-------------------
The incendiary and hyperbolic Rev. Wade often exceeds our ability to intelligently respond. He is beholden to the Leftist Narrative, and seems only able to parrot word-for-word leftist talking points.
As typical for the Doctrinal Police, Rev. Wade is unable to see his own foibles. And also in typical fashion, Rev. Wade will barely quote or teach the Bible.
The purpose of his article is not a "devotional," it is a political hit piece. Indeed, the word "dominionist," featured in his title, appears only once in his screed, and that to brand Mr. Hyatt. He doesn't even bother to show that Mr. Hyatt is a dominionist or how Mr. Hyatt's opinion is dominionist.
In actual fact, the accusation of "dominionist" is simply an excuse to try to debunk critics of CRT, nothing else.
-------------------
But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" - Luke 10:29 (ESV)
5 Explosive Truths that Will Demolish Critical Race Theory Charisma News
Believe it or not, I try to steer clear of overtly political subjects because they do no nothing to further the cause of the gospel of Jesus Christ. (This is as glaringly false as anything Rev. Wade has ever written. He is lying. He does not steer clear of politics. Here is his current web page, to which we have added circles around political subjects:
But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" - Luke 10:29 (ESV)
5 Explosive Truths that Will Demolish Critical Race Theory Charisma News
Believe it or not, I try to steer clear of overtly political subjects because they do no nothing to further the cause of the gospel of Jesus Christ. (This is as glaringly false as anything Rev. Wade has ever written. He is lying. He does not steer clear of politics. Here is his current web page, to which we have added circles around political subjects:
As a discernment minister however, I must point out when false teaching is influenced by glaring untruths, even if from the political sphere. You see, the apostate church has been taught NAR dominionism over the past few decades. The results are often well intended leaders who no longer differentiate between God's will and the will of man through their idolatrous adherence to one political party. If the Republican Party is against illegal immigration at our southern borders suddenly the apostate church takes up the cause. If they want to defend the status quo when it comes to wealth and opportunity, suddenly the church must come out against socialism, even though no one is advocating for becoming a socialist nation. Likewise, if the talking point du jour is against something called Critical Race Theory, the church must now somehow defend even this indefensible position. That insisting on the correct telling of history must somehow be not only opposed by be opposed from a Christian point of view. (This litany of topics all are Republican positions. It must be a coincidence, right? And notice he makes a couple of quick observations: No one wants a socialist nation, which is false, and CRT is a correct telling of history, which is also false. These two observations are perfectly conformed to leftist rebuttals.)
I have linked the latest article from renowned dominionist Eddie Hyatt who thinks he can "demolish" Critical Race Theory. He is mistaken as usual.
"I applaud the parents who are confronting school board members and passionately expressing their opposition to Critical Race Theory being taught to their children. They have reason to be angry for elementary school children are being taught that it is their race and skin color that defines them, categorizes them, and determines their destiny in the evil and racist American system. It is not enough, however, to merely be "against" Critical Race Theory. We must present proactive, alternative truths that we are "for." Here are five explosive, alternative truths that will undermine and demolish the teachings of CRT and the 1619 Project. These five truths are: Slavery was not unique to America, Moral outrage erupted against slavery in colonial America,
America's founders turned against slavery, America's founding documents are colorblind and
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be opposed to Critical Race Theory." - Eddie Hyatt
Because the truth has never mattered to Eddie Hyatt, let's start with some clarity surrounding this issue. Critical Race Theory (CRT) was never being considered to be taught to children. Ever. (This is another leftist talking point, and a completely false one at that. CRT is intended to be taught, and in fact is being taught in public schools. The denial is easily debunked here.)
"I applaud the parents who are confronting school board members and passionately expressing their opposition to Critical Race Theory being taught to their children. They have reason to be angry for elementary school children are being taught that it is their race and skin color that defines them, categorizes them, and determines their destiny in the evil and racist American system. It is not enough, however, to merely be "against" Critical Race Theory. We must present proactive, alternative truths that we are "for." Here are five explosive, alternative truths that will undermine and demolish the teachings of CRT and the 1619 Project. These five truths are: Slavery was not unique to America, Moral outrage erupted against slavery in colonial America,
America's founders turned against slavery, America's founding documents are colorblind and
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be opposed to Critical Race Theory." - Eddie Hyatt
Because the truth has never mattered to Eddie Hyatt, let's start with some clarity surrounding this issue. Critical Race Theory (CRT) was never being considered to be taught to children. Ever. (This is another leftist talking point, and a completely false one at that. CRT is intended to be taught, and in fact is being taught in public schools. The denial is easily debunked here.)
