I'm enjoying this thread.

Informative and polite

curtpenn said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

The Ku Klux Klan was supported and even led by churches and preachers. Here's an article about a Methodist preacher who declared himself Imperial Wizard.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/04/08/the-preacher-who-used-christianity-to-revive-the-ku-klux-klan/

"Many ministers in Protestant denominations would openly declare their membership in the Klan. And creepy photos would capture Klan members in white hoods standing in churches and sitting in choir pews."

When I was a kid I attended churches wiAt th current and former Klan members. At one the treasurer refused to pay into the central church fund all churches were supposed to support to pay for mission work and minister's retirement pensions because he believed the mission work helped black people.

Churches have a long and trouble history with racism and Sunday morning remains one of the most segregated hours of the week.

---

the other side of the coin is that, for over a century, the anti-racist chorus was loudest from the church bench.

Telling only one side of the story to inflame and order minds is classic marxist dialectic.

---

Interesting that you think of this issue as two-sided.

As a Christian I'dassume that churches / Christians would stand against racism and violence because Christ tells us to love our neighbors without a qualifier. One point of the parable of the Good Samaritan is that good people aren't limited to those who share your religion or race and that the good you do shouldn't be limited to your own people but should be extended to everyone.

So it's a sad fact that any churches / ministers / believers led or supported the Klan. When you would expect Christians to do the opposite.

---

I couldn't imagine any true Christian supporting the Klan, at any time.

That said, a bunch of Preachers, Sunday school teachers, Churchgoers etc. probably have supported them. Being in church, even leading a church, doesn't make you a Christian.

---

It's sad, but it was very common. My father was a Methodist preacher. When I was growing up, we moved around a lot within the Central Texas Conference, as was the rule with Methodist preachers. My dad served a couple of years in Taylor. He maintained friendships there till the day he died; I'm still in touch with some of them. But he also remembered it as a place where racism was awful and upfront.

One older woman there told me that her father had been chairman of what the Methodists used to call the Official Board (like a board of deacons in the Baptist Church) in the early 1920s. That period was the height of KKK membership nationwide, with a majority of members in the North. Anyway, she said they got a new minister who dictated that everyone on the Official Board had to join the Klan. Her father refused. They kicked him off the Board at the preacher's insistence. After the preacher moved on, a couple of years later, her dad was allowed back in.

My father served in Taylor around 1960. It was bad then, too. The church treasurer was required under Methodist rules to send a portion of their tithes and offerings (which are still called apportionments in the Methodist Church) to the general church to support everything from disaster relief efforts to educational programs. The treasurer refused to mail in the church's share of apportionments because he believed that some of the money would go to help black people, and he wouldn't stand for that. My father, who was still fairly new to the ministry, had to consult his District Superintendent for guidance. The DS was clear: Get rid of that treasurer and get a new one. But that was easier said than done. The treasurer also ran the main bank in town. Most of the farmers in the congregation depended on the bank for loans. (That's one way that individual racism can infect entire systems.) People were reluctant to rebuke the guy for fear of the power he had over their lives. There was a pretty bitter fight. In the end, the church got a new treasurer. There was still a good bit of bitterness. We wound up moving the next year to Dawson. I have a hunch that the racist treasurer was in some form of the Klan. (He was definitely an Aggie.) The old Swedes in Taylor took the more racially progressive side. One of them became the new treasurer and was a lifelong friend. I got to visit with him again at my father's funeral in 2017.

---

Klan history is not my area of expertise by any means, but I've always assumed and heard that much of its growth was in response to post-war Reconstruction politics, that is, basically a form of ongoing resistance to Northern oppression.

---

I'm not an expert on the Klan, but I do have a background in the history of the South. You are correct that the initial surge in Klan membership and activity was during Reconstruction. During that time, whites who had sided with the Confederacy had no political power; in fact, they had to take a loyalty oath to the Union to regain the right to vote. The night riders of the Klan were a raw assertion of white power in the face of this general powerlessness. They intentionally spread terror among black people.

Once Reconstruction ended and the so-callled Redeemers regained political control, the animating reason for the Klan diminished; they didn't have to assert power through sheer terror because they could exercise political power. The rise of lynchings in the 1880s and 1890s certainly instilled terror in the black community, as lynchings were intended to do, but these weren't identified solely or even especially with the Klan.

Curiously, given the triumph of Jim Crow during this period, Klan membership actually fell off dramatically in the 1890s and first decade of the 1900s. There is pretty strong consensus that the revival of the Klan was sparked by one event -- the release of the movie "Birth of a Nation" -- which presented the Klan as virtuous warriors and even depicted a lynching. Woodrow Wilson, a racist even judged by the standards of the day, screened the film in the White House and pronounced it "history written by lightning." It did have an electrifying effect. Klan membership reached its highest levels right after WWI, partly because it was no longer purely a Southern phenomenon. In fact, as I noted above, around 1920 KKK membership was actually higher in the North than in the old Confederate states.

whiterock said:

---

TLR version - CRT is just Marxist philosophy with the word "class" replaced with "race," and the word "capitalism" replaced by "white supremacy."

No society which has embraced concepts of systemic oppression and collective guilt has ever emerged the better for it.

The idea that Marxist philosophy can be an aid for a better walk with the Lord is completely illogical except for those who wish to use said ideas to divide Christianity into a squabbling rabble.

Fight wokeness at all cost. It is flawed worldview built on ideas from the ash heap of history and there is no virtue in it at all, much less divinity.

---

I don't see why there is an eagerness to make leaps to the bogeyman of "Marxism " instead of discussing the theological implications of a theory about racism and some root causes.

I don't know about all the details of CRT. My guess is like most social theories, there is some truth in it and also some untruth.

I do think it is undeniable that America, as a country, has a history of using a legal system controlled by white people to oppress and take advantage of minorities. And to think that ended in the 60's in willfully ignorant.

I don't like racism

Thus, I will employ racism to fight it

?

bularry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

TLR version - CRT is just Marxist philosophy with the word "class" replaced with "race," and the word "capitalism" replaced by "white supremacy."

No society which has embraced concepts of systemic oppression and collective guilt has ever emerged the better for it.

The idea that Marxist philosophy can be an aid for a better walk with the Lord is completely illogical except for those who wish to use said ideas to divide Christianity into a squabbling rabble.

Fight wokeness at all cost. It is flawed worldview built on ideas from the ash heap of history and there is no virtue in it at all, much less divinity.

---

I don't see why there is an eagerness to make leaps to the bogeyman of "Marxism"

---

Because 'Marxism' created class enemies last century and they murdered each other.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Here's my two cents on that: Institutional racism is real.

Three quick examples:

Did you know that the GI Bill (which enabled my father to become the first in his family to attend college) originally excluded black veterans? I didn't know that until a few years ago. That shameful bit of institutional racism has since been rectified, of course, but we still feel the effects of it. For example, the network of connections my father and uncle made in college, thanks to the GI Bill, were instrumental in helping me get an interview that led to my first job. But a black kid with my same skills and experience probably would not have had that advantage when I graduated from BU in 1979, because his father wouldn't have been able to go to college on the GI Bill.

Did you know that most black people originally weren't eligible for Social Security? As the bill was working through Congress, it faced serious opposition from Southern representatives. To get the support that would ensure passage, FDR agreed to a compromise -- all domestic and agricultural workers would be excluded. That meant a majority of African Americans at the time would be excluded, and that was the intent.

Did you know that, in many parts of the country, black people were excluded from buying houses in certain neighborhoods thanks to informal agreements by banks and Realtors? And when they could get loans, they usually were on less favorable terms than white people with the same income could get.

---

You said institutional racism is real, then cited examples from the past that no longer exist. Saying it is real or that it exists implies that it is happening today. Yes, there are still effects from past institutional racism, but that is saying something different. Can you give an example of institutional racism that is still ongoing today?

---

Sorry, I tried to respond to this yesterday, and then my computer froze, and I was too tired to try to reconstruct the post that was lost. Now that I've had some coffee this morning, I'll try afresh.

It sounds like we agree that the effects of historically institutional racism are still being felt. Please correct me if that's not what you meant.

I think there are any number of examples of how institutional racism still occurs today.

For one, the discriminatory practices by banks and Realtors are still a thing. Not by all of them, everywhere, but in enough places to matter. One of the (many) things Wells Fargo got in trouble for, if I recall correctly, involved discriminatory treatment to black loan applicants who had the same level of risk as white applicants who received more favorable terms. I think I can find some articles on that later today if you'd like.

Another example involves the differing ways people are treated by representatives of institutions based on skin color. Just about every black person I know has had the experience of being followed around by store security when they're shopping in a department or clothing store. Not that it happens every time, but it happens to all of them at least once and usually more. It happens when they're dressed in business attire, and it happens if they're dressed casually. Every single black male I've talked to about the subject has been followed by the police while they were driving, especially if they have a nice car and are driving in a "nice" neighborhood. Whenever they're in a car, they have to think about the possibility of that. My pastor is an African American man with two college-aged sons. Whenever the sons are out for the evening, and while they're away at school, mom and dad in the back of their minds worry just a little that they could be stopped for "driving while black," and then something could happen because a police officer panicked or got trigger-happy. As a white man, I never have to give any thought to that when I get in my car; I don't have the extra burden of stress that my pastor and his wife have. There are training simulations used by law enforcement that involve videos in which the officer has to make a split-second decision about whether or not to shoot; studies have shown that officers are more likely to feel threatened and shoot if the person in the simulation is black; and this isn't just a "cop thing," because the same effect happens when civilians (even those who think of themselves as non-racist) go through these exercises. In elementary schools, the police are far more likely to be summoned when a black kid is misbehaving or having a meltdown than when a white child is doing the same thing. Now, you might argue that all of these involve decisions made by individuals (store clerks, cops, teachers) and not by institutions. I see that side of it. But when these individuals represent institutions, and when the conduct is much more than a few isolated incidents, it's also hard to dismiss the argument that this is an institutional problem.

I could give more, but I'll just mention one other for now, because I think it's an example of unintended institutional racism (which is perhaps the most common kind). Our cash bail system was not set up to be discriminatory, so far as I know, but it has had a tremendously discriminatory effect. If you're a young white male, for example, you're much more likely to be able to post bail, or know someone who can post it for you, if you're arrested for some small-time offense. You can go on with your life while your case plays out. If you're black, the odds are much greater that you won't be to make bail, which means that you'll wait in jail for months (or much longer, even) for your case to be resolved. In the meantime, you lose your job; if you're a mother, you may lose custody of your kids. You lose your connection to your community. Thankfully, some cities have recognized how destructive this system has been (and part of it is about poverty as well as race; it is often hard in this country to separate the two), and are working to change it.

bubbadog said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Here's my two cents on that: Institutional racism is real.

Three quick examples:

Did you know that the GI Bill (which enabled my father to become the first in his family to attend college) originally excluded black veterans? I didn't know that until a few years ago. That shameful bit of institutional racism has since been rectified, of course, but we still feel the effects of it. For example, the network of connections my father and uncle made in college, thanks to the GI Bill, were instrumental in helping me get an interview that led to my first job. But a black kid with my same skills and experience probably would not have had that advantage when I graduated from BU in 1979, because his father wouldn't have been able to go to college on the GI Bill.

Did you know that most black people originally weren't eligible for Social Security? As the bill was working through Congress, it faced serious opposition from Southern representatives. To get the support that would ensure passage, FDR agreed to a compromise -- all domestic and agricultural workers would be excluded. That meant a majority of African Americans at the time would be excluded, and that was the intent.

Did you know that, in many parts of the country, black people were excluded from buying houses in certain neighborhoods thanks to informal agreements by banks and Realtors? And when they could get loans, they usually were on less favorable terms than white people with the same income could get.

---

You said institutional racism is real, then cited examples from the past that no longer exist. Saying it is real or that it exists implies that it is happening today. Yes, there are still effects from past institutional racism, but that is saying something different. Can you give an example of institutional racism that is still ongoing today?

---

Now, you might argue that all of these involve decisions made by individuals (store clerks, cops, teachers) and not by institutions. I see that side of it. But when these individuals represent institutions, and when the conduct is much more than a few isolated incidents, it's also hard to dismiss the argument that this is an institutional problem.

---

Well which is it?

If it's institutional, then we must dismantle all institutions until the woke crowd is satisfied, which they never are.

It's it's the individual, we deal with the individual.

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Here's my two cents on that: Institutional racism is real.

Three quick examples:

Did you know that the GI Bill (which enabled my father to become the first in his family to attend college) originally excluded black veterans? I didn't know that until a few years ago. That shameful bit of institutional racism has since been rectified, of course, but we still feel the effects of it. For example, the network of connections my father and uncle made in college, thanks to the GI Bill, were instrumental in helping me get an interview that led to my first job. But a black kid with my same skills and experience probably would not have had that advantage when I graduated from BU in 1979, because his father wouldn't have been able to go to college on the GI Bill.

Did you know that most black people originally weren't eligible for Social Security? As the bill was working through Congress, it faced serious opposition from Southern representatives. To get the support that would ensure passage, FDR agreed to a compromise -- all domestic and agricultural workers would be excluded. That meant a majority of African Americans at the time would be excluded, and that was the intent.

Did you know that, in many parts of the country, black people were excluded from buying houses in certain neighborhoods thanks to informal agreements by banks and Realtors? And when they could get loans, they usually were on less favorable terms than white people with the same income could get.

---

You said institutional racism is real, then cited examples from the past that no longer exist. Saying it is real or that it exists implies that it is happening today. Yes, there are still effects from past institutional racism, but that is saying something different. Can you give an example of institutional racism that is still ongoing today?

---

Now, you might argue that all of these involve decisions made by individuals (store clerks, cops, teachers) and not by institutions. I see that side of it. But when these individuals represent institutions, and when the conduct is much more than a few isolated incidents, it's also hard to dismiss the argument that this is an institutional problem.

---

Well which is it?

If it's institutional, then we must dismantle all institutions until the woke crowd is satisfied, which they never are.

It's it's the individual, we deal with the individual.

---

Just like global warming, it's unfalsifiable nonsense. It's a heads I win tails you lose scam.

George Truett said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4yrletterbear said:

---

CRT is one of the most harmful ways to attack racism that ever existed.

CRT "assumes" that I am racist because I am Caucasian. That is the very core of racism....assuming something because of a person's skin color.

CRT does not know me and does not know my heart. Making assumptions about a person's view of other races without knowing that same person is racist.

Are their institutions that are racist.? Well there may be a few, but they are few and far between.

Are there individuals that are racist? Yes, and they come in all colors.

CRT is not the way to achieve racial equality. Application of scripture is.

---

CRT is a worldview ordered by race every bit as much as that which it purports to oppose.

---

CRT points to systemic racism. It seeks to identify racial oppression, not to lift up any race as superior.

---

CRT is premised on an ideological contrivance - systemic racism - in accordance with marxist concepts on power....that there are no hierarchies of merit, only hierarchies of power. Further, CRT accepts the marxist premise that "oppressor/oppressed" structures are the essence of human nature that where two or more are gathered, someone is an oppressor and someone is oppressed.

There are just so many hideously bad blocks in the foundations of CRT, foremost of which is that the concept of systemic racism itself requires the adoption of a racially ordered worldview.

CRT is a thoroughly political dialectic which, if embraced by Church Leadership, will destroy the church as a theological institution and turn it into just another gristmill of political correctness.

https://albertmohler.com/2020/09/02/james-lindsay

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Here's my two cents on that: Institutional racism is real.

Three quick examples:

Did you know that the GI Bill (which enabled my father to become the first in his family to attend college) originally excluded black veterans? I didn't know that until a few years ago. That shameful bit of institutional racism has since been rectified, of course, but we still feel the effects of it. For example, the network of connections my father and uncle made in college, thanks to the GI Bill, were instrumental in helping me get an interview that led to my first job. But a black kid with my same skills and experience probably would not have had that advantage when I graduated from BU in 1979, because his father wouldn't have been able to go to college on the GI Bill.

Did you know that most black people originally weren't eligible for Social Security? As the bill was working through Congress, it faced serious opposition from Southern representatives. To get the support that would ensure passage, FDR agreed to a compromise -- all domestic and agricultural workers would be excluded. That meant a majority of African Americans at the time would be excluded, and that was the intent.

Did you know that, in many parts of the country, black people were excluded from buying houses in certain neighborhoods thanks to informal agreements by banks and Realtors? And when they could get loans, they usually were on less favorable terms than white people with the same income could get.

---

You said institutional racism is real, then cited examples from the past that no longer exist. Saying it is real or that it exists implies that it is happening today. Yes, there are still effects from past institutional racism, but that is saying something different. Can you give an example of institutional racism that is still ongoing today?

---

Now, you might argue that all of these involve decisions made by individuals (store clerks, cops, teachers) and not by institutions. I see that side of it. But when these individuals represent institutions, and when the conduct is much more than a few isolated incidents, it's also hard to dismiss the argument that this is an institutional problem.

---

Well which is it?

If it's institutional, then we must dismantle all institutions until the woke crowd is satisfied, which they never are.

It's it's the individual, we deal with the individual.

---

For me, it's institutional racism. But I am acknowledging the possibility that others might reasonably have a different view.

I disagree that the only remedy to institutional racism is to dismantle the institutions. You don't have to abolish banks to reform discriminatory lending. You just need an honest referee with enough authority to hold people and institutions accountable.

J.B.Katz said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

The Ku Klux Klan was supported and even led by churches and preachers. Here's an article about a Methodist preacher who declared himself Imperial Wizard.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/04/08/the-preacher-who-used-christianity-to-revive-the-ku-klux-klan/

"Many ministers in Protestant denominations would openly declare their membership in the Klan. And creepy photos would capture Klan members in white hoods standing in churches and sitting in choir pews."

When I was a kid I attended churches wiAt th current and former Klan members. At one the treasurer refused to pay into the central church fund all churches were supposed to support to pay for mission work and minister's retirement pensions because he believed the mission work helped black people.

Churches have a long and trouble history with racism and Sunday morning remains one of the most segregated hours of the week.

---

the other side of the coin is that, for over a century, the anti-racist chorus was loudest from the church bench.

Telling only one side of the story to inflame and order minds is classic marxist dialectic.

---

Interesting that you think of this issue as two-sided.

As a Christian I'dassume that churches / Christians would stand against racism and violence because Christ tells us to love our neighbors without a qualifier. One point of the parable of the Good Samaritan is that good people aren't limited to those who share your religion or race and that the good you do shouldn't be limited to your own people but should be extended to everyone.

So it's a sad fact that any churches / ministers / believers led or supported the Klan. When you would expect Christians to do the opposite.

---

Humanity is rich with examples of people misapplying religious texts/tenets to support their own personal beliefs. Some point to that and say "see, religion is a horrible thing....look what it endorsed." A fair read of history would also say "see, look where people of faith championed a noble cause," and note that in either case, most of what Christians on either side of the issue believed was far more influenced by factors outside of their faith. (which is precisely the case with CRT). The Bible does not always say what political narratives want it to say. Did Jesus really care whether one was a slave or a freeman? Or did he just care that one devoted one's life to God, whatever one's station in life might be?

We also have to guard against the insistence of all the progressive ideologies to judge the entirety of history against the standards of today. Otherwise, we end up paying scholars to research for all the wrong reasons, and end up purging the entirety of human history. There is a reason tyrants always redefine the past. Nothing could free their hands to act any faster.

It was never about the Confederate statues. It's was always about all of the statues. Once the statues come down, the history surrounding them is purged as well, and no one can point to anything to justify resistance to the march of toward the brave new world. The church cannot adopt the ideas of the mob to avoid the destruction of the church.

whiterock said:

---

Did Jesus really care whether one was a slave or a freeman?

---

Yes, I think he did, and here's why.

In addition to being the messiah, in addition to being the mind and spirit of God made flesh, Jesus walked this earth as a Torah teacher. Occasionally, people he encountered addressed him as Lord or Son of David. Much more often, they addressed him as teacher or rabbi.

Like any good rabbi, Jesus both taught the people and debated interpretations of scripture with other teachers like the Pharisees. We know he took the scriptures seriously. He taught a few things that seemed to his listeners to be outside of the scriptures -- notably, the idea that the messiah would be crucified and then raised by God to life. But I can't think of a single thing that Jesus taught about relationships with God and with fellow human beings that isn't expressed in the Jewish scriptures, starting with Torah.

The Torah teaching in Deuteronomy 15 mandates the forgiveness of debts every seven years and the freeing of slaves (most of whom had been reduced to a condition of slavery because of debts they couldn't pay). Not only that: the person releasing the slave was obliged to give the freed slave a sum of money so they'd have a chance to make it on their own and escape the cycle of debt. The lesson of this law is that God does not intend for people to be reduced to a permanent status of slavery and subservience that destroys their dignity as a human being made in the image and likeness of God. Human beings may create such systems, but that does not mean that God endorses them.

I think it is notable that Jesus, in making what amounts to a purpose statement for his ministry, tells the synagogue crowd in his home town that, in him, the words of the prophet Isaiah have come true: "God has chosen me to bring release to the captives, to break the yoke of those who are bound, and to bring good news to the poor." For me, the echoes of Deuteronomy 15 are loud. And when Jesus tells a story about forgiveness, it involves debt slavery: a man who owed the king an impossible sum and begged the king not to follow the custom of selling his family into slavery. "I'll pay you back," the man says, which is utterly ridiculous, given that the debt was equivalent to what an ordinary laborer would have needed 15,000 years to earn. Instead of accepting this proposition, the king simply cancels the entire debt and sets the man and his family free.

So, yes, I think Jesus did care about someone's permanent status. He acknowledged the existence of slavery under Roman rule. Denouncing slavery would have amounted to a political challenge to Roman rule, and Jesus did not challenge Roman rule insofar as it was possible to render what belongs to Caesar without violating what belongs to God. But viewing a human being as property with no inherent worth that property owners were bound to respect? No, based on Torah and his teaching I do not believe Jesus was ever on board with that.

bubbadog said:

---

Another example involves the differing ways people are treated by representatives of institutions based on skin color. Just about every black person I know has had the experience of being followed around by store security when they're shopping in a department or clothing store. Not that it happens every time, but it happens to all of them at least once and usually more. It happens when they're dressed in business attire, and it happens if they're dressed casually. Every single black male I've talked to about the subject has been followed by the police while they were driving, especially if they have a nice car and are driving in a "nice" neighborhood. Whenever they're in a car, they have to think about the possibility of that. My pastor is an African American man with two college-aged sons. Whenever the sons are out for the evening, and while they're away at school, mom and dad in the back of their minds worry just a little that they could be stopped for "driving while black," and then something could happen because a police officer panicked or got trigger-happy. As a white man, I never have to give any thought to that when I get in my car; I don't have the extra burden of stress that my pastor and his wife have. There are training simulations used by law enforcement that involve videos in which the officer has to make a split-second decision about whether or not to shoot; studies have shown that officers are more likely to feel threatened and shoot if the person in the simulation is black; and this isn't just a "cop thing," because the same effect happens when civilians (even those who think of themselves as non-racist) go through these exercises. In elementary schools, the police are far more likely to be summoned when a black kid is misbehaving or having a meltdown than when a white child is doing the same thing. Now, you might argue that all of these involve decisions made by individuals (store clerks, cops, teachers) and not by institutions. I see that side of it. But when these individuals represent institutions, and when the conduct is much more than a few isolated incidents, it's also hard to dismiss the argument that this is an institutional problem.

