My recent USA Today column discusses how the Democrats have suddenly discovered God in elections after recruiting various far-left ministers to run on faith-based anti-Trump messages. I discussed how Divinity Schools have shown the same trend as other departments in higher education with a radical shift to the left. That was evident in a controversy this week at Point Loma Nazarene University, where Dean of Students Jason Cha told student leaders that identifying as being “in Christ alone” is a sign of “white privilege.”
Dean Cha is an example of the resumes that draw appointments and presentations in higher education. According to The College Fix, Cha’s 2023 dissertation at Azusa Pacific University was titled “Raging Waters of Whiteness: Addressing White Evangelical Racism in Higher Education.” His scholarship draws on critical pedagogy, incorporating “critical race theory, critical white studies, and evangelical postcolonial studies.”
Roughly three years later, he was made Dean of Students at PLNU.
As discussed in the USA Today column, the same pedagogy is evident in the crop of progressive proselytizing in the midterm elections. In Texas, Democrat James Talarico has declared that “I always think of myself as a Christian who hates Christianity.” His church leaders at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church admit that most of its members are likely agnostic or atheist.
Other Democratic minister-candidates have similar far-left views of religion, including Iowa’s Lutheran minister-turned-candidate Sarah Trone Garriott, who is under attack for participating in a Satanic wedding.
They are part of a movement of “resistance preaching” to organize far-left ministers to use religious pitches to support a blue wave. Harvard actually selected an atheist as its head “chaplain” a few years ago.
Critics of Cha posted an Instagram post revealing the alleged statement to students as part of the fall leadership training.
Cha has long been an outspoken critic of what he views as “white privilege” in religion and the need to prioritize “racial justice,” including past presentations on “Whiteness as Witness: Re-conceptualizing Diversity in Christian Higher Education.”
Asked for a comment on the controversy, Lora Fleming, associate vice president of communications and public affairs at PLNU, defended the statement, noting that the university’s commitment to “confront racism, love our neighbors, and seek justice is not separate from our Christian discipleship. It flows from it.”
The school has been under fire over the shift to the far left in faculty appointments, a familiar story in higher education.
The university was previously under fire over reports that it has held such sessions as “decolonizing yoga” and refused to recognize a Turning Point USA chapter.
Critics also pointed to a prior controversy involving a poet brought to campus to share a view of Jesus as “agnostic and horny” and an “erotic lover.”
As will not come as much of a surprise to readers of this blog, I do not support calls to bar such views or to remove faculty who publish radical values. Higher education relies on academic freedom and free speech to maintain vibrant intellectual environments.
The problem is that, while claiming such protections for diverse viewpoints, today’s faculty have engaged in open bias and intolerance in hiring faculty. The faculty and administrators in control of higher education are the most intolerant and orthodox in generations. They have purged departments of conservatives and libertarians while creating an ideological echo chamber.
This is a private university, so it depends on donors and alumni to change the culture by withholding support.
At state schools, I have also opposed efforts to dictate curriculum and class content. I have encouraged state legislatures to tie further public subsidies to real, substantial changes that create intellectual diversity among faculty.
If we are to protect these bastions of free speech, legislatures will need to play a more active role in addressing the exclusion of both faculty candidates and speakers on public campuses. Too many faculty members still view citizens as a captive audience expected to keep funding their departments, while excluding conservative or dissenting views held by many, if not most, citizens in a given state.
If faculty members want to maintain echo chambers for their own viewpoints, they should seek private donors to sustain such intolerance and orthodoxy.
Legislatures can demand evidence that schools maintain intellectually diverse faculty when determining the level of continued support from citizens. Otherwise, it is ridiculous to expect the public to subsidize their ideological echo chambers.
For a school established as “a simple Bible college,” it now seems determined to be something quite different. What that is remains a matter of faith best left to the faculty, the students, and the alumni.
As for Dean Cha, the faculty of Point Loma Nazarene University has every right to pick their leadership, and donors have every right to base their contributions on those choices.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Trump is the most unpresidential president ever. How embarrassing.
@Moronymous
No, but you are. If you ever find your spine, it’ll probably run away from you. Maybe stop gazing at your navel and direct your eyes to something more important than your temper tantrums and personal comfort.
