears Barnabas saw potential and redemption. Their is value in different perspectives that are unique because of different cultures (Jews and Gentiles in Acts?) race and gender. It shouldn't be those things "just because" or to be "politically correct" but from the actual value they bring. The Bible also tells us there is a wisdom in in a "multitude of counsel". That infers more than a monolithic point of view. I'm not afraid of old white men, I am one. But neither am I put off by others who want more diverse perspectives.
Last edited by Just John on April 30th, 2021, 12:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By sstaedtler
Posts
#625766
stokesjokes wrote: April 28th, 2021, 12:14 pm It’s perhaps a clunky and jarring way to say it, but Jon’s not wrong about the old white guys. The fact is, the board would be well-served to have a variety of backgrounds, cultures, and genders represented. The problem isn’t with old white guys, the problem is with only old white guys. The same problem would exist if the board was all young women or any other monolithic representation. If everyone is coming from the same perspective, they are going to have huge blind spots that having diversity would fill and help balance.
Jon may be right but I believe Jon wants to push some elements of Critical Race Theory into Liberty and that is the last thing on earth the University needs. He will say he won't be he does and it is evident by many of his posts. It destroys churches, schools, businesses, and sports leagues. It's not meant to be unifying or for two way conversations. With Falwell gone, leftists see this as their chance to take over Liberty like they have so many other Christian universities and institutions, some of which are no longer Christian. I have no problem have different backgrounds or races or genders as long as they stick to Scripture and aren't bringing in ideas outside of mainstream core Christian thinking. I don't want Liberty becoming another Elizabethtown, Duke, Haverford, Swarthmore, Wake Forest, or the many other colleges that used to be Christian and no longer are.
flameshaw liked this
By stokesjokes
Registration Days Posts
#625767
I really don’t understand why CRT has become the conservative evangelical’s boogeyman. It’s a useful tool to help understand systemic racial disparities. Its not some insidious ideology that’s turning people away from Christ. Of course it’s not perfect or above criticism, and it may not be a tool everyone chooses to use, but goodness gracious, y’all need to calm down.
User avatar
By Jonathan Carone
Posts
#625770
Critical race theory, as a whole, is bad and anti-Christ.

That said, there are elements of it that can be redeemed and be useful for us to reach others for Jesus.

CRT is this century’s Darwinism. On the whole, it’s wrong. Within it are pieces that are good and can help us better see the world.

If you want to invest the time into how Jesus can redeem pieces of CRT, this is a great podcast episode on the topic.
By stokesjokes
Registration Days Posts
#625784
This may be a derail and deserving of its own thread, but I’m interested in this conversation. One thing I’ve learned over the past few years is to watch for the things people get defensive about and outraged over- we react strongest to things that threaten our idols.

I think those who are reacting against CRT have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and the power dynamics CRT seeks to critique. I also think reacting against CRT is, again, a way of externalizing the problem- it’s a way to deflect. We don’t have to examine our own systems and structures and try to do things differently in the name of justice if the tool used to expose the injustice is the “real” problem, not the injustice itself.

How many people railing against CRT are engaged in any kind of meaningful work towards racial justice? Purposely or not, dismissing CRT has had the side effect of stifling this work in the church. I read an interview the other day with a Wheaton professor who has been teaching on CRT for years before it became a divisive issue. Where he used to get real engagement, his students are now terrified to discuss it since they’ve been basically told that if you agree with any of it, you’re anti-Christ. He said he will have them read and discuss an article without saying it’s from a CRT scholar- here’s what he says happens:

“ The overwhelming response from the students is: “Wow, this essay is so rigorously researched, so clear, and so well-argued. Even if I don’t agree with every claim, I learned so much,” etc. Then, after they’ve sung a little praise song, [laughs] I tell them they’ve read a piece by a critical race theorist. You can see a look of disillusionment set in — this part gets really hard, if I’m honest. On the one hand, it’s a healthy destabilization. You’ve gotta remember that a lot of my students are racialized white folks. If they’re not now going to say that everything they just said was false, how do they reckon with believing there are things to learn from critical race theorists while knowing that the stakes, in some of these communities they’ve been a part of, are so high that to say such is to find themselves ostracized?”

Here’s the interview in full:

https://sojo.net/articles/why-nathan-ca ... angelicals
User avatar
By cruzan_flame13
Posts
#625790
Jonathan Carone wrote: May 6th, 2021, 7:16 am Critical race theory, as a whole, is bad and anti-Christ.

That said, there are elements of it that can be redeemed and be useful for us to reach others for Jesus.

CRT is this century’s Darwinism. On the whole, it’s wrong. Within it are pieces that are good and can help us better see the world.

If you want to invest the time into how Jesus can redeem pieces of CRT, this is a great podcast episode on the topic.
Please give an example or examples on how Darwinism can help see the world better. Social Darwinism? Eugenics? Jim Crow? We are having these issues now because they're all established to create transactions amongst people. There's no value in Survival of the fittest and it sure should not be mentioned along with Jesus Christ. Not trying to be mean or anything, but most information that we are told since from a young age is from an European or "white" perspective. So how do you know that what you're told or even seeing is 100% correct? We are living in a deceitful world. So as I stated, our leaders should apply everything front the Word of God and not from a societal/world perspective. Let's stop trying to mix Jesus in the the world ideologies. Theres a reason why Darwinism and the race theories are just "theories."
sstaedtler liked this
By stokesjokes
Registration Days Posts
#625792
cruzan_flame13 wrote: May 6th, 2021, 12:06 pm Not trying to be mean or anything, but most information that we are told since from a young age is from an European or "white" perspective. So how do you know that what you're told or even seeing is 100% correct?
Ironically, you’re affirming an aspect of critical theory here (One that I 100% agree with).

What I think you’re conflating re: Darwinism is descriptive vs. prescriptive powers. We shouldn’t use Darwinism prescriptively, it’s not a code to live by, that’s how you get Nazis. However, Darwinism is very useful in explaining natural phenomenon and behaviors that we can readily observe in both the natural world and in culture at large. Our call as Christians is in opposition to these things, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist or that Darwinism isn’t useful in explaining why they exist in the first place.
User avatar
By cruzan_flame13
Posts
#625796
stokesjokes wrote: May 6th, 2021, 12:46 pm
cruzan_flame13 wrote: May 6th, 2021, 12:06 pm Not trying to be mean or anything, but most information that we are told since from a young age is from an European or "white" perspective. So how do you know that what you're told or even seeing is 100% correct?
Ironically, you’re affirming an aspect of critical theory here (One that I 100% agree with).

What I think you’re conflating re: Darwinism is descriptive vs. prescriptive powers. We shouldn’t use Darwinism prescriptively, it’s not a code to live by, that’s how you get Nazis. However, Darwinism is very useful in explaining natural phenomenon and behaviors that we can readily observe in both the natural world and in culture at large. Our call as Christians is in opposition to these things, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist or that Darwinism isn’t useful in explaining why they exist in the first place.
Which is very vague and not really helping to reveal any truths in those categories. There are things that is not set for our understanding, yet our approach in which is mention is used to cancel out God and replace it with man.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#625797
I believe this should be a separate thread. And it should be started by a CRT proponent listing the 3-5 main points of what CRT actually is. Currently everything I’ve heard espoused is vague and amorphous
stokesjokes liked this
By stokesjokes
Registration Days Posts
#625803
@Purple Haize , The first article from Rasool Berry provides a basic outline of critical theory but the article is pretty long and dense, so I can pull a few quotes:

“ What Are Critical Theorists Critical Of?
To put it simply, critical theorists offer critiques on what they see as oppressive abuses of power. The abuses of power critical theorists challenge can be the result of wealth, ideological dominance (hegemony), or the power to shape language and/ or physical domination via state sanctioned violence, to name a few. Critical theorists seek to critique and undermine traditional theories because they see these narratives as part of the establishment’s abusive power.”

“One important thing critics of CRT often overlook is that theorists are not monolithic, nor ideologically aligned in their approaches to ending racial injustice. They are unified more by what they are against (what they see as racist abuses of power) than by a common worldview or methodology.”
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#625805
stokesjokes wrote: May 6th, 2021, 2:29 pm @Purple Haize , The first article from Rasool Berry provides a basic outline of critical theory but the article is pretty long and dense, so I can pull a few quotes:

“ What Are Critical Theorists Critical Of?
To put it simply, critical theorists offer critiques on what they see as oppressive abuses of power. The abuses of power critical theorists challenge can be the result of wealth, ideological dominance (hegemony), or the power to shape language and/ or physical domination via state sanctioned violence, to name a few. Critical theorists seek to critique and undermine traditional theories because they see these narratives as part of the establishment’s abusive power.”

“One important thing critics of CRT often overlook is that theorists are not monolithic, nor ideologically aligned in their approaches to ending racial injustice. They are unified more by what they are against (what they see as racist abuses of power) than by a common worldview or methodology.”
Which is a different definition than I literally heard this morning. If the side using the term cant define it does that make it really a “thing”? For instance I do know CRT is opposed to “Colorblindness”. I can rattle of in a couple of sentences what “Colorblindness” means. CRT says it’s opposed to it but can’t give you a concrete reason why.
User avatar
By Jonathan Carone
Posts
#625806
CRT believes everyone belongs to a group. The idea of the group supersedes the idea of the individual and your identity resides in the group you’re in. That’s why colorblindness can’t exist to them.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
Registration Days Posts
#625807
Literally had a dude post this about CRT. Best explanation yet

my definition.

Critical Race Theory

A way for white liberals to once again use black folks and their plight to poke at white conservatives.


Is that easier for you to understand? Lol

He is a “non Caucasian”
tyndal23, sstaedtler liked this
By ALUmnus
Registration Days Posts
#625808
Definitions are hard, because once you define something it's easier to pick apart. This is from today, from a very pro-CRT academic (but by no means one of the experts in the field):

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1390 ... 82277.html
You hear US politicians disgracing themselves on TV shouting critical race theory (CRT) is a pox on all our houses, they're gonna ban it, slap it, flip it, rub it down, but have absolutely no clue what it is? Are you wondering what even is this CRT? Well, come learn. 🧵🧵 1/13
CRT is a framework (ideas and understandings about reality and how things operate) that originated in legal studies through the work of Derrick Bell, along with Kimberlé Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, Mari Matsuda, others. It's a way to examine and understand how US law works. 2/13
Now you're thinking, people wanna ban somebody's type of legal analysis? Well, yes. But they don't even know what CRT is. They're racists and white supremacists who don't want public discussion and legal consideration of systemic racism and white people's unfair advantages. 3/13
Thing is, CRT didn't just stay in legal studies. CRT ideas and understandings about how things work in the US spread to other areas of study, because CRT explains and clarifies racial inequity *extremely well* and is helpful to figure out issues in education, politics, etc. 4/13
So, what are these ideas and understandings of CRT that upset people so much? Well, the CRT framework consists of very clear, simple, observable, documented, commonsense realities of how things work in the US, explained in 6 main tenets (points or major principles). 5/13

CRT tenet 1: Endemic racism. This principle says racism is predominant and very widespread in our thinking, interactions, systems, practices, institutions. Such that, inequality and unfair advantages whites have over POC are assumed natural, inevitable, and unchangeable. 6/13

CRT tenet 2: Critique of liberal myths. This says the idea all are treated equally with same rights under law, education, housing, other institutions is a lie. So, liberal notions like meritocracy (even playing field), objectivity, race neutrality (colorblindness) are myths. 7/13

CRT tenet 3: Whiteness as property. This says being white in US is a valuable commodity that gives those who possess this "property" (whiteness) unearned privileges like preference, authority, exclusivity, legitimacy, greater chance of survival (eg, police encounters), etc. 8/13

CRT tenet 4: Interest convergence. This says POC can only advance on mass scale in US institutions, society when their interests converge with white people's (when whatever benefits POC also benefits whites). Eg, white women are greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action. 9/13

CRT tenet 5: Counternarrative. This says personal stories (narratives) of Black people and other POC are legitimate authorities and evidence that counter (challenge) dominant white, elite, male voices society typically treats as sources of standard or objective knowledge. 10/13

CRT tenet 6: Intersectionality. This says Black women (especially) and other POC experience racism in unique ways inseparable from and worsened by other oppression like sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia. So, women's policies, for example, don't affect us all the same. 11/13

So, that's critical race theory. A set of principles scholars use to show there's no racial equality in the US, and racism and white supremacy are baked into laws, policies, practices, institutions (eg, education), literally everything. And all this is common knowledge! 12/13
When racists shout critical race theory is evil and should be banned, now you know what CRT is, which is MUCH MORE than they know. You also see they're telling you to reject reality and basic facts about how things work in this country just so they maintain power. Will you? 13/13
To call it a "conservative evangelical boogeyman" is way too simplistic and dismissive. CRT is leaching into every institution of American society right now. People are taking notice, starting to gain a little courage, and are fighting back. It's corrosive in it's totality.
sstaedtler liked this
User avatar
By thepostman
Registration Days Posts
#625812
The thing that blows my mind is I hear CRT mentioned way more by conservative media and my conservative friends/family than their more liberal counterparts.

Is it a thing and should we be cautious of any worldly ideology? Of course but nothing said in this thread, or anywhere else, has convinced me that it is worth being THAT concerned about it.
By Yacht Rock
Registration Days Posts
#625817
I'll just chime in to address the question of colorblindness. I used to think that being "colorblind" was a good thing and tried to act that way.

We were first challenged with this way of thinking as part of our adoption process and becoming a transracial family.

Oftentimes colorblindness can ignore and minimize the differences someone brings to a group. When the group is predominantly from a different background, that becomes the "neutral" so to speak and conformity to the "neutral" is expected, because we're so focused on not acknowledging differences.

Rejecting "colorblindness" meant that I can look at my son and say, "He's Chinese. That's part of who he is." We can celebrate that and not dismiss it. He has a different background than I do and that's okay.

I'm not saying that people who embrace a "colorblind" attitude are always dismissive of cultural, ethnic, or racial differences, but I can say I've been more aware of it since our family makeup has changed.

I do believe most people who say they are "colorblind" have good intentions. I also think it's possible to acknowledge our differences and still love one another and appreciate one another.
By paradox
Registration Days Posts
#625823
To be honest, theoretical thinking, of any kind, seems like a waste of time. Vague conspiracies about social power structures tend to be unconvincing. Pretending to know the intensions of other people's hearts is both disingenuous and pompous.
rogers3 liked this
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
Dondi Costin - LU President

Ive gone there a few times since moving to texas b[…]

There’s a cerebral side to the game, which M[…]

NCAA Realignment Megathread

Duke Gonzaga B12? https://larrybrownsports.com/co[…]

FlameFans Fantasy Baseball

We are on!!! Hope to see everyone tonight at 9:30[…]