Critical Race Theory & Biblical Interpretation w/Justin Michael Reed | Part 2, Q&R

In the media today, the term “critical race theory” (CRT) is often thrown around as a buzzword to attract attention or to villainize. Among Christians, many fear CRT without understanding it, and some denominations even ban teaching it. This presentation explores the opposite stance by demystifying what critical race theory means and exploring how a Christian who finds CRT convincing might apply some of its ideas to interpreting the Bible.

[@michaelpcoffee]

CRT obviates the need for any thought, word or act of racism as proof of their presumed verdict. All they need is their preferred race measuring less favorably than another. Regardless of the cause: they declare their favored race to be victims of the other.
Then they would use real government enforced discrimination in response to their presumed discrimination; altering laws, policies and practices to favor their preferred race.
All for the stated purpose of forcibly making the measurements between races identical.
The operative question is whether you support using government force to implement racial discrimination.
All the rest is academic.
My answer is no.

[@ImageofGodvideos]

Hi, Michael. I think I understand your frustration. You don't want the government to impose laws, policies, or practices that treat people differently on the basis of their race. That makes sense to me even though I don't feel the same desire. In the past, as I imagine you know, the U.S. government has forcibly enforced discrimination through blatantly racist laws and racist implementation of policies against people of color and in favor of White people. A core element of critical race theory is about understanding that history, the ways part of that history continue into today, and how the consequences of that history might be improved. It seems like you are taking examples of what you consider to be the worst application of the theory, and then dismissing all critical race theory based on that.
About your specific points:
Many critical race theorists define racism based on outcomes, as you note. The point is not to figure out who is a victim, nor to reach a "verdict." If you believe that races are not inherently or fatalistically different in anything other than appearance, then meaningful differences in racial groups come about because of social, political, economic, or historical factors. So, the question is, what factors have caused those differences, and which ones might be changed to lessen those differences? Today (as opposed to before WW2), the vast majority of people who address these problems do not think biology explains those differences (which is why eugenics is no longer a popular solution). Most conservatives say the problem is cultural: the so-called "oppressed" need to fix their cultural deficiencies to achieve greater success. On the left, many people influenced by critical race theory say the problem is racist people and policies: we need to educate people to be less racist and use race-based policies to redress wrongs. If I am correct, you don't like that strategy.
However, critical race theory is not a religion where everyone has to agree on the same doctrine. In fact, the guy so many consider the founder of CRT, Derrick Bell, wrote in agreement with your point: should you support the government using FORCE to implement racial discrimination as a way to help victims of racism? With a couple of key ideas he developed, he said a resounding "NO," like you. His reasons are most likely different from yours, but he wrote about, for example, a "racial preferences licensing act" that won't force companies to implement affirmative action in hiring--they can hire whomever they want. If you read about the details, you probably won't like that policy. But, it is part of the larger idea of interest convergence (and racial realism) that he developed. If you understand interest convergence and how it might influence people's strategy in their struggle for racial justice, you'll see it is very different from using government force to bolster the perceived need of a "preferred race."
Touré Reed has a great book called Toward Freedom: The Case Against Race Reductionism that is very much in sync with the idea of interest convergence (although he never uses the term). In short, he says we should have policies that substantively benefit the vast majority of people in the U.S., which is the majority of White people. Such policies will disproportionally benefit Black people because Black people are disproportionally harmed by current policies, but (like you) he believes race-based remedies aren't a viable solution.
All of this is to say, one can agree with your operative question and do so through the lens of critical race theory.

[@michaelpcoffee]

@@ImageofGodvideos
Do you support using government force to implement racial discrimination?

[@ImageofGodvideos]

@@michaelpcoffee Based on this response, it looks like you are interested in debating with me or evaluating me. I am not interested in walking down that path with you. What I support might or might not interest you, it might or might not be what you want to hear, it might confirm or undercut your point; regardless, what I support does not represent all of what critical race theorists support. I wrote to give you (or anyone reading the comments section) some key ideas to research so that you (or they) can learn about ways critical race theory is not reducible to the single straw-man you have set up. I'll repeat that some ideas from critical race theory fit surprisingly well with a strategy for change that is NOT based on "using government force to implement racial discrimination."

[@michaelpcoffee]

@ImageofGodvideos
You're right.
I'm discussing governmental politics.
The operative question is:
Do you support using government force to implement racial discrimination?
All the rest is academic.
I haven't set up any strawman.
I certainly understand your reticence to answer the question and state your political position. That would be telling. Nevermind; your refusal to answer is answer enough.
The fact is; government has no right to discriminate based on race. The only Equality we are entitled to is Equal Protection Before The Law. The only real justice is impartial justice. Any government agent caught violating Equal Protection should be removed from government immediately and permanently. All the rest is to be dealt with through entirely voluntary means.

[@ImageofGodvideos]

@@michaelpcoffee If the government has no right to discriminate based on race, but the government has discriminated based on race in blatant ways for most of US history, then will complete impartiality now be justice?