James,
From what I understand, single celled organism cannot have spines.
Trump is the most unpresidential president ever. How embarrassing.
Guess we’re at the point where simply using words to communicate is white privilege. These people are ridiculous, they are the only ones with the hangups, and I do not know what we do going forward with all of the brainwashed, woke idiots. They will, and are, bringing this world to its knees with their fragility, ignorance, and idiocy.
I wish I could say I was surprised, but many of us knew this was where we were headed when these folks were still children with the way they were raised and interacted with the world. This has only gotten worse in the time since. Either we change course now, or we watch literal and figurative children destroy everything; eventually there will be no more room for reticence. The modern left is no longer a viable option. Vote accordingly this fall.
James,
You once mentioned how we may have to give up on this failure to launch generation, Gen Z, as they do not appear able or even capable of functioning as adults.
Do we really have to fear of them ever getting into places of power if they are that dependent on their parents?
Meanwhile, we are seeing evidence of Gen Alpha seem to be much more interested in NOT being Gen Z and failures to launch, displaying a better capacity to get ahead even at very young ages and have a degree of grit. Perhaps it is the parenting of the Millennials?
Oh boy, Professor Turley is at it again. Sigh. I gotta give the professor credit for being good at misrepresentation and stripping context from complex issues to paint them as something else entirely. It makes him look bad, really bad, because as a professor, esteemed professor he sure does a lot intentional misrepresentation. I guess I can’t really blame him since he is clearly very biased and obligated to portray the left as extreme as possible while ignoring the extreme right and it’s wild shenanigans which are, at present, undermining their own agenda in ways the left couldn’t possibly be able to.
Starting with his misrepresentation of Cha’s view and the purpose of his assertions. Turley frames Dean Jason Cha’s lecture as a secular attack on faith. In reality, Cha—a practicing Christian academic at a religious institution—was addressing how the phrase “in Christ alone” can be weaponized as an “invisible baseline”. In predominantly white spaces, hiding behind a “colorblind” faith is often used to ignore systemic racial inequalities and avoid the difficult Christian work of repentance and racial justice. Cha wasn’t denouncing Christ; he was challenging future church leaders not to use theology as a shield against accountability.
Turley goes on to smear running Candidate James Talarico as being some kind of crazy woke Christian when in fact his assertions on what Christianity is really about are exactly in line with what the bible states about Jesus and the idea that the other ‘Christians’ the Christian nationalists are the actual hypocrites. Because their version of Christianity is based on ignoring the actual teachings of Jesus and what he did to justify their view that compassion is a weakness. The funny thing is Talarico is famous for challenging Evangelical Christians on these points and famously they’ve been unable to answer the most basic questions about what the bible teaches.
Turley dishonestly strips a quote from Texas Senate candidate James Talarico, claiming he “hates Christianity.” Turley conveniently omits the rest of Talarico’s sentence, where the Presbyterian seminary student clarifies that he loves the teachings of Jesus—whom he calls a “barefoot rabbi” who fought for the poor and marginalized—but hates institutionalized political religion (like Christian Nationalism) that co-opts Christ’s name to hoard power. Talarico is echoing centuries of Christian prophets, reformers, and theologians who have criticized the corruption of the institutional church.
Then there’s the hypocrisy of Turley’s position on academic freedom and diversity. It’s wild how he does not recognize he contradicts himself in one whole paragraph.
Turley spends the entire back half of his column clutching his pearls over “cancel culture” and “ideological echo chambers” in higher education, sanctimoniously writing that “higher education relies on academic freedom and free speech to maintain vibrant intellectual environments.”
Yet, in the very next breath, Turley lays out a literal blueprint for how to financially choke out institutions that allow speech he doesn’t like. He openly encourages conservative donors to launch a targeted financial boycott against Point Loma Nazarene Universityto force faculty out, and actively cheerleads for state legislatures to blackmail public universities by pulling public subsidies unless they change their hiring practices.
Turley’s definition of “free speech” is completely conditional: it is a protected right when it belongs to conservatives, but a fireable offense requiring financial warfare when it belongs to progressives. You cannot claim to defend academic freedom while actively advocating for the economic destruction of departments that don’t bow to your personal orthodoxy.
I’m not a Christian, and even I know what you wrote is nonsense. You’re just here to obscure and confuse.
Could you explain exactly why you think it is nonsense? It would be helpful to know which specific parts of my post you disagree with. It is easy to dismiss an argument by simply calling it “nonsense” and walking away, but what is your actual point of view on Professor Turley’s claims? I did the research to show exactly how and what Turley left out of his column, and the evidence demonstrates that he did misrepresent the facts.
I am not a Christian either, but I know enough about the subject to recognize that Turley’s claims deserve a healthy dose of skepticism. Universities and colleges routinely hire staff to bring diverse views and perspectives to campus—a principle that Turley claim to wholly support. Yet, in this piece, he is critical of a private school that chose a progressive professor and appointed him as Dean based entirely on his merit and academic credentials.
Furthermore, Professor Turley frequently asserts that there is a systemic “purging of conservative faculty” from academia, even though he has provided absolutely no empirical proof to support such a sweeping claim. Dean Cha’s lecture is highly complex and nuanced, dealing with a specific theological and sociological subject. It requires the exercise of critical thinking to truly understand his perspective. When looked at objectively, it becomes clear that his lecture is not at all what Professor Turley claims it to be.
“Universities and colleges routinely hire staff to bring diverse views and perspectives to campus*—a principle that Turley claim(s) to wholly support. Yet, in this piece, he is critical of a private school that chose a progressive professor and appointed him as Dean based entirely on his merit and academic credentials.” *Unless those diverse views and perspectives are even slightly conservative , than it is a no-go.
Mamie Fish,
“Unless those diverse views and perspectives are even slightly conservative , than it is a no-go.”
And your proof for that assertion is?
A school pics staff according to who applies, right? How do we know if any conservatives have applied? Or how were chosen on merit? Do you think conservative christians would apply to a private university that is ‘progressive Christian’? Conservative Christians are very picky about which christian sect they choose to associate themselves with. Right?
Oh boy, Crazy George X is at it again. Sigh. I gotta give Crazy George credit for being good at misrepresentation and stripping context from complex issues to paint them as something else entirely. Aka LYING.
Amen.
What’s the lie anonymous? You never seem to be able to point it out. We know you are just trolling for sh#ts and giggles.
Will you run again after he lies to you, GSX? Of course. You are known as “Iran never wanted a nuclear weapon”
You lied to me, and you lied to another. When a copy was provided to you from the blog, you lied again and said they weren’t your words. When more proof was added, you ran away again.
Is Sigmund the Fraud your psychiatrist?
You are never going to let this go, are you. You are obsessing with this same comment day after day after day after day.
Perseveration is a classic indicator of obsessive-compulsive disorder.
You are locked into a perseverative loop of obsessive compulsion to repeat this comment ad infinitum. This a classic maladaptive coping mechanism seen in obsessive-compulsive disorder whereby the individual’s cognitive inflexibility forces him into this perseverative loop in a desperate attempt to find a sense of safety and security. It serves as a self-soothing mechanism to overcome the intense feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem that are a feature of obsessive-compulsive disorder. The obsessive perseveration is driven by a desperate need for perfectionism that is completely unattainable.
Sigmund the Fraud talks about obsessions but refuses to examine himself, so obsessed with anyone disagreeing with the lies of GSX: “Iran never wanted a nuclear weapon.” That alone demonstrates Sigmund’s control fixation, but his persistence even after statements are copied, and GSX refuses to accept his own words, lying about his quotes despite them being copied directly from multiple posts, make his control fixation even clearer.
Final Grade: Failure and Babbling Blatherskite
Where to begin. First, and most importantly, decadent and reflexively leftwing holy rollers are not the best representatives of Christ. Full stop. They claim traditional Christians are overly nationalistic while they themselves are nothing but political. Get the mote out of your eye, X.
What else? Cha is a quack, and you’re just shilling for him. Your statement, “In predominantly white spaces, hiding behind a ‘colorblind’ faith is often used to ignore systemic racial inequalities and avoid the difficult Christian work of repentance and racial justice” is so convoluted and political that it’s obviously absurd.
Another point, “Chistian nationalism” is a loaded, leftwing buzzword that demonstrates your open bigotry to traditional Christians.
As for Turley’s hypocrisy, academia uses its institutional power to eliminate conservatives, and you act like THAT is academic freedom. Professor Turley is offering the only effective way to combat this institutionalized purging.
Professor Turley’s views on free speech are not conditional. Your love of censorship is unconditional.
You get on this blog, using cute but baseless arguments to pettifog every single point. You are not here in good faith. Have you no shame, sir? At long last, have you no shame??
@Diogenes
‘Another point, “Chistian nationalism” is a loaded, leftwing buzzword that demonstrates your open bigotry to traditional Christians.’
Yup. It’s even become a catch-all for people that simply hold opinions divergent of the radical left, no different than ‘far right’. It’s absurd on its face. But absolutely a lazy buzzword and a clear indicator when used that someone’s brain has been reduced to pudding.
James,
Well said.
In all my years and travels I have yet to meet a “Christian national.” I have meet a number of Mormons and Jews, no Christian nationals. Even Jehovah yahoos when they come calling.
This “Christian national,” reminds me of when Trump first got elected, and everyone said sexual assaults and rape would increase. There was a rapist around every corner. Well, I guess they were kinda right but the increases happen after Biden open the border and well, then there is the “campus rape culture” at elite colleges like Cornell.
Well put! I agree 100% with Diogenese.
Diogenes,
While I appreciate the historic flair of your Joseph Welch quote, dramatic rhetoric cannot substitute for factual analysis. Let us look at the actual arguments objectively.
Accusing me of bad faith does not change the record. I have provided the specific theological and institutional context of the article, while your response relies on personal insults and deflections. If you have a substantive, evidence-based counterargument to these points, I am entirely open to hearing it.
By the way, Christian Nationalists are not “traditional Christians”. We both know there are a LOT of Christian sects who claim to be “traditional”. James Talarico’s Christianity can also be considered “traditional” or more “original” since he’s all about what Jesus actually did vs what Christian Nationalists want it to be. The distinction is quite clear.
X/georgie gets all his info from quick searches, but his objective is always the same. Why is that?
Remember, his game is to state lies, then demand “evidence” to disprove. Just like yesterday’s lies about diesel fuel, without ADMITTING that the vast majority of diesel fuel is “home-grown,” and 84+ percent of any fuel that we might import comes from Canada and Mexico. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/diesel-fuel/where-our-diesel-comes-from.php
I would never elevate X to the level of an Antichrist, but apparently he wants to destroy Turley for some reason…..
Wow, talk about lying. You’re clearly confused about what I said regarding Trump’s Diesel fuel importation from Russia.
I never disputed the fact that a lot comes from Canada and Mexico. Apparently you didn’t know Trump made a deal with Putin to import a few hundred thousand tons of diesel fuel from Russia, about a half day’s worth to try to lower prices.
Destroy Turley? LOL! Sure man. Sure. Remember, Turley is fair game for criticism, always.
X tries to dismiss the obvious subversion of basic theology by claiming that labeling standard Christian expressions like “in Christ alone” as an “invisible baseline” for “white privilege” is just benign “sociological context” in “predominantly white spaces”—assuring us with incredible arrogance that it “is not a diss on white people at all.” The sheer moral bankruptcy of X’s argument is staggering. Slapping ideological hit-labels on core religious tenets isn’t “sociological analysis”; it is pure, unadulterated hostility toward traditional faith disguised as academic gibberish. X shows a complete lack of integrity by attempting to normalize these ideological shibboleths inside religious institutions, eagerly defending the corporate redefinition of centuries-old doctrine just to fit a narrow, partisan agenda.