---

What are the cures to the problems you list above?

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Another example involves the differing ways people are treated by representatives of institutions based on skin color. Just about every black person I know has had the experience of being followed around by store security when they're shopping in a department or clothing store. Not that it happens every time, but it happens to all of them at least once and usually more. It happens when they're dressed in business attire, and it happens if they're dressed casually. Every single black male I've talked to about the subject has been followed by the police while they were driving, especially if they have a nice car and are driving in a "nice" neighborhood. Whenever they're in a car, they have to think about the possibility of that. My pastor is an African American man with two college-aged sons. Whenever the sons are out for the evening, and while they're away at school, mom and dad in the back of their minds worry just a little that they could be stopped for "driving while black," and then something could happen because a police officer panicked or got trigger-happy. As a white man, I never have to give any thought to that when I get in my car; I don't have the extra burden of stress that my pastor and his wife have. There are training simulations used by law enforcement that involve videos in which the officer has to make a split-second decision about whether or not to shoot; studies have shown that officers are more likely to feel threatened and shoot if the person in the simulation is black; and this isn't just a "cop thing," because the same effect happens when civilians (even those who think of themselves as non-racist) go through these exercises. In elementary schools, the police are far more likely to be summoned when a black kid is misbehaving or having a meltdown than when a white child is doing the same thing. Now, you might argue that all of these involve decisions made by individuals (store clerks, cops, teachers) and not by institutions. I see that side of it. But when these individuals represent institutions, and when the conduct is much more than a few isolated incidents, it's also hard to dismiss the argument that this is an institutional problem.

---

What are the cures to the problems you list above?

---

"Cure" might not be the word I'd choose, because cure implies that the problem can be completely fixed. I might say "reduce" or "remediate" the problem. While it's possible that this sounds like splitting hairs, I think the distinction does contain a difference.

To the question itself:

First, I think it starts with listening to people, acknowledging the problem and then raising awareness. Too often, I've seen discussions on this subject (and I'm not talking about just this site) fail to get beyond even this starting point. I hear a lot of people dismiss out of hand the testimony of black people who describe how they've been followed by store clerks or police, or how they've been treated by "Karens" like the woman in Central Park who called the cops on the birdwatcher. Viral video has helped the truth get out. But simply listening to people and acknowledging their experiences are real is a big first step, even though it seems like it should be a small one.

More awareness creates certain cultural expectations, I think. When more people perceive that discriminatory treatment by stores, or police, is a problem, then they come to regard such treatment as unacceptable and are less likely to tolerate it or shrug it off. That's important, too. For too long, a lot of this stuff has kind of flown under the radar for many white people. (The cash bail issue is a great example.) When that changes, there is opportunity for systems to change.

Next, there's a need for better training -- of store clerks and security, of teachers, of cops, with expectations that are as clear as possible about what is acceptable and what is not.

Simultaneously, the rules under which some systems operate need to change. The "broken windows" theory of policing has been a disaster of unintended consequences. Stop and frisk caused way more problems than it solved. These systems facilltated a lot of stops that lacked probable cause, led to unfortunate and avoidable interactions with police, and sowed distrust among citizens.

Finally, I would argue that some laws need to be changed. Ending sovereign immunity for police would promote greater accountability and serve as a check to bad conduct. And if we gave the Fourth Amendment as much devotion as we give the First and second Amendments, pretextual stops and searches based on the flimsiest pretexts would stop.

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Another example involves the differing ways people are treated by representatives of institutions based on skin color. Just about every black person I know has had the experience of being followed around by store security when they're shopping in a department or clothing store. Not that it happens every time, but it happens to all of them at least once and usually more. It happens when they're dressed in business attire, and it happens if they're dressed casually. Every single black male I've talked to about the subject has been followed by the police while they were driving, especially if they have a nice car and are driving in a "nice" neighborhood. Whenever they're in a car, they have to think about the possibility of that. My pastor is an African American man with two college-aged sons. Whenever the sons are out for the evening, and while they're away at school, mom and dad in the back of their minds worry just a little that they could be stopped for "driving while black," and then something could happen because a police officer panicked or got trigger-happy. As a white man, I never have to give any thought to that when I get in my car; I don't have the extra burden of stress that my pastor and his wife have. There are training simulations used by law enforcement that involve videos in which the officer has to make a split-second decision about whether or not to shoot; studies have shown that officers are more likely to feel threatened and shoot if the person in the simulation is black; and this isn't just a "cop thing," because the same effect happens when civilians (even those who think of themselves as non-racist) go through these exercises. In elementary schools, the police are far more likely to be summoned when a black kid is misbehaving or having a meltdown than when a white child is doing the same thing. Now, you might argue that all of these involve decisions made by individuals (store clerks, cops, teachers) and not by institutions. I see that side of it. But when these individuals represent institutions, and when the conduct is much more than a few isolated incidents, it's also hard to dismiss the argument that this is an institutional problem.

---

What are the cures to the problems you list above?

---

"Cure" might not be the word I'd choose, because cure implies that the problem can be completely fixed. I might say "reduce" or "remediate" the problem. While it's possible that this sounds like splitting hairs, I think the distinction does contain a difference.

To the question itself:

First, I think it starts with listening to people, acknowledging the problem and then raising awareness. Too often, I've seen discussions on this subject (and I'm not talking about just this site) fail to get beyond even this starting point. I hear a lot of people dismiss out of hand the testimony of black people who describe how they've been followed by store clerks or police, or how they've been treated by "Karens" like the woman in Central Park who called the cops on the birdwatcher. Viral video has helped the truth get out. But simply listening to people and acknowledging their experiences are real is a big first step, even though it seems like it should be a small one.

More awareness creates certain cultural expectations, I think. When more people perceive that discriminatory treatment by stores, or police, is a problem, then they come to regard such treatment as unacceptable and are less likely to tolerate it or shrug it off. That's important, too. For too long, a lot of this stuff has kind of flown under the radar for many white people. (The cash bail issue is a great example.) When that changes, there is opportunity for systems to change.

Next, there's a need for better training -- of store clerks and security, of teachers, of cops, with expectations that are as clear as possible about what is acceptable and what is not.

Simultaneously, the rules under which some systems operate need to change. The "broken windows" theory of policing has been a disaster of unintended consequences. Stop and frisk caused way more problems than it solved. These systems facilltated a lot of stops that lacked probable cause, led to unfortunate and avoidable interactions with police, and sowed distrust among citizens.

Finally, I would argue that some laws need to be changed. Ending sovereign immunity for police would promote greater accountability and serve as a check to bad conduct. And if we gave the Fourth Amendment as much devotion as we give the First and second Amendments, pretextual stops and searches based on the flimsiest pretexts would stop.

---

In spirit of compromise, I can accept all but the sovereign immunity proposal. Maybe remedies would be a better word than cure

I don't want to derail an interesting thread into the rationale for SI

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

whiterock said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

The Ku Klux Klan was supported and even led by churches and preachers. Here's an article about a Methodist preacher who declared himself Imperial Wizard.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/04/08/the-preacher-who-used-christianity-to-revive-the-ku-klux-klan/

"Many ministers in Protestant denominations would openly declare their membership in the Klan. And creepy photos would capture Klan members in white hoods standing in churches and sitting in choir pews."

When I was a kid I attended churches wiAt th current and former Klan members. At one the treasurer refused to pay into the central church fund all churches were supposed to support to pay for mission work and minister's retirement pensions because he believed the mission work helped black people.

Churches have a long and trouble history with racism and Sunday morning remains one of the most segregated hours of the week.

---

the other side of the coin is that, for over a century, the anti-racist chorus was loudest from the church bench.

Telling only one side of the story to inflame and order minds is classic marxist dialectic.

---

Interesting that you think of this issue as two-sided.

As a Christian I'dassume that churches / Christians would stand against racism and violence because Christ tells us to love our neighbors without a qualifier. One point of the parable of the Good Samaritan is that good people aren't limited to those who share your religion or race and that the good you do shouldn't be limited to your own people but should be extended to everyone.

So it's a sad fact that any churches / ministers / believers led or supported the Klan. When you would expect Christians to do the opposite.

---

Once the statues come down, the history surrounding them is purged as well, and no one can point to anything to justify resistance to the march of toward the brave new world.

---

It almost happened last century and people think it's akin to conspiracy.

Osodecentx said:

---

In spirit of compromise, I can accept all but the sovereign immunity proposal. Maybe remedies would be a better word than cure

I don't want to derail an interesting thread into the rationale for SI

---

I think a certain degree of immunity for police is appropriate to discourage floods of frivolous lawsuits. But I also think the current system is way out of balance.

And I think cities need to take a harder line in negotiating contracts with police unions. The contracts often make it next to impossible to fire police officers even for repeated egregious conduct. That's one reason why even many reform-minded police chiefs (I'm thinking of Minneapolis as an example) end up failing; they can't really change the culture because they can't get rid of the bad apples. And the result is that communities lose trust in their police.

Police have an incredibly difficult and stressful job; they're underpaid and under-trained and overworked. But that cannot become an excuse for a lack of accountability. The system is out of whack, and we're all paying the price.

That's my opinion, anyway.

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Another example involves the differing ways people are treated by representatives of institutions based on skin color. Just about every black person I know has had the experience of being followed around by store security when they're shopping in a department or clothing store. Not that it happens every time, but it happens to all of them at least once and usually more. It happens when they're dressed in business attire, and it happens if they're dressed casually. Every single black male I've talked to about the subject has been followed by the police while they were driving, especially if they have a nice car and are driving in a "nice" neighborhood. Whenever they're in a car, they have to think about the possibility of that. My pastor is an African American man with two college-aged sons. Whenever the sons are out for the evening, and while they're away at school, mom and dad in the back of their minds worry just a little that they could be stopped for "driving while black," and then something could happen because a police officer panicked or got trigger-happy. As a white man, I never have to give any thought to that when I get in my car; I don't have the extra burden of stress that my pastor and his wife have. There are training simulations used by law enforcement that involve videos in which the officer has to make a split-second decision about whether or not to shoot; studies have shown that officers are more likely to feel threatened and shoot if the person in the simulation is black; and this isn't just a "cop thing," because the same effect happens when civilians (even those who think of themselves as non-racist) go through these exercises. In elementary schools, the police are far more likely to be summoned when a black kid is misbehaving or having a meltdown than when a white child is doing the same thing. Now, you might argue that all of these involve decisions made by individuals (store clerks, cops, teachers) and not by institutions. I see that side of it. But when these individuals represent institutions, and when the conduct is much more than a few isolated incidents, it's also hard to dismiss the argument that this is an institutional problem.

---

What are the cures to the problems you list above?

---

"Cure" might not be the word I'd choose, because cure implies that the problem can be completely fixed. I might say "reduce" or "remediate" the problem. While it's possible that this sounds like splitting hairs, I think the distinction does contain a difference.

To the question itself:

First, I think it starts with listening to people, acknowledging the problem and then raising awareness. Too often, I've seen discussions on this subject (and I'm not talking about just this site) fail to get beyond even this starting point. I hear a lot of people dismiss out of hand the testimony of black people who describe how they've been followed by store clerks or police, or how they've been treated by "Karens" like the woman in Central Park who called the cops on the birdwatcher. Viral video has helped the truth get out. But simply listening to people and acknowledging their experiences are real is a big first step, even though it seems like it should be a small one.

More awareness creates certain cultural expectations, I think. When more people perceive that discriminatory treatment by stores, or police, is a problem, then they come to regard such treatment as unacceptable and are less likely to tolerate it or shrug it off. That's important, too. For too long, a lot of this stuff has kind of flown under the radar for many white people. (The cash bail issue is a great example.) When that changes, there is opportunity for systems to change.

Next, there's a need for better training -- of store clerks and security, of teachers, of cops, with expectations that are as clear as possible about what is acceptable and what is not.

Simultaneously, the rules under which some systems operate need to change. The "broken windows" theory of policing has been a disaster of unintended consequences. Stop and frisk caused way more problems than it solved. These systems facilltated a lot of stops that lacked probable cause, led to unfortunate and avoidable interactions with police, and sowed distrust among citizens.

Finally, I would argue that some laws need to be changed. Ending sovereign immunity for police would promote greater accountability and serve as a check to bad conduct. And if we gave the Fourth Amendment as much devotion as we give the First and second Amendments, pretextual stops and searches based on the flimsiest pretexts would stop.

---

One person's "better training" is another's coercion and intrusion.

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

In spirit of compromise, I can accept all but the sovereign immunity proposal. Maybe remedies would be a better word than cure

I don't want to derail an interesting thread into the rationale for SI

---

I think a certain degree of immunity for police is appropriate to discourage floods of frivolous lawsuits. But I also think the current system is way out of balance.

---

I'll go there if you want, but it will derail a really good thread.

I agreed with every point you put forth except sovereign immunity. Do you ever compromise? Your way or the highway.

I'd hoped we could build on your winning 5 out of 6.

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

In spirit of compromise, I can accept all but the sovereign immunity proposal. Maybe remedies would be a better word than cure

I don't want to derail an interesting thread into the rationale for SI

---

I think a certain degree of immunity for police is appropriate to discourage floods of frivolous lawsuits. But I also think the current system is way out of balance.

---

I'll go there if you want, but it will derail a really good thread.

I agreed with every point you put forth except sovereign immunity. Do you ever compromise? Your way or the highway.

I'd hoped we could build on your winning 5 out of 6.

---

Of course I believe in compromise. I didn't realize we were negotiating a bill. I thought we were just stating what we thought should happen and why.

Happy to discuss this topic further via PM if you don't want the thread to stray from critical race theory.

bubbadog said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Here's my two cents on that: Institutional racism is real.

Three quick examples:

Did you know that the GI Bill (which enabled my father to become the first in his family to attend college) originally excluded black veterans? I didn't know that until a few years ago. That shameful bit of institutional racism has since been rectified, of course, but we still feel the effects of it. For example, the network of connections my father and uncle made in college, thanks to the GI Bill, were instrumental in helping me get an interview that led to my first job. But a black kid with my same skills and experience probably would not have had that advantage when I graduated from BU in 1979, because his father wouldn't have been able to go to college on the GI Bill.

Did you know that most black people originally weren't eligible for Social Security? As the bill was working through Congress, it faced serious opposition from Southern representatives. To get the support that would ensure passage, FDR agreed to a compromise -- all domestic and agricultural workers would be excluded. That meant a majority of African Americans at the time would be excluded, and that was the intent.

Did you know that, in many parts of the country, black people were excluded from buying houses in certain neighborhoods thanks to informal agreements by banks and Realtors? And when they could get loans, they usually were on less favorable terms than white people with the same income could get.

---

You said institutional racism is real, then cited examples from the past that no longer exist. Saying it is real or that it exists implies that it is happening today. Yes, there are still effects from past institutional racism, but that is saying something different. Can you give an example of institutional racism that is still ongoing today?

---

It sounds like we agree that the effects of historically institutional racism are still being felt. Please correct me if that's not what you meant.

---

Yes, I believe that the effects of past racism can be felt today, just as with any wrong done to any person in the world throughout history- such is the nature of sin and the fallen world we live in. However, we might disagree on where institutional racism occurred, and what should be done about it today. That's probably for another thread.

But words matter, and meaning matters. It's wrong to say (or imply) that institutional racism exists as you did, then conflate that with the ongoing effects from past systemic racism that no longer exists. If someone says "child abuse is happening", immediate action needs to be taken. Authorities have to be contacted, and the child moved to safety. But if what they meant by "child abuse" is that the ongoing, residual negative effects of it are still being felt today, they have wrongfully set off alarms. Similarly, if institutional/systemic racism exists today, it is important for our country to find it and quickly end it. Otherwise, people will get the idea that this country is just fine and dandy with it continuing. We've seen how much anger, resentment, and division that can cause. And we're also seeing how dark, pernicious forces intent on upending this country have taken advantage of that narrative.

bubbadog said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Here's my two cents on that: Institutional racism is real.

Three quick examples:

Did you know that the GI Bill (which enabled my father to become the first in his family to attend college) originally excluded black veterans? I didn't know that until a few years ago. That shameful bit of institutional racism has since been rectified, of course, but we still feel the effects of it. For example, the network of connections my father and uncle made in college, thanks to the GI Bill, were instrumental in helping me get an interview that led to my first job. But a black kid with my same skills and experience probably would not have had that advantage when I graduated from BU in 1979, because his father wouldn't have been able to go to college on the GI Bill.

Did you know that most black people originally weren't eligible for Social Security? As the bill was working through Congress, it faced serious opposition from Southern representatives. To get the support that would ensure passage, FDR agreed to a compromise -- all domestic and agricultural workers would be excluded. That meant a majority of African Americans at the time would be excluded, and that was the intent.

Did you know that, in many parts of the country, black people were excluded from buying houses in certain neighborhoods thanks to informal agreements by banks and Realtors? And when they could get loans, they usually were on less favorable terms than white people with the same income could get.

---

You said institutional racism is real, then cited examples from the past that no longer exist. Saying it is real or that it exists implies that it is happening today. Yes, there are still effects from past institutional racism, but that is saying something different. Can you give an example of institutional racism that is still ongoing today?

---

I think there are any number of examples of how institutional racism still occurs today.

For one, the discriminatory practices by banks and Realtors are still a thing. Not by all of them, everywhere, but in enough places to matter. One of the (many) things Wells Fargo got in trouble for, if I recall correctly, involved discriminatory treatment to black loan applicants who had the same level of risk as white applicants who received more favorable terms. I think I can find some articles on that later today if you'd like.

Another example involves the differing ways people are treated by representatives of institutions based on skin color. Just about every black person I know has had the experience of being followed around by store security when they're shopping in a department or clothing store. Not that it happens every time, but it happens to all of them at least once and usually more. It happens when they're dressed in business attire, and it happens if they're dressed casually. Every single black male I've talked to about the subject has been followed by the police while they were driving, especially if they have a nice car and are driving in a "nice" neighborhood. Whenever they're in a car, they have to think about the possibility of that. My pastor is an African American man with two college-aged sons. Whenever the sons are out for the evening, and while they're away at school, mom and dad in the back of their minds worry just a little that they could be stopped for "driving while black," and then something could happen because a police officer panicked or got trigger-happy. As a white man, I never have to give any thought to that when I get in my car; I don't have the extra burden of stress that my pastor and his wife have. There are training simulations used by law enforcement that involve videos in which the officer has to make a split-second decision about whether or not to shoot; studies have shown that officers are more likely to feel threatened and shoot if the person in the simulation is black; and this isn't just a "cop thing," because the same effect happens when civilians (even those who think of themselves as non-racist) go through these exercises. In elementary schools, the police are far more likely to be summoned when a black kid is misbehaving or having a meltdown than when a white child is doing the same thing. Now, you might argue that all of these involve decisions made by individuals (store clerks, cops, teachers) and not by institutions. I see that side of it. But when these individuals represent institutions, and when the conduct is much more than a few isolated incidents, it's also hard to dismiss the argument that this is an institutional problem.

I could give more, but I'll just mention one other for now, because I think it's an example of unintended institutional racism (which is perhaps the most common kind). Our cash bail system was not set up to be discriminatory, so far as I know, but it has had a tremendously discriminatory effect. If you're a young white male, for example, you're much more likely to be able to post bail, or know someone who can post it for you, if you're arrested for some small-time offense. You can go on with your life while your case plays out. If you're black, the odds are much greater that you won't be to make bail, which means that you'll wait in jail for months (or much longer, even) for your case to be resolved. In the meantime, you lose your job; if you're a mother, you may lose custody of your kids. You lose your connection to your community. Thankfully, some cities have recognized how destructive this system has been (and part of it is about poverty as well as race; it is often hard in this country to separate the two), and are working to change it.

---

Before I comment on these examples, I'd first like to know what your definition of "institutional racism" is, and whether it's the same or different from "systemic" racism.

Another question: does "institutional" racism, in your mind, only involve whites against blacks, and not other minority groups, like asians? Because asians don't seem to have the problems you listed here.

Also, speaking of asians, do you think asians(and whites) being discriminated against in college admissions is a current form of institutional racism? Because I would agree! Blacks are actually favored during college admissions, simply for being black. Would you consider that "reverse" institutional racism?

Christ saved the world, and we're conflating US social policy with Biblical tenets, in parallel to an academic theoretical critique of US racial policy? If I should be so bold as to point out, all races including blacks and all assorted POCs are freer and more economically successful in the US than anywhere else in the world. Even acknowledging there are some issues, a perspective on American privilege should be in order. While we debate the nuance of staggered privilege, Billions around the world struggle securing food, clean water, and shelter. The US poverty line is individuals making ~$12,000 or less per year. The global poverty line is individuals making less than $700 per year. Not to mention the deep and overt institutional and cultural oppression that engulfs so many nations across the globe.

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

In spirit of compromise, I can accept all but the sovereign immunity proposal. Maybe remedies would be a better word than cure

I don't want to derail an interesting thread into the rationale for SI

---

I think a certain degree of immunity for police is appropriate to discourage floods of frivolous lawsuits. But I also think the current system is way out of balance.

---

I'll go there if you want, but it will derail a really good thread.

I agreed with every point you put forth except sovereign immunity. Do you ever compromise? Your way or the highway.

I'd hoped we could build on your winning 5 out of 6.

---

Of course I believe in compromise. I didn't realize we were negotiating a bill. I thought we were just stating what we thought should happen and why.

Happy to discuss this topic further via PM if you don't want the thread to stray from critical race theory.

---

You're right, we aren't negotiating a bill. Sorry. How would you balance immunity for officers?

By sovereign immunity, do you want to hold the government entity liable for whatever the law enforcement employee does or the officer personally responsible or both? The Texas tort claims act limits monetary awards to $100K and shields the officer from personal liability. Would you do away with the tort claims act in favor of unlimited liability for officer and the government entity who employed the officer?

Federally a Sec 1983 lawsuit is used whenever the officer commits bad acts under the color of state law, for example, Houston police officers who killed people who were in custody and threw down guns next to the person killed.

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Here's my two cents on that: Institutional racism is real.

Three quick examples:

Did you know that the GI Bill (which enabled my father to become the first in his family to attend college) originally excluded black veterans? I didn't know that until a few years ago. That shameful bit of institutional racism has since been rectified, of course, but we still feel the effects of it. For example, the network of connections my father and uncle made in college, thanks to the GI Bill, were instrumental in helping me get an interview that led to my first job. But a black kid with my same skills and experience probably would not have had that advantage when I graduated from BU in 1979, because his father wouldn't have been able to go to college on the GI Bill.

Did you know that most black people originally weren't eligible for Social Security? As the bill was working through Congress, it faced serious opposition from Southern representatives. To get the support that would ensure passage, FDR agreed to a compromise -- all domestic and agricultural workers would be excluded. That meant a majority of African Americans at the time would be excluded, and that was the intent.

Did you know that, in many parts of the country, black people were excluded from buying houses in certain neighborhoods thanks to informal agreements by banks and Realtors? And when they could get loans, they usually were on less favorable terms than white people with the same income could get.

---

You said institutional racism is real, then cited examples from the past that no longer exist. Saying it is real or that it exists implies that it is happening today. Yes, there are still effects from past institutional racism, but that is saying something different. Can you give an example of institutional racism that is still ongoing today?

---

Now, you might argue that all of these involve decisions made by individuals (store clerks, cops, teachers) and not by institutions. I see that side of it. But when these individuals represent institutions, and when the conduct is much more than a few isolated incidents, it's also hard to dismiss the argument that this is an institutional problem.

---

Well which is it?

If it's institutional, then we must dismantle all institutions until the woke crowd is satisfied, which they never are.

It's it's the individual, we deal with the individual.

---

For me, it's institutional racism. But I am acknowledging the possibility that others might reasonably have a different view.

I disagree that the only remedy to institutional racism is to dismantle the institutions.

---

Then be prepared to abandon the left, because this is exactly what they're pushing.

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Here's my two cents on that: Institutional racism is real.

Three quick examples:

Did you know that the GI Bill (which enabled my father to become the first in his family to attend college) originally excluded black veterans? I didn't know that until a few years ago. That shameful bit of institutional racism has since been rectified, of course, but we still feel the effects of it. For example, the network of connections my father and uncle made in college, thanks to the GI Bill, were instrumental in helping me get an interview that led to my first job. But a black kid with my same skills and experience probably would not have had that advantage when I graduated from BU in 1979, because his father wouldn't have been able to go to college on the GI Bill.

Did you know that most black people originally weren't eligible for Social Security? As the bill was working through Congress, it faced serious opposition from Southern representatives. To get the support that would ensure passage, FDR agreed to a compromise -- all domestic and agricultural workers would be excluded. That meant a majority of African Americans at the time would be excluded, and that was the intent.

Did you know that, in many parts of the country, black people were excluded from buying houses in certain neighborhoods thanks to informal agreements by banks and Realtors? And when they could get loans, they usually were on less favorable terms than white people with the same income could get.

---

You said institutional racism is real, then cited examples from the past that no longer exist. Saying it is real or that it exists implies that it is happening today. Yes, there are still effects from past institutional racism, but that is saying something different. Can you give an example of institutional racism that is still ongoing today?

---

Now, you might argue that all of these involve decisions made by individuals (store clerks, cops, teachers) and not by institutions. I see that side of it. But when these individuals represent institutions, and when the conduct is much more than a few isolated incidents, it's also hard to dismiss the argument that this is an institutional problem.

---

Well which is it?

If it's institutional, then we must dismantle all institutions until the woke crowd is satisfied, which they never are.

It's it's the individual, we deal with the individual.

---

For me, it's institutional racism. But I am acknowledging the possibility that others might reasonably have a different view.

I disagree that the only remedy to institutional racism is to dismantle the institutions.

---

Then be prepared to abandon the left, because this is exactly what they're pushing.

---

I don't see the left as a monolith, any more than I view the right as one. Yes, there are people on the far left who would like to dismantle some of our institutions, notably the police. But from polls I have seen, even among Democrats a majority are against "defunding" the police. And the majority of them voted for a nominee who specifically said he was against defunding the police.

I tend to agree with you that the AOC crowd will not give up on their demands. Neither will the Freedom Caucus, which represents the extreme on the other side (or at least the near extreme -- the boundaries get pushed a little farther with QAnon reps).

The biggest test of skill for a Speaker of the House these days is trying to keep the extremes at bay while getting them to support legislation that they feel is a compromise. John Boehner -- a guy I basically liked -- was never happier than the day he walked away and didn't have to deal with people like Mark Meadows and Louie Gohmert and Doug Collins anymore. Pelosi is a better poker player than Boehner, but you can bet there's no love lost between her and the Squad.

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

In spirit of compromise, I can accept all but the sovereign immunity proposal. Maybe remedies would be a better word than cure

I don't want to derail an interesting thread into the rationale for SI

---

I think a certain degree of immunity for police is appropriate to discourage floods of frivolous lawsuits. But I also think the current system is way out of balance.

---

I'll go there if you want, but it will derail a really good thread.

I agreed with every point you put forth except sovereign immunity. Do you ever compromise? Your way or the highway.

I'd hoped we could build on your winning 5 out of 6.

---

Of course I believe in compromise. I didn't realize we were negotiating a bill. I thought we were just stating what we thought should happen and why.

Happy to discuss this topic further via PM if you don't want the thread to stray from critical race theory.

---

You're right, we aren't negotiating a bill. Sorry. How would you balance immunity for officers?

By sovereign immunity, do you want to hold the government entity liable for whatever the law enforcement employee does or the officer personally responsible or both? The Texas tort claims act limits monetary awards to $100K and shields the officer from personal liability. Would you do away with the tort claims act in favor of unlimited liability for officer and the government entity who employed the officer?

Federally a Sec 1983 lawsuit is used whenever the officer commits bad acts under the color of state law, for example, Houston police officers who killed people who were in custody and threw down guns next to the person killed.

---

I don't know that there's a perfect balance. I do have some ideas, or at least what I might consider guiding principles for striking the balance. I'll send you a PM later today.

I do remember the Houston case you're talking about, or at least a similar one. There was a great article in Texas Monthly years ago titled "The Throwdown Gun." First I'd ever heard of that phenomenon, which I subsequently learned is more common than we'd like to believe.

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Here's my two cents on that: Institutional racism is real.

Three quick examples:

Did you know that the GI Bill (which enabled my father to become the first in his family to attend college) originally excluded black veterans? I didn't know that until a few years ago. That shameful bit of institutional racism has since been rectified, of course, but we still feel the effects of it. For example, the network of connections my father and uncle made in college, thanks to the GI Bill, were instrumental in helping me get an interview that led to my first job. But a black kid with my same skills and experience probably would not have had that advantage when I graduated from BU in 1979, because his father wouldn't have been able to go to college on the GI Bill.

Did you know that most black people originally weren't eligible for Social Security? As the bill was working through Congress, it faced serious opposition from Southern representatives. To get the support that would ensure passage, FDR agreed to a compromise -- all domestic and agricultural workers would be excluded. That meant a majority of African Americans at the time would be excluded, and that was the intent.

Did you know that, in many parts of the country, black people were excluded from buying houses in certain neighborhoods thanks to informal agreements by banks and Realtors? And when they could get loans, they usually were on less favorable terms than white people with the same income could get.

---

You said institutional racism is real, then cited examples from the past that no longer exist. Saying it is real or that it exists implies that it is happening today. Yes, there are still effects from past institutional racism, but that is saying something different. Can you give an example of institutional racism that is still ongoing today?

---

Now, you might argue that all of these involve decisions made by individuals (store clerks, cops, teachers) and not by institutions. I see that side of it. But when these individuals represent institutions, and when the conduct is much more than a few isolated incidents, it's also hard to dismiss the argument that this is an institutional problem.

---

Well which is it?

If it's institutional, then we must dismantle all institutions until the woke crowd is satisfied, which they never are.

It's it's the individual, we deal with the individual.

---

For me, it's institutional racism. But I am acknowledging the possibility that others might reasonably have a different view.

I disagree that the only remedy to institutional racism is to dismantle the institutions.

---

Then be prepared to abandon the left, because this is exactly what they're pushing.

---

I don't see the left as a monolith, any more than I view the right as one. Yes, there are people on the far left who would like to dismantle some of our institutions, notably the police. But from polls I have seen, even among Democrats a majority are against "defunding" the police. And the majority of them voted for a nominee who specifically said he was against defunding the police.

I tend to agree with you that the AOC crowd will not give up on their demands. Neither will the Freedom Caucus, which represents the extreme on the other side (or at least the near extreme -- the boundaries get pushed a little farther with QAnon reps).

The biggest test of skill for a Speaker of the House these days is trying to keep the extremes at bay while getting them to support legislation that they feel is a compromise. John Boehner -- a guy I basically liked -- was never happier than the day he walked away and didn't have to deal with people like Mark Meadows and Louie Gohmert and Doug Collins anymore. Pelosi is a better poker player than Boehner, but you can bet there's no love lost between her and the Squad.

---

I'm not really talking politically. I'm referring to culture changing so rapidly that CRT and other woke nonsense will surely become the mainstream and norm.

Pandora's box is open. It only gets more fringe, especially when boomers and Gen x start dying.

bubbadog said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Here's my two cents on that: Institutional racism is real.

Three quick examples:

Did you know that the GI Bill (which enabled my father to become the first in his family to attend college) originally excluded black veterans? I didn't know that until a few years ago. That shameful bit of institutional racism has since been rectified, of course, but we still feel the effects of it. For example, the network of connections my father and uncle made in college, thanks to the GI Bill, were instrumental in helping me get an interview that led to my first job. But a black kid with my same skills and experience probably would not have had that advantage when I graduated from BU in 1979, because his father wouldn't have been able to go to college on the GI Bill.

Did you know that most black people originally weren't eligible for Social Security? As the bill was working through Congress, it faced serious opposition from Southern representatives. To get the support that would ensure passage, FDR agreed to a compromise -- all domestic and agricultural workers would be excluded. That meant a majority of African Americans at the time would be excluded, and that was the intent.

Did you know that, in many parts of the country, black people were excluded from buying houses in certain neighborhoods thanks to informal agreements by banks and Realtors? And when they could get loans, they usually were on less favorable terms than white people with the same income could get.

---

You said institutional racism is real, then cited examples from the past that no longer exist. Saying it is real or that it exists implies that it is happening today. Yes, there are still effects from past institutional racism, but that is saying something different. Can you give an example of institutional racism that is still ongoing today?

---

---

No response to my questions in my last post? You've been quite verbose in this thread, but all of the sudden cat's got your tongue.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

George Truett said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is there anytime in church history when we have not had victims in the roadway, Jewish priests avoiding victims, Levites avoiding victims and Samaritans? When Jesus told that story, was it only for the audience He had at that time or was it for others as well? I believe he also told the parable about an individual victim and not a class of victims.

---

Glad you brought up this story because it's a great example of what CRT is about. Race is a big factor in it.

One of the points of this is: Your racial and theological suppositions about other people are wrong. The way you categorize people is sinful.

---

Racial suppositions and categorization....exactly what CRT does, right?

---

Right? George Truett?? Any response?

If the lesson you've gleaned from the Good Samaritan story is that judging someone not by their actions or individual character but rather by their race is sinful, then wouldn't CRT, which promotes the idea that if you're a white American then you're racist, be incompatible or inconsistent with Christianity?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

George Truett said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is there anytime in church history when we have not had victims in the roadway, Jewish priests avoiding victims, Levites avoiding victims and Samaritans? When Jesus told that story, was it only for the audience He had at that time or was it for others as well? I believe he also told the parable about an individual victim and not a class of victims.

---

Glad you brought up this story because it's a great example of what CRT is about. Race is a big factor in it.

One of the points of this is: Your racial and theological suppositions about other people are wrong. The way you categorize people is sinful.

---

Racial suppositions and categorization....exactly what CRT does, right?

---

Right? George Truett?? Any response?

If the lesson you've gleaned from the Good Samaritan story is that judging someone not by their actions or individual character but rather by their race is sinful, then wouldn't CRT, which promotes the idea that if you're a white American then you're racist, be incompatible or inconsistent with Christianity?

---

Yep. CRT: fighting racism with racism since, well, whenever somebody invented this stupid *****

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Here's my two cents on that: Institutional racism is real.

Three quick examples:

Did you know that the GI Bill (which enabled my father to become the first in his family to attend college) originally excluded black veterans? I didn't know that until a few years ago. That shameful bit of institutional racism has since been rectified, of course, but we still feel the effects of it. For example, the network of connections my father and uncle made in college, thanks to the GI Bill, were instrumental in helping me get an interview that led to my first job. But a black kid with my same skills and experience probably would not have had that advantage when I graduated from BU in 1979, because his father wouldn't have been able to go to college on the GI Bill.

Did you know that most black people originally weren't eligible for Social Security? As the bill was working through Congress, it faced serious opposition from Southern representatives. To get the support that would ensure passage, FDR agreed to a compromise -- all domestic and agricultural workers would be excluded. That meant a majority of African Americans at the time would be excluded, and that was the intent.

Did you know that, in many parts of the country, black people were excluded from buying houses in certain neighborhoods thanks to informal agreements by banks and Realtors? And when they could get loans, they usually were on less favorable terms than white people with the same income could get.

---

You said institutional racism is real, then cited examples from the past that no longer exist. Saying it is real or that it exists implies that it is happening today. Yes, there are still effects from past institutional racism, but that is saying something different. Can you give an example of institutional racism that is still ongoing today?

---

---

No response to my questions in my last post? You've been quite verbose in this thread, but all of the sudden cat's got your tongue.

---

Tongue is fine. I spent the evening with my family instead of on this website. Will get back to you tomorrow.

bubbadog said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Here's my two cents on that: Institutional racism is real.

Three quick examples:

Did you know that the GI Bill (which enabled my father to become the first in his family to attend college) originally excluded black veterans? I didn't know that until a few years ago. That shameful bit of institutional racism has since been rectified, of course, but we still feel the effects of it. For example, the network of connections my father and uncle made in college, thanks to the GI Bill, were instrumental in helping me get an interview that led to my first job. But a black kid with my same skills and experience probably would not have had that advantage when I graduated from BU in 1979, because his father wouldn't have been able to go to college on the GI Bill.

Did you know that most black people originally weren't eligible for Social Security? As the bill was working through Congress, it faced serious opposition from Southern representatives. To get the support that would ensure passage, FDR agreed to a compromise -- all domestic and agricultural workers would be excluded. That meant a majority of African Americans at the time would be excluded, and that was the intent.

Did you know that, in many parts of the country, black people were excluded from buying houses in certain neighborhoods thanks to informal agreements by banks and Realtors? And when they could get loans, they usually were on less favorable terms than white people with the same income could get.

---

You said institutional racism is real, then cited examples from the past that no longer exist. Saying it is real or that it exists implies that it is happening today. Yes, there are still effects from past institutional racism, but that is saying something different. Can you give an example of institutional racism that is still ongoing today?

---

---

No response to my questions in my last post? You've been quite verbose in this thread, but all of the sudden cat's got your tongue.

---

Tongue is fine. I spent the evening with my family instead of on this website. Will get back to you tomorrow.

---

But you've been posting all day, and my post was from yesterday. You can understand why I was worried about your tongue!

I'm not saying you were obligated to answer my post. It's your choice. I was just noting that you seemed to be avoiding it.

The real racists in this country are liberals. And many hide it in the form of "compassion".

The reason many black people have a hard time getting ahead today is because, since birth, they've been told over and over by the democratic party that they're victims for not being born white - talk about being racist.

They've been conditioned to believe they can't accomplish greatness because of the color of their skin - talk about being racist.

Many on the left have publicly acknowledged their "privilege" of simply being white - talking about being racist. Just because some pretends to be sorry about their privileged whiteness, doesn't make them any less racist.

liberals/democrats/the left have a really hard time looking at people and seeing them from who they are instead of what (color) they are - talk about racist

Most liberals believe that black people can't succeed unless they are helped by white people - talk about being racist.

This is a classic example of racist liberals disguising their racism as compassion:

I love that video. It's hilarious. Access to the internet is a real issue but it's a socioeconomic issue not a racial issue. I love that those people look so incredibly put off. Like what a dumbass question. Lol