I’ve been praying for some voice to speak up… Maybe it needs to be ME!!!
I like Dennis Prager. I listen to him a lot.
However, I think hes way overstating that the current BLM/ALM debate is the biggest crisis ever.
Quite frankly, I think the religious leaders of the Western World are overwhelmed by all the chaos of modern life. Western Civ is in free fall or dead, depending on your POV.
If your goal is to rescue our civilization, well, good luck with that.
If it’s to keep proclaiming truth…that’s prolly a topic for another thread, seeing that religious leaders are not a monolithic group, that we’re all different religions with different doctrines.
Yeah, I totally agree. In fact St. Augustine in his book called The City of God shows explains how the western civilization could fall one day just like Rome did if we continue our ways.
Here’s a video by Jasom Burns, he’s not Catholic but is very knowledgeable when it comes to this topic, he explains the fall of western civilization well:
We’ve reached the point where every day some Chicken Little is announcing the Biggest Crisis Ever.
One day it’s gay marriage, the next day it’s clergy scandals, the next it’s Pachamama, then it’s Dems pushing abortion, then it’s churches being closed due to COVID, followed by BLM and worries about riots (nothing new).
It doesn’t take long for people to tune out Chicken Little. I know I did long ago.
It’s unproductive to live one’s life seeing crises under every bush.
I think that priests are speaking out against the violent acts of any protesters.
A larger issue is that so many young people are being taken in by Marxist ideology, and I have not heard many priests talking about that.
I don’t disagree with every point he made, but the American exceptionalism running through the piece is rather tone deaf and, to be honest, blind to the root cause of the civil unrest.
Looting must obviously be condemned. But the unrest isn’t just because everyone in that movement is a bunch of bad apples.
Like, being color blind is a great idea. In theory. In practice here in America, though, it often results in turning a blind eye to how culture and society has scales tipped. Instead of being blind to color, it results in being blind to the cultural biases people of color still have deal with. It stresses everyone must be treated the same even when the way people are biased in society doesn’t result in that, and so the needs of specific communities are ignored. People aren’t objecting to the ideal of color blindness. They’re objecting to whether it’s the best prescription for the current situation.
Bishop Barron has an article today that, while not quite a response to this, it’s in a related realm: addressing laity asking “what are the bishops doing about it?” re attacks on the statues of St. Junipero Serra.
There is nothing new under the sun.
This is a good question, deserving of its own thread so as not to derail this thread.
And those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I object to the “ideal” of colorblindness because one’s color is not a bad thing to which we need to become blind. I am against discrimination and unfair treatment on the basis of one’s skin color, but I don’t think it’s ideal to pretend we don’t see color.
Also lol @ this article. You know someone’s losing it when they treat Marxism as a threat in 2020.
I think the idea of colorblindness is to judge people as individuals and by other criteria, such as the content of their characters, not to simply ignore it altogether.
I think that for way too long Catholics have kept quiet about their faith on the grounds that we are evangelizing by showing people something.
We now have a situation in which altho we are nominally a quarter of the population, we are indistinguishable from the population.
How many lay Catholics know enough about St Junipero de Sierra to be able to explain what he did? Not many.
We have thus devolved in the process by “spreading the Gospel using words when necessary.”
The Catholic view should be out there at least as much as feminism, intersectionality, and all those other ways of looking at things.
And the bishops and priests should be encouraging, teaching, and educating us in that effort.
Cultural Marxism is perhaps the greatest threat to Western Civilisation. Controversial, maybe. But I believe it is the case.
Oh, and Political Marxism too… I.e., China.
I’ve watched Jordan Peterson too but still dont buy it. Marxism should be used to refer to people who actually follow Marx, not as a catch all term to insult people who do irritating things that remind you of things Marxists used to do (as in "cultural Marxism).
Agreed that Marxism is still a problem in China. Dont agree that it’s currently a significant issue here.
What makes you think that’s what I’m doing? Marxism is an ideology which, when adhered to, impacts every area of life/worldview, not just economic or political. Thus “Cultural Marxism” is a totally accurate term.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you and if so I apologize. But the explanations I’ve heard of cultural Marxism do not demonstrate that supposed adherents are in fact Marxist.
Ex 1): Bill paints scenes of the workers rising up against their oppressors to explore themes he encountered in the writings of Karl Marx = “Cultural Marxism”
Ex 2): Bill is sort of hostile, uses us against them language, and is quick to demonize others, join histrionic popular movements and ignore the glaring problems posed by his own simplistic solutions, much like Marxists in their heyday during the first half of the 20th century, and when they presumably delivered insufferable lectures at American universities= called "cultural Marxism"but really refers to annoying behaviors exhibited by any number of unsavory groups from nativists to temperance activists to fr. Coughlin etc…
If you are using “cultural Marxist” in the first sense I apologize for misunderstanding you, but still think you are overstating the problem. If you are using in the second sense; which is the one I generally hear, I think it’s a silly label.
Cultural Marxism is a derivative of classical Marxism.
Marx proposed that the world revolved around capitalism and there was a power flow resulting from that in which those who had capital oppressed those who did not. His idea was that the workers who were being oppressed would rise up against the bosses and the Communist revolution would occur.
Unfortunately for Marx’s theory, that is not what happened.
Then as time passed, some conceived that the oppressors and the oppressed were oriented on lines other than capital and labor, hence the difficulties between whites (oppressors) and blacks and other minority groups (oppressed); between men and women, between non-transgender and transgender, between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and so on.
As a result, we now have a lot of what is going on today.
Each, classical Marxism and cultural Marxism, relies on the idea of an inherently oppressive quality in one group which absolutely will lead to revolution on the part of the powerless oppressed.
Since this is an actual thing, I am afraid you will have to get used to it. I sympathize.