X’s hypocrisy is even worse when defending political rhetoric that vilifies traditional believers. X gleefully defends attacks that write off millions of Christians as “hypocrites,” yet turns around and screams bad faith the second anyone documents those exact words. X sneers that opponents are merely “inciting rage among the ignorant,” dripping with a smug, unearned moral superiority that exposes X’s own total dishonesty. Instead of offering a coherent thought on how university funding and administrative power interact with genuine academic freedom, X resorts to cheap name-calling and defensive whining—proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that X’s commentary is driven by unprincipled bias, zero logic, and a completely fake sense of righteousness.
Epic takedown!
Especially this: “Slapping ideological hit-labels on core religious tenets isn’t “sociological analysis”; it is pure, unadulterated hostility toward traditional faith disguised as *academic gibberish*.” (emphasis added)
You can; it’s hypocritical to do so, but nothing prevents it.
What is at stake is that the likes of Leonard Leo and Peter Thiel are working at tearing apart the body of the US government; fighting for scraps as they try to kill it.
What is atypical about PLNU is that it is controlled by the Church of the Nazarene. So in this case, that denomination, which is within what is commonly considered the evangelical tradition, has the most important say. It’s worth noting that in recent years the senior pastor of the Nazarene church that adjoins PLNU lost his ministerial credentials for not following the church’s teachings on homosexuality. That was a denominational level decision. It will be interesting to watch.
“in Christ alone” is a sign of “white privilege.”
The Left uses DEI and multiculturalism to corrupt everything it touches — Hollywood, academia, the media, sports, the boardroom. It doesn’t create anew and build something fresh. It co-opts and rots from the inside out.
As it is doing to Christianity. “In Christ alone” is a core tenet of that ideology’s some 2,000 year history. The Left wishes to jettison that tenet in favor of the racist notion of “white privilege.”
If that’s the brand of “Christianity” the Left desires, then create a new religion. But leave your slimy hands off an ideology that you don’t understand and could never create.
(Not that it should matter: I am not a Christian.)
“in Christ alone” is a sign of “white privilege.” Would it be fair to say that the far majority of Christians in the USA are WHITE?
73% of Black Americans identify as CHristian,
62% of White Americans identify as Christian.
According to the Pew Research Center
https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/racial-and-ethnic-composition/black/
@Sam
I’ve begun referring to them as proxy generations – they don’t have much direct experience with anything whatsoever. It’s all just an idea, or a flight of fancy, and after they are done with their acting out and cosplaying, they are accustomed to returning to mom and dad’s or grandpa’s and having all of their needs met, assuming no one made them rich for their compliance and complicity. These are not anything even resembling actualized adult people, and handing them authority is lunacy. But, the grifters at the top aren’t about to lose their grift, and by extension, that means holding onto the useful idiots.
I’m confused. Harvard chose an atheist (who wrote a book titled “Good Without God”) as Head Chaplain. A atheist, not a Christian. But didn’t we used to be told that Harvard is where White Privilege lives? I guess the revolutionaries are hate-fluid instead of hate-binary.
Time to wake up Steve. It’s Harvard, a private university, then can do whatever they want. I guess your kind is hate filled.
Yes, you are always very confused.
So atheists, Jews, Hindu, Muslim, agnostic Harvard students can’t have a designated person who has a listening ear, give thoughtful counsel, and spiritual support when you need it most. Only christians are entitled to that? You are the reason non-christians hate the USA.
Anonymous,
I’m quite sure that you are not speaking for all non-Christians. Thank God.
Stephen B. Benisch, Esq.
Hear! Hear!
This non-Christian most certainly does NOT hate America.
Seems mostly affluent, white, educated (so-called) illiberals with a few other one offs here and there are the ones who hate America.
I think it’s inevitable that a time will come that the “Generous White” will have enough of the Leslie Cho’s who are abusing their people. As individualistic as the “Generous White” are they will link arms to defeat these fascist as they have done before.
Oh, calling for another Crusade are you?
Just another academic Fame Whore using shock and awe as click bait for his career. Another Asian American with a grudge at a ‘Never Heard Of It’ University trying to get in with the Soros Illuminati crowd. Nothing much to see here unless your a wokie that needs a faux academic reference to support hating white people. But wokies don’t really need that now do they.
Just another fame whore? Sounds exactly like Trump.
“. . . Point Loma Nazarene University, where Dean of Students Jason Cha told student leaders that identifying as being ‘in Christ alone’ is a sign of ‘white privilege.’” (JT)
Given his DEI background, that is not surprising. What is surprising is why a devoutly Christian college hired him in the first place.
Hire? To give students a broad-based education. Got a problem with that?
Thats like the Democrat party hiring Joseph Goebels to run their ad campaign.
FYI. Goebbels is dead. can’t hire a dead man.
You offer no evidence to support your conclusion that Cha was hired to “give students a broad-based education.”
After reading the student newspaper reporting about his hire, my conclusion is that he was hired to be the de facto head bureaucrat to oversee a bunch of bureaucrats whose fiefdoms seemingly have very little to do with giving “students a broad based education.”
Here’s how the student newspaper described his duties:
“With this restructuring, as dean of students Cha will directly oversee:
Jason Cha fills dean of students position after months-long search – The Point
Turley is being disingenuous with Cha’s views. He’s making a bad-faith distortion of Dean Cha’s assertion exclusively for the benefit of the ignorant and the gullible. Dean Cha’s assertion is much more nuanced and complicated than Turley makes it out to be and that is why college or university education is different. It’s not just teaching, it’s literally diving into the complicated details and nuances of a subject and allows students to explore every angle and point of view. Exactly what Turley supports. But in this article he’s deliberately leaving out a lot if detail that changes the context of what Turley claims Dean Cha is saying. It’s pure bad-faith narrative on Turley’s part.
Dean Cha’s lecture is about
the sociological context of how the phrase “in Christ alone” actually functions in predominantly white spaces. It’s not a diss on white people at all.
Professor Turley is flattening the argument into a simple headline (“Identifying as being ‘in Christ alone’ is a sign of ‘white privilege'”), Turley completely leaves out the actual core of Cha’s academic point. Per the analysis of the “controversy” (according to Turley) published on Facebook via The College Fix, Cha’s point focuses on how the phrase is experienced differently depending on a person’s social and racial location:
For white Christians in dominant American evangelical spaces, normalized default culture allows them to bypass examining their own whiteness and societal advantages by claiming their identity is solely “in Christ alone”. Turley’s omission hides Cha’s critique of “colorblind” theology, which masks systemic racial inequities and relieves individuals from self-examination.
Turley ignores how this colorblind mandate harms minorities whose racialized experiences and systemic barriers cannot be discarded. Demanding such a framework dismisses minority realities and forces assimilation into a white institutional default while labeling discussions of race as divisive.
This is a very complicated issue and it is exactly why it’s being discussed by Dean and why it’s literally part of a diversity of views issue Turley wholly supports.
Turley mischaracterizes Cha as attacking the gospel. Instead, Cha’s work argues that true theological witness requires acknowledging specific social realities rather than using spiritual cliches to ignore real-world racial hierarchies.
Turley is deliberately misrepresenting Cha’s lecture to incite rage among the ignorant and those on the right who don’t care or strive to understand what nuance really means and how it helps build those critical thinking skills. Exactly what Universities and Colleges are supposed to do.
I also attended a religious university, not because I needed biblical teaching but because it was Emory University and had a great premedical education, and medical school, as well as law and other excellent schools. My religious education was in my own local Methodist Church so I paid little heed to the already very liberal teachings at Emory. It was, to my mind, an excellent balance. Emory is still very liberal, and I remain conservative. I think we should heed the warnings of false prophets and illegitimate Christian’s. I find the ravings communicated to by this particular college amusing and astonishing. Especially on race. Christians led the fight to expunge slavery from the British empire and were the abolitionists of the US. One of the main reasons slavery has mostly ended in this world has been as the results of old style religious fervor and a desire to be close to Jesus and God. I’ll take the old way any time
Indeed
But now look where the world is at after centuries of Christian domination of the world? People of the 21st century are finally throwing off the yoke of Christian fascism. You obviously have stopped growing mentally.
You wouldn’t know Fascism if it walked up and bit you.
But I do see its ugly comment staring at me.
Perhaps Dean Cha can explain to me Southern Baptist Church “in Christ alone” doctrine who majority of members are nonwhites.
Decades ago, leftwing Fascists in Central America leveraged the moral standing of the Catholic Church to push their Socialist agenda. It was just a matter of time before Liberation Theology took over in the United States, since Fascists do not stop but just find new avenues to push their far-left National Socialism.
And what does that have to do with PLNU?
Does he need to draw you a map?! It’s a completely straightforward statement.
Still the question remains unanswered and all you can come up with is a profoundly ignorant reply.
Try that with Mohammad and see where it gets you. The zealots would be issuing Fatwahs everywhere.
For academics, supporting “white privilege” and accusations of racism is by far the easiest pathway toward building a body of publications. Why? Because it is essentially rejection-proof. That is, journals are reluctant to reject racism papers that are highly non-original, routine, pedantic, opinionated, and literally boring, for fear that rejection itself could be interpreted as evidence of racial bias or an unwillingness to confront racism.
Yet these same people accept what I call the 99% rule — without complaint.
The 99% rule states that, for their personal consumption, 99% of the scientists, engineers, and factories that produced everything they love and use were white. The medicine and equipment doctors use to treat them were 99% developed by white physicians and engineers. The laws they use to sue against racism was 99% written by white jurists. And on and on.
Finally, today’s world is far less racist than it ever has been, and even this was 99% created by white intellectuals, reformers, scientists, and political leaders, alongside people of other backgrounds. Consider also socialism and Marxism, frequently embraced by those critical of Western society, that originated with predominantly European thinkers, most notably Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. .
99% of the people reading your comment don’t buy your BS.
..and 99% of people reading your anti-comment have profound compassion for your being so brain-washed……..
Anti comment? Is that like Don’s 99% rule?
“Finally, today’s world is far less racist than it ever has been,”
How did you convince yourself of that?
For example, count the number of black business owners, CEOs, politicians, etc in the USA just fifty years ago and now. Ditto for every country.
Being told something is white privilege. His now akin to me as saying it’s 6’7. It Doesn’t mean a thing just noise.
???????
The only way to the Father is through the Son , Jesus Christ . If you don’t like that it’s on you .
Mohammed is the Great One. Allahu Akbar!
In 1993, classical Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan published his sobering essay “Defining Deviancy Down.” The essay posited that as societal deviant behavior increases, the surrounding culture and its governing parts react by lowering previously accepted standards while simultaneously redefining formerly abnormal conduct as a “new normal” in order to cope with levels of social disorder that can no longer be managed. The essay applies to both secular and religious entities. Stated otherwise: “Meh. Instead of fixing it, just call it OK …, and move on.”
Thirty-three years later, the essay remains as true and relevant — and arguably, even more so — than when it first appeared.
Thank you. You have clarified the beginning of MAGA.
Only a young, uninformed, unintelligent idiot would equate Daniel Patrick Moynihan with MAGA. I am a conservative, I voted for Trump even though I don’t “love” the guy as a person but I have always had a great amount of respect for DPM and it is a true commentary on the state of the Democrats that such a brilliant figure would have no home in today’s party.
Only an old, uniformed, unintelligent moron would waste words on a comment that’s intended to provoke stupid old men into responding.
Your senility is showing old man.
There is nothing deviant about rejecting leftist sociopathy
..sorry.. I know the TRUTH hurts.. but only a DOOFUS would ever ever ever equate DPM with MAGA….
No where in the comment did anon (not my comment) state it was. But obviously you’re too stupid to understand the sarcasm.
Indeed!
Indeed!
Another rehashing of the same theme…. liberals taking over higher ed. Come on Turley give Maggots some red meat.
I served as a Nazarene pastor from 1984-1989, having attended Nazarene Bible College in my early 20’s. I pastored a small church in South Dakota, working full time in a secular job while serving the church. The Church of the Nazarne was founded on Wesleyan-Arminian theology, that Christ died for all, man’s total depravity can be reversed by the Holy Spirit’s entire sanctification (a second work of grace) , and that God’s saving grace is a free gift that people can genuinely accept or reject (man’s free will).
My heart breaks learning of the corruption within the Church of the Nazarene, the abandonment of the quest for Holiness for which so many Nazarenes sacrificed.