In
"Politically Correct Holy Rollers: The New Campus Revival," Helen Andrews writes:
Not since environmentalism has the prevailing variety of leftism more closely resembled a religion. John McWhorter calls it Antiracism — “it seriously merits capitalization at this point” — and notes that it has its own clergy in such men as Charles Blow and Ta-Nehisi Coates (friendly vicar and hellfire preacher, respectively). Casting his net more widely to include all talk of “privilege,” from male to cisgender, essayist Joseph Bottum has observed that the concept is functionally equivalent to original sin. “I have to every day wake up and acknowledge that I am so deeply embedded with racist thoughts and notions and actions in my body that I have to choose every day to do anti-racist work and think in an anti-racist way,” said a graduate student whom Bottum was able to locate, sounding for all the world like a Calvinist explaining the T in TULIP.
TULIP is an acronym for
the 5 points of Calvinism. The T is:
"Total depravity," also called "total inability," asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person is enslaved to sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God but rather to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God. Thus, all people by their own faculties are morally unable to choose to follow God and be saved because they are unwilling to do so out of the necessity of their own natures. (The term "total" in this context refers to sin affecting every part of a person, not that every person is as evil as they could be). This doctrine is derived from Augustine's explanation of Original Sin. While the phrases "totally depraved" and "utterly perverse" were used by Calvin, what was meant was the inability to save oneself from sin rather than being absent of goodness.
If the explanations of "white privilege" and "total depravity" sound alike, what does that mean? 1. Those who speak in these terms no longer think independently but have surrendered their minds to compulsory doctrine which they strive to incant correctly. 2. Individuals may think independently and find value in recognizing that they have a selfish interest in seeing their usual way of life as normal and appropriate and choose to rouse themselves to the challenge to take a different perspective. If #2 is correct, why would that happen? 1. They visualize a fearsome authority commanding that the different perspective be taken. 2. They've decided on their own to search for the truth. 3. It
can't happen, because it's inherent in the Calvinist doctrine that the individual is incapable of independently choosing to move outside of the depravity that is total.
পোস্টগুলি
৪৩টি মন্তব্য:
That's a good way to put it. It's why when such types talk of a "dialogue" it rings so hollow, because an actual dialogue would be a problem for them. What they want is converts, a choir to preach to, and complete submission no different than the most fanatical of religious followers.
Which is a shame, because there is a lot worth having a dialogue over when it comes to race and racism. Just don't expect to have one with these types of people.
I'd also note the other disturbing trend with the far left racialist types is that they are not about racial equality and brotherhood anymore--it's now about revenge and payback. They're an ugly, disturbed group and any well-meaning liberal would be wise to recognize that early on and keep back from them.
Leftists seek redemption. Their certainty is a result of holding onto their redemption. They find that what the get from that is faith.
As Wittgenstein analyzed it for religion, QUOTE
Queer as it sounds : The historical accounts in the Gospels might, historically speaking, be demonstrably false and yet belief would lose nothing by this : _not_, however, because it concerns `univeral truths of reason'! Rather, because historical proof (the historical proof-game) is irrelevant to belief. This message (the Gospels) is seized on by men believingly (ie. lovingly). _That_ is the certainty charactrerizing this particular acceptance-as-true, not something _else_.
A believer's relation to these narratives is _neither_ the relation to historical truth (probability), _nor yet_ that to a theory consisting of `truths of reason.' There is such a thing. - (We have quite different attitudes even to different species of what we call fiction!)
I read : ``No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.'' - And it is true : I cannot call him _Lord_; because that says nothing to me. I could call him ``the paragon,' `God' even - or rather, I can understand it when he is called thus ; but I cannot utter the word ``Lord'' with meaning. _Because I do not believe_ that he will come to judge me ; because _that_ says nothing to me. And it could say something to me, only if I lived _completely_ differently.
What inclines even me to believe in Christ's Resurrection? It is as though I play with the thought. - If he did not rise from the dead, then he decomposed in the grave like any other man. _He is dead and decomposed._ In that case he is a teacher like any other and can no longer _help_ ; and once more we are orphaned and alone. So we have to content ourselves with wisdom and speculation. We are in a sort of hell where we can do nothing but dream, roofed in, as it were, and cut off from heaven. But if I am to be REALLY saved, - what I need is _certainty_ - not wisdom, dreams or speculation - and this certainty is faith. And faith is faith in what is needed by my _heart_, my _soul_, not my speculative intelligence. For it is my soul with its passions, as it were with its flesh and blood, that has to be saved, not my abstract mind. Perhaps we can say : Only _love_ can believe the Resurrection. Or : It is _love_ that believes the Resurrection. We might say : Redeeming love believes even in the Resurrection ; holds fast even to the Resurrection. What combats doubt is, as it were, _redemption_. Holding fast to _this_ must be holding fast to that belief. So what that means is : first you must be redeemed and hold on to your redemption (keep hold of your redemption) - then you will see that you are holding fast to this belief. So this can come about only if you no longer rest your weight on the earth but suspend yourself from heaven. Then _everything_ will be different and it will be `no wonder' if you can do things that you cannot do now. (A man who is suspended looks the same as one who is standing, but the interplay of forces within him is nevertheless quite different, so that he can act quite differently than can a standing man.)
_Culture and Value_ p.32-33 (1937)
Imagine giving these people absolute police power in a surveillance state.
"The Commission on Religion and Racism" == "Committee of Public Safety"?
Remind me again how much of the media black people own.
I heard an interesting take on the commonplace idea that the Reformation lead to the scientific world view. The idea is that the Catholics imagined a rational God. God was approachable via reason (as well as some other ways). The Reformers rejected this. It was too akin to controlling God, telling God what he can and cannot do (cf. Pope Bendict's remark that Muslims, like Protestants, rejected a rational God). Unable to turn their power of reason to God, the Protestants turned it to the natural world.
This probably makes me a heretic, but I'm getting tired of reading that I am a racist.
Usually these people make me angry, but thinking of their world view as a religion adds some sadness to the anger. This irrational piety, with its fervent conversions, its prayers of ideology, and its thirst for absolute power to force heretics to conform is just like a religion -- and one of the lower, uglier forms of religion at that. What the converted faithful are showing the rest of us is how deeply they feel the lack of traditional religious faith or some other organized morality to build their lives upon, and how desperate they are to infuse their lives with some kind of meaning that will allow them to believe that their lives matter. Considered in that light, it's pretty pathetic. How hollow and frightened they must feel.
It is better for Negroes to live among others who neither discriminate in the classical sense, nor coddle them. This recent unpleasantness is going to lead to no good.
Crazy Jane said...
This probably makes me a heretic, but I'm getting tired of reading that I am a racist.
Not around here it doesn't, but you already knew that.
Must pick that scab lest it heal.
Pretty good comments so far, though I'm not a wedded to the efficacy of dialogue as is Brando.
As a lapsed Catholic, I for one do not have to accept the Calvinist assumptions of these mollycoddled revolutionaries.
There's something wrong with an accounting system that reckons Stephen Hawkings as more privileged than Michael Jordan.......Are white people the only ones in the world capable of making independent moral choices? Isn't the whole concept of white privilege a variation on white superiority?
Horse feathers! Enough, and actually, too much of this "I am a racist!" idiocy.
I can tell the difference between black and white; I was not born color blind. Anyone who cannot tell the difference has a vision problem.
Terry, ref Cath v Prod and science:
My take is that the foundations for the scientific method were laid long before the Reformation or even the Renaissance, by the Scholastics who developed logic to solve theological problems. Then because of political and cultural differences, Western Christendom split between Prods, who were willing to use the logical tools to re-examine issues the hierarchy declared settled, and Caths, who were content with taking the hierarchy's word for it.
The cultural difference I'm referring to is the difference between North and South - Northern Europe tends to be a truth culture, because reputation won't get the wood chopped or the fruit preserved in time for winter, while Southern Europe tends to be an honor culture, because it's warm enough to live a lie, especially if someone's going to kill you for telling the truth.
France, as a relatively temperate country (except for the mountains) populated by Latin-speaking Germanics and Celts, falls kind of in between, which is why some of the fiercest religious fighting was done there, and why French Prods such as Calvin became more doctrinaire than the Pope....
JSM
Good ol' ARM, always calling no one in particular a racist.
"Imagine giving these people absolute police power in a surveillance state."
Imagine water is wet.
This article has it right. Anitracism is the new post-Protestant Calvinism. This nation was founded by a generation of Protestants who still conformed to many otherwise longstanding Catholic values. But in the 1920s key Protestant denominations began to reject Jesus Christ, while still embracing Christ’s social justice values. By the end of the 1960s the transformation was nearly complete . In Antiracism we’re seeing the spiritual desert of secular leftism in a new twisted way. It is what the movement of irrelegious post-Protestantism has sown.
"A graduate student talking about "white privilege" sounds like "a Calvinist explaining the T in TULIP."
Except once upon a time Calvinists were serious people.
This made my day.
The T in TULIP isn't the sticking point for many Christians in understanding how God has ordered his creation. It's the L.
As you posted, the depravity is complete and separates man and a Holy God. It doesn't mean that an individual can't perform good works and many lost souls are very decent individuals. That, in some cases, makes it harder for them to realize that they need a Savior. It's fairly easy for a drug addict to realize they have a problem.
But it does highlight the "religious" nature of not only this, but many of the left's obsessions.
A "dialogue" on race? Screw that. Instead, live your life the way it should be lived if you strive to be a good person. Let your actions be your dialogue.
I hate "dialogue," at least in the way it this context. People talk too much anyway. That's the stoic Midwestern way I was brought up to follow. Just shut up and go about your business.
The anger the racialists are feeling is likely caused by the fact that it's been a few generations since racial discrimination was outlawed (and became verboten in most circles) and yet there are still gaps between blacks and the national average by almost every measure (scholastic achievement, health, incarceration rates). I can understand why someone would be frustrated and confused by that--and then of course the Left--the racialists' allies--tells them the problem couldn't possibly be the negative effects of affirmative action or the breakdown of the family or anticompetitive policies that are disproportionately affecting black Americans. No, the problem must be structural racism and hidden white privilege (notice white privilege is not something that can be measured, and the only "remedy" is white people disappearing).
This is getting worse before it gets better.
"A "dialogue" on race? Screw that. Instead, live your life the way it should be lived if you strive to be a good person. Let your actions be your dialogue."
Absolutely we should live our lives the right way, but what's wrong with an actual dialogue? I don't mind sharing or hearing dissenting opinions, as not all of them will be idiotic.
What I don't like are "dialogues" that consist of "you must listen now, and then the time for talk is over" which seems to be the M.O. of leftist ideologues these days. They fear dissenting opinions as deep down they know their own are on shaky ground.
“Our culture is not a costume”
Clothes are not a culture. Who knew?
I forgot to mention, I think Calvin got the U and L wrong.
They miss the individual for the clump of cells. Judging people by their skin color and class diversity schemes are so yesterday. It's amazing how many bitter clingers survived reformation and have now recovered their seats of power.
3. It can't happen, because it's inherent in the Calvinist doctrine that the individual is incapable of independently choosing to move outside of the depravity that is total.
Screw Calvin. The problem was expressed most clearly by Schopenhauer: "Man can do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants." Or as paraphrased by Einstein, "We can do what we wish, but we can only wish what we must."
If you have a firmly-held belief that is impossible to disprove, it might be a religious belief. Institutional racism certainly fits in this category. Is there any new data point that would disprove structural racism: African-American president? African-American billionaires? Successful African-American businesses? Closing achievement gap?
The funny thing is, religious people really wrestle with the God is good/evil in the world problem. That's why Calvin and St. Augustine came up with total depravity. I have yet to hear any proponent of institutional racism wrestle with the fact that there are so many prominent, successful African-Americans other than to say that's not what structural racism is about.
Another example of privilege. Only white people get to have original sin.
This is a pretty awful review of Calvinism. "T" doesn't mean you never choose God, it means man doesn't choose God without the renewing work of the Holy Spirit... Which is actually something most Christians believe that I've ever met. They tend to question whether the call to salvation is available to all or just to an elect. Very few actually believe in a "divine spark" or some ability to find God on one's own by one's own effort.
Whenever white liberal men talk about their awareness of their white male privilege, I can't help but think they're bragging. Implicit or assumed is the fact that being white and male is so marvelous, and that everything else is thought of as much worse. It's a nifty trick: preening as a socially aware and compassionate person while flatly stating that being white and male is a privilege.
It's almost like a burden being white and male. You have to help others achieve what you already have. The white man's burden.
Terry said...
Good ol' ARM, always calling no one in particular a racist.
Yes, it is obvious that pointing out that complaining about being called a racist is a favorite pastime of people around here is the same as calling someone racist. Obvious.
You're a delicate little flower, aren't you?
That French lawyer sure could build a case.
So being born white is now a non-redeemable sin. But who will get me from Romans 7 status into Romans 8. Jesus was not a White Anglo-Saxon, no matter what the occultist Joseph Smith believes he was told while wandering in the woods in upper New York State. So it was the Jews who got us all into Romans 8. Thanks guys.
No wonder the Black activists are also knee jerk anti-semitic. They want us trapped so we will pay our debts.
If you believe that "white privilege" is a real thing, you're a fucking racist.
I'm white therefore privileged and all else being the same I prefer being privileged as opposed to being non-privileged and thus have no desire to give up my white privilege nor the need or obligation to do so and those who have a problem with that can kiss my white ass. Whites with guilty white consciousness can emigrate to predominantly non-white countries where they won't be the beneficiaries of white privilege and thus enjoy being stripped of their privilege.
Now will someone tell me why what I just wrote is any less serious than the white privilege nonsense being promoted in academia which is the most privileged sector of our society?
Well, I grew up in a quarry town so my "privilege" growing up was to get beaten up a couple times a week. But I'll share that with anyone who wants a taste of it.
It's probably worth noting that the Puritans were driven by Calvinist ideals.
"Whites with guilty white consciousness"
It's also worth noting that in my experience the whites with guilty white consciousness are almost always wanting other white people to give up their privileges. I don't know of anyone who has given up their own privileges for the sake of others.* Same deal with climate change.
*this is a notable distinction with Jesus.
Ann Althouse said... 1. Those who speak in these terms no longer think independently but have surrendered their minds to compulsory doctrine which they strive to incant correctly.
I'm not sure that dichotomy (thinking independently vs. incanting doctrine) is entirely fair to either side. Lots of religious people manage to both think independently and believe in their religious doctrines. That is to say: not all doctrine is dogma--I think you have dogmatic beliefs in mind but your phrasing casts too wide a net.
Now, obviously there is religious dogma and just as plainly there's PC dogma, and it's worth pointing out that in many cases there's not a qualitative difference between those two--thus people talking about PC religion. To your 1. and 2. I'd add that it means we should confront people who claim to hate religious belief with the fact that they're equally dogmatic (and equally opposed to apply honest reasoning in questioning their beliefs).
The Liberal Arts are supposed to teach critical thinking. "Grievance studies" and PC promotion don't promote critical thinking, and in fact are broadly opposed to the idea of critical thinking.
Another way its like religion: the yearning for a "historical defining moment" when all sin is washed away due to the "right person" coming to power. Similar to waiting for the second coming of Christ.
Which is a shame, because there is a lot worth having a dialogue over when it comes to race and racism. Just don't expect to have one with these types of people.
Maybe they don't know what a "dialogue" entails. I have no problem with a dialogue...but NO minority wants to have one. They don't want THEIR faults put out there for them to have to deal with. Whites have been dealing with it for years now.
I'd also note the other disturbing trend with the far left racialist types is that they are not about racial equality and brotherhood anymore--it's now about revenge and payback.
Gay activists aren't appreciably better. Any Progressive activist wants, ultimately, payback.
Remind me again how much of the media black people own.
Judging by the highly sympathetic coverage --- most of it.
Humanity needs religion. Everybody has a religion. People just don't always recognize it.
There's something wrong with an accounting system that reckons Stephen Hawkings as more privileged than Michael Jordan.......Are white people the only ones in the world capable of making independent moral choices? Isn't the whole concept of white privilege a variation on white superiority?
I always revert back to this. In their eyes, Obama's daughters have less of a chance at success than my sons have. And they REALLY believe this.
When was the last time liberal activists wanted a "dialogue" - i.e. an exchange of opinions with people who disagree with them?
Talking about Calvinism and leaving out grace is pretty weak sauce. It's like talking about Hollandaise sauce and leaving out the salt and lemon.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন