Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Professor Warns That Anti-Racism is ‘the New Religion’

Professor Warns That Anti-Racism is ‘the New Religion’

“anti-racism is a nonsensical new religion”

This professor is correct, but not in the way he thinks he is. He thinks this poses a threat to progressivism. That’s wrong. This is the new progressivism.

The College Fix reports:

This professor warns that anti-racism is ‘the new religion.’ Religion scholars agree – and like it.

Columbia University linguist John McWhorter argues that “the new religion” of anti-racism is reconstructing America’s sense of morality, justice, education, personal expression and national identity.

In an excerpt from his new book on “Neoracists Posing as Antiracists,” published in Persuasion, the black scholar and atheist wrote that anti-racism is a nonsensical new religion “posing as wisdom” and “world progress.”

Many would argue with his assertion that anti-racism is a religion and that it poses a threat to a “Progressive America.” But an interview program co-produced with Religion News Service might only take issue with McWhorter’s second argument.

“Anti-Racism as a Spiritual Practice,” which is dedicated to confronting “the racist ideas embedded within ourselves,” started its second season in late January.

Hosted by Simran Jeet Singh, a visiting professor at Union Theological Seminary, the program draws from the ranks of anti-racist academics and activists. Guests have included Women’s March co-founder Linda Sarsour and religion professors Anthea Butler at the University of Pennsylvania and Jennifer Harvey at Drake University.

According to Butler, its first guest, it’s not enough to be a “well-intentioned” person: That attitude “doesn’t mean crap to me” and “could get me killed.” Harvey, the white author of “Dear White Christians,” challenged the very idea of “colorblind thinking.”

In its inaugural episode, Singh described the purpose of the show as studying racism’s personal and systemic impacts, as well as how to “put what we learned into action, because if we don’t, the ideas just stay in our heads and nothing changes.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

George_Kaplan | March 13, 2021 at 5:28 pm

If McWhorter is correct and so called anti-racism is actually a new religion then shouldn’t it be illegal to teach it in schools? If schools are not permitted to support Christianity, something America was founded on, then how can they be permitted to preach another religion? Naturally the standard double standard applies.

    Milhouse in reply to George_Kaplan. | March 13, 2021 at 9:24 pm

    It’s functionally a religion, but it doesn’t fit the legal definition of religion.

    And yes, that it is a religion (or pseudo-religion) has been obvious from the start; indeed from before it really started in its current form. I noticed 30 years ago, long before “anti-racism” as it now exists was even thought of, that the proposition that racism is wrong had taken on the status of religious dogma. Not only could one not be a racist, one couldn’t even defend racists or question why it was so wrong to be a racist. It was dangerous merely to ask for an explanation.

    And I wondered how that had come about. Where in the Bible or in any other code of morality that people claimed to hold to did “Thou shalt not be racist” appear? And yet as far as I could see, racism was irrational, contrary to fact, often hurtful, but not actually immoral, unless you held to a moral code like Ayn Rand’s that holds rationality as the standard and condemns all irrational ideas. The closest anyone ever came to an explanation when challenged was “Expressing racism is hurtful to some people, and it’s morally wrong to hurt people’s feelings unnecessarily”.

      artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | March 13, 2021 at 9:28 pm

      I was and still am wondering what the fuss is about. Where’s the law saying racism is illegal? It’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, or against certain races, in certain activities, that’s all.

      So they need the trappings of a religion for it. It’s not the law.

        Milhouse in reply to artichoke. | March 15, 2021 at 10:24 am

        There is no law against racism. But for as long as I remember, racism has been universally treated as something that is inherently morally wrong; an accusation of racism is as socially deadly as an accusation of rape or murder. But where did this come from? As far as I can see, racism is irrational and factually wrong, but not morally wrong. I dislike racism in a person, but I don’t understand why a racist can’t also be a good person. Why not treat it the same as an irrational belief in astrology or a flat earth, or opposition to vaccination or GMOs? We accept that a person can be good despite falling for one of those false beliefs, so why not this one?

          artichoke in reply to Milhouse. | March 17, 2021 at 8:50 pm

          I don’t remember racism being that big a deal, socially, up to maybe 10 years ago. “You’re a racist” just wasn’t a thing. I think it was expected that everyone was a little bit racist, and so what. Now it’s that white people have to be punished because they might be racist or because of their privilege or whatever, and it’s fine and even praised for anyone else to be racist. This is just in our society and other majority-white societies.

          Nobody else is that stupid. In Asia certainly racism is normal and expected.

          But in Cuba, Castro had a push against racism, because he was a communist. I guess this push is a normal part of the introduction of communism in a society.

*According to Butler, its first guest, it’s not enough to be a “well-intentioned” person: That attitude “doesn’t mean crap to me” and “could get me killed.”*

I promise not to kill Butler. I’ll try to avoid any situation where I could have anything to do even remotely with her safety. That should be enough for her.

McWhorter’s writings are very good on characterizing what he calls “The Elect”, but this goes far beyond just anti-racism (as the preface to the article states “That’s wrong. This is the new progressivism.”). I would call it progressive fundamentalism, and this new religion goes far beyond just the anti-racism trope. It includes environmentalism (i.e., global warming) and now, totalitarian healthcare (via covid derangement). These are the trinity of their new religion, and they are coming for all the unbelievers, heretics, blasphemers and apostates. Make no mistake, they are fighting a war the same as any Maoist inquisition. They mean to create believers, or burn witches.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend