Christian Hagiography & Human Rights

 Christianity divorced religion from the state apparatus in the Western world, and spoke of salvation as a largely individual phenomena. It also rather uniquely spoke about the necessity of loving one's enemies, and in viewing the sinner as having a second shot at life and not simply one who was born of poor constitution or character.

These things are quite vital in opposing the totalitarian urge in humanity, which is still very plain to see when you speak with East Asians who even in societies with modern political constitutions ruled by modern political philosophies often see the state, the culture, and the people functioning as a single unit.

What's funny is this idea we see returning in the West where people treat dissenters and people who disagree actively with the government narrative of events as agents of misinformation, which draws into question the inalienable rights that were at the basis of classical liberalism and even to lesser degrees of monarchy as distinguished from despotism.

Of course, other societies have always had concepts of justice and an awareness of tyranny, but it was Christianity that provided the basis and the lexicon for subsequent political theory that invested great worth in the individual.

Idiots like Stephen Pinker look at the 'age of enlightenment' for this and gush about literate men being touched by literature humanizing women because they are completely unaware of Christian hagiography that has always been obsessed with the stories of women, children, the downtrodden, etc., all handing themselves over to Christ, often facing martyrdom by powerful political forces, which are always ultimately millennia old stories about the righteous individual against the mob & the tyrant.

There are some prequels to this in other civilizations but nothing as extensive, and they often have within them ethnocentric and community identity as central themes, like with Esther and Daniel from the Old Testament who stood up against tyranny but were successful and did so as part of a greater struggle for ethnos. Christians record the singular deaths of young women at the hands of their own communities that provide no political change as edifying stories.

Galatians Four + Some Thoughts On Allegory & Exegesis from St. Gregory of Nyssa

 A common topic in debates is why did Christ come when He did? My whole life I've been ready to explain this, but I haven't quite had the passage at the tip of my tongue to base it correctly in theology.

Here it is: 

Galatians 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Galatians 4 also provides us with another very important observation:

 8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

Which is a great reference back to the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 32:16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger.

17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

And even more succinctly here: 

Psalm 95:5: “For all the gods of the Gentiles are demons, but the Lord made the heavens.”

1 Corinthians 10:20: “No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God. And I do not want you to be participants with demons.” 

Again, the pagan practices of foreign people are often directed towards that which is not just "not God," but that which is actually outright antagonistic to God. Reason being, those which are spiritual and have powers that are properly ordered will direct everything to God and not seek worship from others. 

The third and perhaps most important thing that Galatians Four gives to us is found in the last section of the chapter. 

I will post liberally from it and allow it space to breathe: 

19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

20 I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

This really jumped out at me as it was being employed by St. Gregory of Nyssa in his Homilie on the Song of Songs. 

St. Gregory was writing about how allegory is a proper method for interpreting the scriptures, and he points to none other than St. Paul himself as referring back to a lesson from the Old Testament and ascribing it meaning that is exclusively within the context of the New Testament. 

 Let's hand it over to St. Gregory of Nyssa and his Preface to the Homilies on the Song of Solomon: 

    

    For the grand apostle, when he says that the law is spiritual ( Rom 7:14), is including the historical narratives too under the heading “law,” because the whole of the divinely inspired Scripture is law for those who read it. Not only through its explicit commands, but also through its historical narratives, Scripture affords a teaching that guides those who pay careful heed to it toward knowledge of the mysteries and toward a pure life. The apostle, moreover, does the work of interpretation in accordance with what gives him satisfaction in his search for what edifies, though he does not concern himself with the label that is to be assigned to a type of exegesis. Rather the contrary. At one point, when he is about to transpose the biblical narrative so as to unfold the economy of the covenants, he says that he is changing his manner of speech (Gal 4:20),3 | but then, aft er he has mentioned the two sons of Abraham, born to him of the maidservant and the free woman, Paul designates his way of understanding them an “allegory” (Gal 4:24). And again, when he has been recounting certain events of the biblical history, he says: “They happened to those people as types” but “were written for our admonition” (1 Cor 10:11). Or again, when he has said that the threshing ox should not be muzzled, he adds: “God’s concern is not for oxen,” but “these things were surely written for our sakes” (1 Cor 9:9–10). Also there is a place where he calls dimmer understanding and partial knowledge a “mirror” and an “enigma” (1 Cor 13:12), and again he says that the movement from corporeal to intelligible realities is a turning toward the Lord and the removal of a veil (2 Cor 3:16).

        By all these diff erent modes of speech and names for intellectual discernment, the apostle is pointing us to a single form of instruction: one ought not in every instance to remain with the letter (since the obvious sense of the words often does us harm when it comes to the virtuous life), but one ought to shift to an understanding that concerns the immaterial and intelligible, so that corporeal ideas may be transposed into intellect and thought when the fleshly sense of the | words has been shaken off like dust (cf. Matt 10:14).    

     

This moreover is why he says, “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6), for frequently the narrative, if we stop short at the mere events, does not furnish us with models of the good life. How does it profit the cause of a virtuous life to hear that the prophet Hosea got himself a child by sexual malfeasance (Hos 1:2) and that Isaiah went in to the prophetess (Isa 8:3), if one stops short at the literal sense? Or what do the stories about David, in which adultery and murder have agreed together in a single crime (cf. 2 Kingdoms 11), contribute to the virtuous life? But if an account is found that gives an incontestable indication of how these events fi t into the history of salvation, then the word of the apostle will be shown to be true: “Th e letter kills” (for it contains examples of evildoing), “but the Spirit gives life” (for it transposes a meaning that is incongruous and discordant into a more divine sense).

 Truly, profound words for us when we consider the interpretation of the Bible. 

There is plenty more that St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote concerning this topic, but I advise you to read it for yourself in this free PDF. 

Old Testament Interpretation & the Midianites

Understanding how to interpret the most controversial section of the Old Testament can be a challenge, but I think that once we get a good grip on how Orthodox Saints really look at the Old Testament, the issue of the Midianites can change a bit in our mind. 

This is actually another opportunity for us to observe that Orthodoxy has a great advantage over Protestantism who always insists on the Bible alone as a source for wisdom, and stands completely committed to interpreting things in their original OT context without expounding on it from the perspective of the Saints. 

The Saints are the key to interpreting anything, for men who live such holy lives and have an intense connection to God are the ones with insights on how to approach the totality of the Bible, not those who think they are qualified to do the whole thing by themselves. 

Art depicting the Midianites, taken from Free Bible Images dot org - this is actually in reference to Gideon pursuing the Midianite Army with his 300 men which would happen later, and not reference to the army of Phinehas. 

Let us go back to the 7th century theologian St. Maximos the Confessor:

Interpretation of the outward form of Scripture according to the norms of: sense-perception must be superseded, for it clearly promotes the passions as well as proclivity towards what is temporal and transient. That is to say, we must destroy the impassioned activity of the senses with regard to sensible objects, as if destroying the children and grandchildren of Saul (cf 2 Sam. 21:1-9); and we must do this by ascending to the heights of natural contemplation through a mystical interpretation of divine utterances, if in any way we desire to be filled with divine grace.

'The letter kills." says Scripture, 'but the Spirit gives life' (2 Cor. 3:6). Consequently, the letter whose nature it is to kill must be killed by the life-giving Spirit. For what is material in the Law and what is divine - namely, the letter and the Spirit - cannot coexist, nor can what destroys life be reconciled with that which by nature bestows life.

The Spirit bestows life, the letter destroys it. Thus the letter cannot function at the same time as the Spirit, just as what gives life cannot coexist with what destroys life and the prejudice from which he suffers as a result. This is to show

Uncircumcision is natural. Everything that is natural is the work of divine creation and is excellent: 'And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). But the Law, by demanding on the grounds of uncleanness that the foreskin should be cutaway by circumcision (cf. Gen. 17:10-14), presents God as amending His own work through human skill. This is a most blasphemous way of looking at things. He, then, who interprets the symbols whereby the Law is expressed in the light of knowledge attained through natural contemplation, knows that God does not set nature aright by means of human skill, but bids us circumcise the passible aspect of the soul so as to make it obedient to the intelligence. This is indicated figuratively in terms of the body, and means that we are to excise the flaws from our will by means of spiritual knowledge acquired through the courageous practice of the virtues. The circumcising priest signifies spiritual knowledge, and the knife he uses is the courageous practice of the virtues, which cuts away the passions. When the Spirit triumphs over the letter, the tradition of the Law is abolished.

from Various Texts on Theology, the Divine Economy, and Virtue & Vice, sections 40-42

Which shows us essentially that the surface interpretations of even basic commands concerning circumcision are wrong, and that the Old Testament must be read completely in the illumination of the coming of Christ.

This is also backed up by St. Ireneous:

If anyone, therefore, reads the scriptures this way, he will find in them the Word concerning Christ, and a foreshadowing of the new calling. For Christ is the “treasure which was hidden in the field” [Mat. 13:44] [a treasure] hidden in the scriptures, for he was indicated by means of types and parables, which could not be understood by human beings prior to the consummation of those things which had been predicted, that is, the advent of the Lord. And therefore it was said to Daniel the prophet, “Shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the consummation, until many learn and knowledge abounds. For, when the dispersion shall be accomplished, they shall know all these things” [Dan. 12:4, 7]. And Jeremiah also says, “In the last days they shall understand these things ” [Jer. 23:20]. For every prophecy, before its fulfillment, is nothing but an enigma and amibiguity to human beings; but when the time has arrived, and the prediction has come to pass, then it has an exact exposition [exegesis]. And for this reason, when at this present time the Law is read by the Jews, it is like a myth, for they do not possess the explanation [exegesis] of all things which pertain to the human advent of the Son of God: but when it is read by Christians, it is a treasure, hid in a field, but brought to light by the Cross of Christ, and explained, both enriching the understanding of humans, and showing forth the wisdom of God, and making known his dispensations with regard to human beings, and prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, and preaching in anticipation the good news of the inheritance of the holy Jerusalem, and proclaiming beforehand that the one who loves God shall advance so far as even to see God, and hear his Word, and be glorified, from hearing his speech, to such an extent, that others will not be able to behold his glorious countenance [cf. 2 Cor. 3:7], as was said by Daniel, “Those who understand shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and many of the righteous as the stars for ever and ever” [Dan. 12:3]. In this manner, then, I have show it to be, if anyone read the scriptures.

St. Irenaeus, The Treasure Hid in the Scriptures is Christ

So, we are left with the concept of circumcision itself being interpreted radically different, in light of Christ, by St. Maximos the Confessor, which completely changes the way we view the traditions and culture of the Hebrews. Christ has unlocked the meaning.

St. Maximos is constantly referring to Old Testament passages in this way. And so do other saints...

Another example people who criticize the Bible like to bring up is the famous Psalm that talks about bashing in the heads of children (137:9 - happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks!).

4th century monastic St. John Cassian has a completely different way of interpreting this:

The way to keep guard over our heart is immediately to expel from the mind every demon-inspired recollection of women - even of mother or sister or any other devout woman - lest by dwelling on it for too long the mind is thrown headlong by the deceiver into debased and pernicious thoughts. The commandment given by God to the first man, Adam, told him to keep watch over the head of the serpent (cf. Gen. 3:15. LXX), that is, over the first inklings of the pernicious thoughts by means of which the serpent tries to creep into our souls. If we do not admit the serpent's head, which is the provocation of the thought, we will not admit the rest of its body - that is, the assent to the sensual pleasure which the thought suggests - and so debase the mind towards the illicit act itself. As it is written, we should 'early in the morning destroy all the wicked of the earth' (Ps. 101:8), distinguishing in the light of divine knowledge' our sinful thoughts and then eradicating them completely from the earth - our hearts - in accordance with the teaching of the Lord. While the children of Babylon - by which I mean our wicked thoughts - are still young, we should dash them to the ground and crush them against the rock, which is Christ (cf Ps. 137:9; 1 Cor. 16:4). If these thoughts grow stronger because we assent to them, we will not be able to overcome them without much pain and labour. On the Eight Vices

So the tradition of Christians is to actually look at the Old Testament in the light of Christ, and to offer radical interpretations of what had occurred.

We can go back to these moments and instead of interpreting them with total literalism, see them as true stories but with extra layers in them for us to interpret in our own time in the light of Christ. The destruction of all but the virgins is then a different kind of symbol...

Just as how the Midianites were interpreted by St. Neilos the Ascetic:

The Midiamtes symbolize the passions of unchastity, because it was they who introduced this vice into Israel and deceived a great number of the young people (cf. Num. 31 :9). Scripture aptly says that the Midianites had tents while Jerusalem had a wall; for all the things that contain virtue are well-founded and firm, whereas those that contain vice are an external appearance - a tent - and are no different from fantasy. Ascetic Discourse

(All of the above texts with the exception of St. Irenaeus can be found in the Philokalia)

In this we have the real means of interpreting these difficult passages in the context of Christ. Once upon a time, political realities made it so that these sorts of actions were inevitabilities for survival, and were absolute norms, but it is in the retrospective of Christ we see the real purpose for these things having occurred, and the actual symbolism behind them. We can refer to the typical answers you read at places like Got Questions for understanding them in the original context. 

Let us also keep in mind: the Midianites appear again in Joshua 6-8, implying that not all Midianite men were put to the sword. Some survived to come back, at which point Gideon would go to battle with them again. At this point, there is no such command to kill all, or any instructions concerning virgins at all. Critics would say that this is God's will changing again... But this is not pointed out because it shows a fundamental shift towards what moderns would think is a more enlightened position. 

Earthly, Sensual, Demonic

[taken from the readings for the day]

James 3:13-4:4:

13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom.

14 But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth.

15 This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic.

16 For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there.

17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.

18 Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

1 Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?

2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask.

3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.

4 Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

An important idea here is that the knowledge of the world is earthly, sensual, demonic.

In Christianity, everything can be divided into that which is heavenly and is reflective of God’s will, and that which is earthly and is a corruption or perversion of the heavenly will. This is not to say that the Earth itself is a bad, corrupt thing – on the contrary, we have extensive quotations which show Creation is a reflection of God, and that our proximity to the natural world and animals is enlightening and wonderful. Many great Christian saints like St. Porphyrios, St. Maximos the Confessor, and St. Silouan the Athonite talk about all of creation as being a reflection of God’s will and that it is impossible to be a Christian who does not esteem the created. St. Porphyrios went so far as to say that all creatures sing blessings to God… Catholics believe something similar to the Orthodox here, where they say that the Priest’s (nearly always) daily celebration of the Eucharist involves prayers said on behalf of the animals.

What is meant by earthly is that which is fallen and reflective of man’s corrupt state…

This is also regarded as being partly demonic.

We see also in passage 4:1 the implication that the origin of all violence is selfishness. Selfishness itself can be regarded as demonic.

This leads to the climax of the whole passage for the day of January 25^th: whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Which is to say, following the very obvious path of worldly people, which is selfish, is to put yourself in alignment with the demonic, who are the enemies of God. The name of Satan himself famously meaning ‘the opposition’ to God.

The takeaway from this may simply be that Christianity, at its heart, seeks to reject selfishness and bitterness (James 3:15), envy and self-seeking (3:16), desire for pleasure (4:1), and worldliness (4:4), which can be characterized as ‘earthly, sensual, demonic’ (3:15), and views it as the ultimate source of discord and violence on earth (4:1).

There is also the lesson that prayer must be oriented towards what is needed for the self and others – not for fulfilment of our sensuality (4:3).

American Conservatives Consistently Betrayed by the GOP

 Only 7% of polled Republicans wanted to make Juneteenth a holiday (Gallup). However, only 14 Republicans voted against it, and 2 abstained, while 195 voted for it (house.gov). Only 7% of Republicans in the House voted it against it, which is, in many ways, an inverse of what Republicans want. 

Essentially, the GOP is pretty opaque about the fact that it does not represent American interests and consistently loses the culture war, but the record is clear and duly recorded wherever honest records are kept. 

Mitch McConnell: Irish-American Loser

American conservatives wanted Pres. Trump (fiscally moderate, economic nationalist); they want to fight against immigration and Critical Race Theory, yet the GOP just talks about it sometimes, to entertain their base, and then votes for tax cuts for the oligarchs who promote immigration, CRT, and LGBTQ, and, indeed, billionaire donors like Paul Singer and the former Koch Brothers have been largely giving to the GOP in order to liberalize it. For those who do not know, Singer is a pro-LGBTQ Republican (Washington Blade). 

The GOP is the controlled opposition that American oligarchs have created to try to be a vent for religious & nationalist feeling, as well as the alternative voice for fiscal policy. Secular humanism & globalism are the actual philosophies of the Western oligarchs - and remember, you should refer to them as oligarchs, not as Capitalists, as they do not actually support Capitalism: they support welfare states and interventionism whenever it suits their interests, for these people are beyond market economies. They are too rich to want any more competition. 

The American conservatives, who consistently return to the GOP as battered wives, are largely ignorant of the big picture. But who can blame them? It is likely the case that a lot of this is due to the machinery of history, and not a conspiracy behind closed doors for most who are involved. 

Do not get me wrong: it is most certain that the super wealthy (who make up the oligarchy) do consciously plot their moves out and dictate policies to the newsroom and the politicians that they own without us being privy to it. But this is a battlefield that has been evolving decade after decade, so there are people in mainstream politics who still think of the game as not being rigged because they refuse to accept the idea that elections are determined largely through a competition to manufacture consent through the media, not through an honest public discussion of right and wrong...

Moreover, they believe in Whig history: they truly think that where we are today is the result of some kind of progress, and not from the machinations of elites. Or, in the case of conservatives, they view it also as a natural degeneration of the masses as a part of the great cycle of history. Both of these views do have some merit, and perhaps we can even say that the collusion of elites is to some degree the result of natural degeneration...

But this would ignore the most poignant thing: the corrupt elites and the losers that we have voted for to represent us in such a half-assed manner. 

True American conservatives should no longer tolerate the GOP. It is perhaps too much to say that they should bow out entirely from voting, but to have any amount of loyalty to the GOP, to call themselves 'Republicans' with the general meaning of the word, is to essentially label themselves fools or apathetic shoulder-shrugging doomers that just want to blend in while Rome burns. 

Marcotte & Salon Misleading on CRT

 What a dishonest article from Amanda Marcotte over at Salon:

Yet with so many white people across the country in a total freak out over "critical race theory," it appears few, if any, of them could even explain what it actually is. That's because, despite what Fox News is telling them, critical race theory — the actual academic framework that was developed in law schools to understand the historical reasons our legal system perpetuates racial inequalities — is not, in fact, being taught to 3rd graders or even 11th graders. Claims otherwise are a complete lie, ginned up by right-wing propagandists who are desperate to keep the GOP base whipped into a racist frenzy.

Firstly, CRT is generally understood by people. Of course, it would never be difficult finding a collection of people who have difficulty articulating it, as broad concepts become difficult to put into words when a proverbial microphone is shoved in front of one's face, but people know exactly what it is, and what it ties back into: cultural Marxism. 

CRT can be understood by the narrow definition presented above - as purely legal theory that is certainly not being taught to third graders, or it can be understood with a broader definition as they are oft presented by the academics involved themselves:

"Critical race theory is a practice. It's an approach to grappling with a history of White supremacy that rejects the belief that what's in the past is in the past, and that the laws and systems that grow from that past are detached from it," said Kimberlé Crenshaw, a founding critical race theorist and a law professor who teaches at UCLA and Columbia University. (CNN)

Thus, what is meant by teaching CRT in schools? That the approach to history is of one that deals with white supremacy, and insists that it is an on-going fundamental reality in the US. 

It would essentially be re-enforcing ideas like

Critical race theorists believe that racism is an everyday experience for most people of color, and that a large part of society has no interest in doing away with it because it benefits White elites. (CNN)

So, we can ask ourselves: 

Is there a movement to bring these into schools? Yes.

Is there a movement for American history to be taught this way? Of course. 

Now, why is it linked to Marxism? Because many of the players are Marxists - some of the founders of BLM are self-described Marxists. 

CRT is also relatable to what can be more broadly understood as [i]Critical theory.[/i]

Max Horkheimer first defined critical theory (German: Kritische Theorie) in his 1937 essay "Traditional and Critical Theory", as a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only toward understanding or explaining it. Wanting to distinguish critical theory as a radical, emancipatory form of Marxist philosophy, Horkheimer critiqued both the model of science put forward by logical positivism, and what he and his colleagues saw as the covert positivism and authoritarianism of orthodox Marxism and Communism. He described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them."[6] Critical theory involves a normative dimension, either by criticizing society in terms of some general theory of values or norms (oughts), or by criticizing society in terms of its own espoused values (i.e. immanent critique).[7] (Wikipedia)

And one cannot really understand critical theory as something that is apart from Marxism, even when Marx is being used in a relatively normal sense. 

... and... What does Wikipedia say about Critical race theory?

Both critical race theory and critical legal studies are rooted in critical theory, which argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors.[5] (Wikipedia)

Marcotte continues:

 It is important to note that the fabricated fury over "critical race theory" is a cleverly constructed right-wing troll. Liberals who want to respond with a quick, easily digested rebuttal are instead boxed into a frustrating corner. Because pointing out that critical race theory is not being taught in public schools is a trap, as it could be construed to imply that there's something wrong with critical race theory. And any straightforward defense of critical race theory implies that schoolchildren are somehow expected to understand graduate school-level academic theories. But in fact, the real issue at hand is that conservatives don't want white kids to learn even the most basic truths about American history. 

Marcotte essentially denies that CRT can exist beyond the very narrow definition and thus goes against academics that have brought it into more broad terms that are easily communicable to children, and, more interestingly, presents us with a false dichotomy: we're trapped because if we explain all this so-difficult, professional academic tier theory to the conservatives, we'll be inadvertently saying that schoolkids are able to understand this! 

I also do not understand the final sentence: the real issue at hand is that conservatives don't want white kids to learn even the most basic truths about American history, as if we are now willing to accept that curricula are being changed to  get in line with the current academic trends... excuse me, LEGAL academic trends. 

 Instead, as Sean Illing at Vox explains, "conservatives have appropriated critical race theory as a convenient catchall to describe basically any serious attempt to teach the history of race and racism." 

This is completely dishonest as there were not conservative movements that existed to whitewash history in the 1990s and 2000s - none that are remotely similar to the backlash against CRT today. Yet, anyone who went to school in the US in the 90s & 2000s (and before) would be able to tell you that they were taught up & down the history of race and racism in the US, and even abroad. 

So much so that it is patently absurd for Sean Illing to pretend that this is not the case.

The article eventually stumbles into incoherence: 

And that's the crux of it: Schoolchildren aren't really being taught critical race theory, but critical race theory — the actual framework, not the right-wing scare term — is a legitimate academic pursuit that has turned up important facts that white supremacists of yore have covered up. And it's those facts — things like the practice of redlining, the truth about what the Confederacy stood for, what Martin Luther King Jr. really believed, and the history of lynching and events like the Tulsa race massacre — that conservatives want to silence.

Does anyone actually believe that debates about the values and stances of the Confederacy, MLK's beliefs, lynching, the Tulsa massacre, etc., are subjects that were not being understood or explored without this academic school? 

These words can only be written by someone who is an academic, or who suckles upon their teets. Regular people are constantly digging into history, studying our past, and are interested in the philosophies of MLK and the Confederacy. Academics are welcome to join them, too, and are even welcome to create their own particular schools & circles that focus on it, regardless of how erroneous and far from the mark they come... 

But crediting themselves with as the true & honest shapers of all korrect opinion about actualité is really a bit much to stomach.  

Feel free to skip the rest of Marcotte's article - I did. 

Anekantavada: the Many-Sidedness of Perception

 The Jain concept of Anekantavada is certainly very interesting, and I do not think that it is without parallel in Chrsitainity...

For a brief definition:

Anekāntavāda (Hindi: अनेकान्तवाद, "many-sidedness") is the Jain doctrine about metaphysical truths that emerged in ancient India.[1] It states that the ultimate truth and reality is complex and has multiple aspects.[2] Anekantavada has also been interpreted to mean non-absolutism, "intellectual Ahimsa",[3] religious pluralism,[4] as well as a rejection of fanaticism that leads to terror attacks and mass violence.[5]...

According to Jainism, no single, specific statement can describe the nature of existence and the absolute truth. This knowledge (Kevala Jnana), it adds, is comprehended only by the Arihants. Other beings and their statements about absolute truth are incomplete, and at best a partial truth.[8] All knowledge claims, according to the anekāntavāda doctrine must be qualified in many ways, including being affirmed and denied.[9] Anekāntavāda is a fundamental doctrine of Jainism.

The origins of anekāntavāda can be traced back to the teachings of Mahāvīra (599–527 BCE), the 24th Jain Tīrthankara.[10] The dialectical concepts of syādvāda "conditioned viewpoints" and nayavāda "partial viewpoints" arose from anekāntavāda in the medieval era, providing Jainism with more detailed logical structure and expression. 

Wikipedia

A medieval depiction of the many-sidedness of perception and man's inability to actually understand it in its completeness, but here enlightened beings are theoretically properly observing all of it. 

While Christianity undoubtedly rejects Jain cosmology and the extremity of Jain ethics, I found the above aspect of Jainism to be rather inspiring, and it also reminded me of St. Gregory Palamas, who wrote:

80. The inspired and universal tongue of the divine theologians, St John of Damaskos, says in the second of his theological chapters: 'A man who would speak or hear anything about God should know with all clarity that in what concerns theology and the divine economy not all things are inexpressible and not all are capable of expression, and neither are all things unknowable nor are they all knowable. ' We know that those divine realities of which we desire to speak transcend speech, since such realities exist according to a principle that is transcendent. They are not outside the realm of speech by reason of some deficiency, but are beyond the conceptual power innate within us and to which we give utterance when speaking to others. For neither can our speech explain these realities by interpretation, nor does our innate conceptual power have the capacity to attain them of its own accord through investigation. Thus we should not permit ourselves to say anything concerning God, but rather we should have recourse to those who in the Spirit speak of the things of the Spirit, and this is the case even when our adversaries require some statement from us.

 St. Gregory Palamas, Topics of Natural and Theological Science and on the Moral and Ascetic Life: One Hundred and Fifty Texts, in the Philokalia Vol. IV, 

Further remembering that God encompasses everything, and understanding that significant parts of reality are actually not describable, we can conclude that there is, on some level, fundamental truths and knowledge that are not actually accessible. Naturally, we can observe events and we can come to conclusions about the obvious and the mundane, but no Christian can actually claim to be fully initiated into knowledge of the truth of reality. 

This also reminds me of a story of another Saint (it may actually have been St. Gregory Palamas) who asked God to show him his true self as God sees him, and then he had to pray for him to make it stop because it was so excruciating seeing the depths of his own imperfections and sins. 

Thus, if we understand that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), we can essentially view all forms of human reasoning and perception as being flawed to some degree. This directly supports the concept of Anekantavada and encourages us towards always looking for some sort of middle ground and divestment from our own selfish interests that we know to actually be corrupt in the root.

Christianity should embrace the imperfect many-sided perceptions that we all have, but also emphasize that God alone can judge, and can perceive all that is happening in a way that is objective. But let me emphasize before we go that objectivity itself is a human concept and does not come close to the omniscient perception that God has, and how He would relate things back to the summum bonum, Truth, and Reality.