It was in fact a graduate level course when the Republican Party decided to use it to stir up white outrage in this country as that is their primary political strategy. (This little subterfuge is a typical leftist tactic. This is how the Left denies what is clearly happening. All one has to do is narrowly define what CRT is [i.e., it's a graduate-level college course]. By that definition, of course it's not taught in public schools.)
It is just sad that they have co-opted and further corrupted the apostate church and its leaders, such as Eddie Hyatt. That aside, how blindly racist can you be to assert that CRT encourages people to define themselves by their race, (Because it is true...
We now need to pause a moment. Consider that at first Rev. Wade denied CRT was ever going to be taught in schools. It's graduate-school-level theory, remember? It's a non-existent problem. Extremists are lying and beholden to conspiracy theories. We've all heard these kinds of things.
But, he will now spend the rest of his article defending it, excusing it, and telling us what it is and is not. So on one hand it's a high-level educational theory never intended for mass consumption, but on the other hand is a factual, wonderful, and refreshing explanation of history that our children need to know, and that Dominionists are lying about. Isn't that strange?
Hmm.)
when that is exactly what society does on a daily basis? ("Society" is not a conscious entity. "Society" is not racist, unless of course you're a Leftist who believes in systemic racism.)
Let us reason once more through Hyatt's five alleged truths.
"Truth No. 1: Slavery was not unique to America -Proponents of CRT would have us think that slavery was unique to America. The truth is that slavery has been practiced by peoples and civilizations for all of recorded history. Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hittites, Greeks, Persians, Armenians, Arabs, and many others have practiced slavery. During its 400-year reign, the Turkish Ottoman Empire enslaved millions of Europeans. Decades after the Emancipation Proclamation in America, white slaves were still being bought and sold in the Islamic Ottoman Empire. This is why Dr. Walter E. Williams, late Professor of Economics at George Mason University, wrote that slavery was, "by no means peculiar, odd, unusual, or unique to the U.S." He pointed out that at the beginning of the 19th century, An estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of slavery or serfdom. Williams said that what was strange and unique about slavery in America was the "moral outrage" that arose against it. The late historians, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Eugene Genovese, agreed, saying, Europeans [and Americans] did not outdo others in enslaving people or treating slaves viciously. They outdid others by creating a Christian civilization that eventually stirred moral condemnation of slavery and roused mass movements against it (Hyatt, Abolitionist Founding Fathers, 8)." - Eddie Hyatt
Whataboutism is always a lazy defense that avoids discussing the topic by distraction but to use it to defend slavery is just disgusting. When confronted by the truth of slavery in America Eddie Hyatt's first response is to scream - there were white slaves too! No Eddie there were not. At least not in America, which is what we are talking about. We are not talking about the Assyrians, Babylonians, or Persians. The fact that they too incorporated slavery into their societies does not change the point of CRT. The underlying false premise Hyatt offers is that CRT wants us to believe that slavery was unique to America. That is a false strawman argument set up so Hyatt can knock it down by wielding the Hittites against it. (Notice how Rev. Wade dances around the issue? Hyatt claimed CRT teaches that "slavery was unique to America," and then gives examples of slavery all over the world in refutation, thus debunking the CRT Claim. Rev. Wade never addresses this, but instead says it's not fair to bring up other instances of racism. What?
Rev. Wade says that racism elsewhere does not change the point of CRT. But what is the point of CRT, then? If CRT does not claim slavery was unique to America, then Rev. Wade needs to explain what the point actually is.)
Hyatt makes two other specious arguments here. The first is that somehow the American version of slavery was "less vicious" than others. (Hyatt did not make this claim. We can read the quote for ourselves, Rev. Wade.)
Besides that claim probably being false, is that really the point? I enslaved you better? What do you want? A cookie? The more insidious lie here is the notion that because America was a Christian nation, which it was not, that it somehow led to abolition quicker than other nations. (Again, Hyatt did not make this claim. Rev. Wade is a liar.)
Except when you look at real history you will find America was one of the LAST countries to abolish slavery and in fact we went to war against ourselves over the matter. Only Cuba and Brazil abolished slavery after the United States. So the fact that slavery was not unique to America does not "blow CRT out of the water" and in fact only supports it further. (Well, if CRT's first claim is false, additional irrelevant or incorrect "facts" do not support it further. We have yet to discover anything at all about CRT from Rev. Wade, let alone what "supports it further."
Notice that Rev. Wade is actually defending CRT, or at least, his conception of it. So this isn't at all about correcting dominionist false teaching, it is a defense of Rev. Wade's beliefs.)
"Truth No. 2: Moral outrage erupted against slavery in Colonial America - A great, spiritual awakening, beginning in 1726, morally transformed Colonial America. This Christian revival breached racial and cultural barriers, ignited an abolition movement, and paved the way for the formation of the United States of America. It also unleashed the moral outrage that brought about the end of slavery on the American continent. Early preachers of this Awakening, such as George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, William Davies, reached out to blacks, both slave and free, and saw them respond en masse to the Gospel message. Their message had a leveling effect on American society for they preached that all are the same in the sight of God. All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, and all stand in need of a Savior and that Savior is Jesus Christ. As a result of their preaching and compassionate outreach to blacks, racial and cultural barriers were breached in colonial America. Blacks and whites worshipped together, and black preachers and black churches began arising throughout the land. For example, while a slave on the Stokeley Sturgis plantation in Delaware, Richard Allen was powerfully impacted by the abolitionist Methodist preacher, Freeborn Garrettson, who preached to both slaves and the Sturgis family. Not only did many slaves respond to Garrettson's Gospel message, but he was able to convince Sturgis that slavery is a sin. Sturgis immediately began making arrangements for his slaves to obtain their freedom. Allen obtained his freedom and went forth preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ and became a very successful evangelist to both black and white audiences. In 1784, he preached for several weeks in Radnor, Pennsylvania, to a mostly white audience, and he recalled hearing it said, "This man must be a man of God; I have never heard such preaching before" (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 95-96)." - Eddie Hyatt
I do not wish to get into arguing over the distraction Hyatt employs. The fact is that if there was such a great spiritual awakening in 1726 that so drastically changed the colonists' minds about slavery, why did it take another 136 years to abolish it? (Rev. Wade doesn't seem to understand plain English. Was there a revival in 1726? Did it generate a shift in attitudes about slavery? Did it create the possibility of blacks and whites worshiping together? If these claims are false, then Rev. Wade is obligated to address them and correct them.
Instead, Rev. Wade diverts to what the American government did and when it did it. Rev. Wade doesn't understand that what a group of people believed and did does not come to bear on what American government did.)
Why did it take the deaths of 750,000 Americans in the Civil War for the Union to force the south to free their slaves? Why do people in the south to this day still fly the flag of treason and celebrate the Confederacy war figures? You see, what Eddie Hyatt is doing is finding individual stories of people who were genuinely offended by the realities of slavery in America and applying that to a country that did not agree. (No, that's what Rev. Wade just did.)
So bully for Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, and William Davies for correctly understanding that owning another human being was morally wrong. That does not change the point of CRT one iota. (Again, we would love Rev. Wade to explain the point of CRT. It must be a secret or something...)
While I am glad for Richard Allen that he was lucky enough to hear Freeborn Garrettson's message there are countless others who never had such an opportunity within their lived experience as slaves in America. (Another leftist tactic. "Yeah, some blacks benefited by such-and-such, but not every black did. So what happened to Richard Allen doesn't matter. America is therefore guilty.")
"Although the preaching of the first-generation Awakening preachers was evangelistic in nature, second generation Awakening preachers took their message to its logical conclusion. If all are equal in creation, and all have sinned and stand in need of a Savior, and Jesus died equally for all, how can slavery ever be justified? They, therefore, began to vehemently attack the institution of slavery. Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803), for example, who had been personally tutored by Edwards, pastored for a time in Newport, Rhode Island, an important hub in the transatlantic slave trade. He was outraged by the "violation of God's will" he observed in Newport. He declared, "This whole country have their hands full of blood this day" (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 92). In 1774, after the First Continental Congress had convened in Philadelphia, Hopkins sent a pamphlet to every member of the Congress, asking how they could complain about "enslavement" to England and overlook the "enslavement" of so many blacks in the Colonies. The abolition message caught fire and was heard throughout the land. Evangelists, such as Samuel Cooke, Freeborn Garrettson, James O'Kelly and others, labored incessantly for both the salvation of souls and the abolition of slavery. In a sermon preached and published in 1770, Cooke declared that by tolerating the evil of slavery, "We, the patrons of liberty, have dishonored the Christian name, and degraded human nature nearly to a level with the beasts that perish." The Baptist preacher, John Allen, was even more direct, and thundered, Blush ye pretended votaries of freedom! ye trifling Patriots! who are making a vain parade of being advocates for the liberties of mankind, who are thus making a mockery of your profession by trampling on the sacred natural rights and privileges of Africans (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 94). This abolition movement gained momentum and eventually impacted all of colonial America, including America's founding fathers." - Eddie Hyatt
Once again, we see more of the same tactic employed here. I will assume Hyatt is correct about people like Samuel Hopkins. CRT does not seek to change the role of Samuel Hopkins in history. It seeks to tell the whole truth about the people other than Samuel Hopkins. (An undocumented, false claim. In actual fact, CRT seeks to tell its version of history, under the pretense of thoughtful, scholarly work. CRT is a political agenda, not a historical one.)
"Although the preaching of the first-generation Awakening preachers was evangelistic in nature, second generation Awakening preachers took their message to its logical conclusion. If all are equal in creation, and all have sinned and stand in need of a Savior, and Jesus died equally for all, how can slavery ever be justified? They, therefore, began to vehemently attack the institution of slavery. Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803), for example, who had been personally tutored by Edwards, pastored for a time in Newport, Rhode Island, an important hub in the transatlantic slave trade. He was outraged by the "violation of God's will" he observed in Newport. He declared, "This whole country have their hands full of blood this day" (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 92). In 1774, after the First Continental Congress had convened in Philadelphia, Hopkins sent a pamphlet to every member of the Congress, asking how they could complain about "enslavement" to England and overlook the "enslavement" of so many blacks in the Colonies. The abolition message caught fire and was heard throughout the land. Evangelists, such as Samuel Cooke, Freeborn Garrettson, James O'Kelly and others, labored incessantly for both the salvation of souls and the abolition of slavery. In a sermon preached and published in 1770, Cooke declared that by tolerating the evil of slavery, "We, the patrons of liberty, have dishonored the Christian name, and degraded human nature nearly to a level with the beasts that perish." The Baptist preacher, John Allen, was even more direct, and thundered, Blush ye pretended votaries of freedom! ye trifling Patriots! who are making a vain parade of being advocates for the liberties of mankind, who are thus making a mockery of your profession by trampling on the sacred natural rights and privileges of Africans (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 94). This abolition movement gained momentum and eventually impacted all of colonial America, including America's founding fathers." - Eddie Hyatt
Once again, we see more of the same tactic employed here. I will assume Hyatt is correct about people like Samuel Hopkins. CRT does not seek to change the role of Samuel Hopkins in history. It seeks to tell the whole truth about the people other than Samuel Hopkins. (An undocumented, false claim. In actual fact, CRT seeks to tell its version of history, under the pretense of thoughtful, scholarly work. CRT is a political agenda, not a historical one.)
There is no doubt that there were individual people who were outraged and worked hard to end the scourge of slavery and they should be celebrated. I seriously doubt CRT seeks to diminish them in any way. (He doubts but he doesn't know.)
The cold hard reality however is that they were unsuccessful in their efforts and for over 100 more years slavery ruled in this country until the Civil War. ("Unsuccessful" is different than "uninfluential." Rev. Wade thinks the progress towards freedom, slow at times, was a failure because it didn't happen over night. So the good work of people is minimized and negated by Rev. Wade's standard of success.)
So, the fact that some people may have been outraged as far back as colonial America changes nothing regarding the truths CRT seeks to speak to. (Truths which remain uncited.)
"Truth No. 3: America's founders turned against slavery -By the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787, virtually every American founder, even those who owned slaves, had taken a public stand against slavery. What makes this particularly amazing is the fact that this was happening at a time when slavery was accepted and practiced in most of the world. Dr. Thomas Sowell, who happens to black, has said, Slavery was just not an issue, not even among intellectuals, much less among political leaders, until the 18th century - and then it was an issue only in Western civilization. Among those who turned against slavery in the 18th century were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and other American leaders. You could research all of the 18th century Africa or Asia or the Middle East without finding any comparable rejection of slavery there (Hyatt, 1726: TheYear that Defined America, 90). Dr. Benjamin Rush, a Philadelphia physician, member of the Continental Congress, and signer of the Declaration of Independence, was a vocal opponent of slavery. He helped found the first American abolition society in his hometown. He called slavery a "hydra sin" and called on the pastors and ministers of America to take a public stand against it (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 100-101). Benjamin Franklin liberated his two slaves in 1785 and began advocating for abolition. He joined the abolition society of Philadelphia and later served as its president. In a public address to this society, Franklin called slavery, "an atrocious debasement of human nature" and "a source of serious evils." George Washington was born in Virginia into a slave-owning family but came to abhor slavery as did most other founders. In a letter to Robert Morris, dated April 12, 1786, he said, "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery." Washington set up a compassionate program to disentangle Mt. Vernon from the institution of slavery. Those slaves who wanted to leave were free to do so. Those who chose to remain were paid wages, and he began a program to educate and prepare the children of slaves for freedom. In a conversation with John Bernard concerning abolition, Washington declared,
Not only do I pray for it, on the score of human dignity, but I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union by consolidating it in a common bond of principle (Hyatt, Abolitionist Founding Fathers, 43). Thomas Jefferson called slavery a "moral depravity" and "hideous blot" and said it presented the greatest threat to the future survival of America. James Madison, America's 4th president, called slavery "the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." By the time of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the U.S. Constitution of 1787 virtually every founder had come to agree with John Adams who declared, Every measure of prudence ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States . . . I have throughout my whole life held the practice of slavery in abhorrence (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 101)." - Eddie Hyatt
Number 3 is essentially the same as number 2 - there were individual people who were against slavery. Now, I think Hyatt's rose-colored version of some of these folks is not historically accurate. It is true that in his will Washington freed his slaves. IN HIS WILL. I might add, he is the only founding father to do so. I am unsure how righteous your point is that after someone has lived their entire life employing slaves for 14-hour summer days on his four plantations, that upon his death thinks better of the practice. The larger, overarching point that Hyatt never addresses is all of these individual people amounted to nothing in the public square. America held tightly to its grip on slavery for over a hundred more years and finally abolished the practice after the rest of the world already had and the Civil War had ended. (Rev. Wade seems overly focused on condemning America at every turn. America of course is flawed, with both great triumphs and shameful exploits in its history. Rev. Wade, in perfect concert with leftist rhetoric, wants America to remain guilty. He judges it by his contemporary standards, with his contemporary rhetoric, and is in agreement with those who hate America's triumphs and love its shameful exploits.
"Truth No. 3: America's founders turned against slavery -By the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787, virtually every American founder, even those who owned slaves, had taken a public stand against slavery. What makes this particularly amazing is the fact that this was happening at a time when slavery was accepted and practiced in most of the world. Dr. Thomas Sowell, who happens to black, has said, Slavery was just not an issue, not even among intellectuals, much less among political leaders, until the 18th century - and then it was an issue only in Western civilization. Among those who turned against slavery in the 18th century were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and other American leaders. You could research all of the 18th century Africa or Asia or the Middle East without finding any comparable rejection of slavery there (Hyatt, 1726: TheYear that Defined America, 90). Dr. Benjamin Rush, a Philadelphia physician, member of the Continental Congress, and signer of the Declaration of Independence, was a vocal opponent of slavery. He helped found the first American abolition society in his hometown. He called slavery a "hydra sin" and called on the pastors and ministers of America to take a public stand against it (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 100-101). Benjamin Franklin liberated his two slaves in 1785 and began advocating for abolition. He joined the abolition society of Philadelphia and later served as its president. In a public address to this society, Franklin called slavery, "an atrocious debasement of human nature" and "a source of serious evils." George Washington was born in Virginia into a slave-owning family but came to abhor slavery as did most other founders. In a letter to Robert Morris, dated April 12, 1786, he said, "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery." Washington set up a compassionate program to disentangle Mt. Vernon from the institution of slavery. Those slaves who wanted to leave were free to do so. Those who chose to remain were paid wages, and he began a program to educate and prepare the children of slaves for freedom. In a conversation with John Bernard concerning abolition, Washington declared,
Not only do I pray for it, on the score of human dignity, but I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union by consolidating it in a common bond of principle (Hyatt, Abolitionist Founding Fathers, 43). Thomas Jefferson called slavery a "moral depravity" and "hideous blot" and said it presented the greatest threat to the future survival of America. James Madison, America's 4th president, called slavery "the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." By the time of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the U.S. Constitution of 1787 virtually every founder had come to agree with John Adams who declared, Every measure of prudence ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States . . . I have throughout my whole life held the practice of slavery in abhorrence (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 101)." - Eddie Hyatt
Number 3 is essentially the same as number 2 - there were individual people who were against slavery. Now, I think Hyatt's rose-colored version of some of these folks is not historically accurate. It is true that in his will Washington freed his slaves. IN HIS WILL. I might add, he is the only founding father to do so. I am unsure how righteous your point is that after someone has lived their entire life employing slaves for 14-hour summer days on his four plantations, that upon his death thinks better of the practice. The larger, overarching point that Hyatt never addresses is all of these individual people amounted to nothing in the public square. America held tightly to its grip on slavery for over a hundred more years and finally abolished the practice after the rest of the world already had and the Civil War had ended. (Rev. Wade seems overly focused on condemning America at every turn. America of course is flawed, with both great triumphs and shameful exploits in its history. Rev. Wade, in perfect concert with leftist rhetoric, wants America to remain guilty. He judges it by his contemporary standards, with his contemporary rhetoric, and is in agreement with those who hate America's triumphs and love its shameful exploits.
And the contemporary standard by which he judges America can never be satisfied, absolved, or forgiven. America must remain guilty. This is CRT, and this is Rev. Wade.)
"Truth #4: America's Founding Documents are Colorblind - Because America's Founders turned against slavery, there are no classifications based on race or skin color in America's founding documents. Neither is there any mention of slaves or slavery. The language was purposeful for James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, said, "The Convention thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men." Nothing in either the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution indicates that the freedoms guaranteed do not apply to every individual. America's founding documents are, indeed, colorblind even if her history has not been. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) understood this and in his stirring, I Have a Dream speech, he challenged America, not to dispense with her founding documents, but instead, to live up to them. Speaking from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, he declared, When the architects of our Republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Then quoting from the Declaration of Independence, he proclaimed, I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Frederick Douglas (1818-1895), the former slave and famous abolitionist, understood the colorblind nature of the founding documents and argued that their language must be understood as applying to everyone. "Anyone of these provisions in the hands of abolition statesmen, and backed by a right moral sentiment," he declared, "would put an end to slavery in America." CRT proponents insist that America is racist and founded on racist principles. They are wrong. David Azerrad was correct when he said, "The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution" (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 127-28). There are racists in America, but America itself is not racist. America's founding documents are colorblind and at the time of her founding she was at the forefront of the fight to end slavery." - Eddie Hyatt
Once again, simply untrue. The 3/5th compromise in the Constitution regarded slaves as being worth 3/5th of a human being for the purposes of determining population for representation in Congress while insisting that the slaves had no voting rights. That sure sounds like slavery being acknowledged in the Constitution. (Ignorance is no excuse, and Rev. Wade is ignorant. He continues to parrot the leftist narrative with precision.
"Truth #4: America's Founding Documents are Colorblind - Because America's Founders turned against slavery, there are no classifications based on race or skin color in America's founding documents. Neither is there any mention of slaves or slavery. The language was purposeful for James Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, said, "The Convention thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men." Nothing in either the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution indicates that the freedoms guaranteed do not apply to every individual. America's founding documents are, indeed, colorblind even if her history has not been. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) understood this and in his stirring, I Have a Dream speech, he challenged America, not to dispense with her founding documents, but instead, to live up to them. Speaking from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, he declared, When the architects of our Republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Then quoting from the Declaration of Independence, he proclaimed, I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. Frederick Douglas (1818-1895), the former slave and famous abolitionist, understood the colorblind nature of the founding documents and argued that their language must be understood as applying to everyone. "Anyone of these provisions in the hands of abolition statesmen, and backed by a right moral sentiment," he declared, "would put an end to slavery in America." CRT proponents insist that America is racist and founded on racist principles. They are wrong. David Azerrad was correct when he said, "The argument that the Constitution is racist suffers from one fatal flaw: the concept of race does not exist in the Constitution" (Hyatt, 1726: The Year that Defined America, 127-28). There are racists in America, but America itself is not racist. America's founding documents are colorblind and at the time of her founding she was at the forefront of the fight to end slavery." - Eddie Hyatt
Once again, simply untrue. The 3/5th compromise in the Constitution regarded slaves as being worth 3/5th of a human being for the purposes of determining population for representation in Congress while insisting that the slaves had no voting rights. That sure sounds like slavery being acknowledged in the Constitution. (Ignorance is no excuse, and Rev. Wade is ignorant. He continues to parrot the leftist narrative with precision.
Let's quote the provision of the Constitution:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
If Rev. Wade really wants to debunk, he should start with himself.
First, and most obvious, the 3/5th compromise is the PROCESS by which the constitutional provision was arrived at, not the name of the provision itself.
Second, the provision clearly has a purpose, which Rev. Wade assiduously avoids. Our hint is this it is found in the section describing the House of Representatives. That means it is very specific, applying to only one branch of government, the only branch in which the people directly voted for their representation (At the time, the Senate was chosen by the states, not the people, and of course the President is chosen by the Electoral College and Supreme court judges are appointed by the President).
Power in the House was apportioned by state population, and again, this was the only branch of government done this way. Therefore, the Founders REDUCED the representation of the slave states in the House by including this provision. They did not want powerful southern states using the number of slaves within their borders to increase their number of representatives in the House.
Third, there is no mention of voting rights in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The Constitution does not grant rights, its purpose is to define, create, and limit government. The rights of the people are retained by the people except to the extent they are granted to government by some enumerated power in the Constitution.
This means the sole reason that slaves could not vote is because laws were passed in violation of the Constitution, forbidding them to vote. We say again, there is no mention of voting rights [until the 15th Amendment] in the Constitution. If someone was enjoined from voting, that VIOLATED the Constitution.
Now, these are elementary facts any educated person should know. But for Rev. Wade, the leftist narrative is to him fact. This is unfortunate.)
Beyond this we see Hyatt keep returning to his ridiculous premise that America was on the forefront of ending slavery when the truth is the complete opposite. It took a Civil War and 750,000 dead Americans to settle the matter and remember that if the South won, slavery might have continued for another 100 years. That does not even get into how the freed salves were treated or how a 100 years later we still had segregation and Jim Crow. (Rev. Wade continues to make fundamental logical mistakes. He confuses goal with process. The Goal is the stated objective, and the Process is the way in which the Goal is achieved. That the Goal was to eliminate slavery is beyond dispute. The fact that the Process was long and painful does not impeach the quality of the Goal or the motives or character of those implementing the Process. This sort of understanding should not be foreign to people like Rev. Wade, but sadly, it is.)
I am not arguing that America as an institution was racist but some of her practices sure were. Some still are today and sticking your head in the sand while screaming about Dr. Benjamin Rush and the ancient Armenians does not help the cause.
"Truth #5: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Would Be - Adamantly Opposed to Critical Race Theory
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be opposed to Critical Race Theory on three major points.
- He envisioned a colorblind society in which people would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. He made this clear in his "I Have a Dream Speech" when he said he looked forward to a time when his four children would live in a nation where "they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." CRT proponents, on the other hand, judge everything and everybody by race and skin color.
- He believed in America and writing from the Birmingham City Jail referred to America's "sacred heritage." Dr. King was very aware of America's flawed and sinful history, but he also saw that there was something sacred, holy, and of God in her founding. In this same letter he speaks with pride and respect of the Pilgrims, Thomas Jefferson, the 'majestic" Declaration of Independence, and Abraham Lincoln. CRT proponents, on the other hand, insist that America is evil and corrupt and must be dismantled and replaced with a socialist/Marxist state.
- He was adamantly opposed to communism and Marxism. He expressed this many times and would not allow avowed communists to have any public role in the 1963 March on Washington that he led. CRT, on the other hand, is based on Marxism and its founders are avowed Marxists.
We can sum this one up to the old, "I have a black friend" defense of why you are not personally racist. (Yet another leftist talking point. Someone gets accused of racism, he denies he is racist, and that means he is racist. These sorts of rhetorical traps are beneath thinking people, but not beneath Rev. Wade.)
As for the silly talking points about a man he never knew, Hyatt once again misses the point. CRT does not seek to judge everything by the color of skin, just that we represent history correctly. (How does Rev. Wade know this? What is his source of information? What is the "correct" representation of history? Why does he characterize CRT in the exact manner that leftists do? Rev. Wade has no inclination to entertain questions like this, because he is beholden to a narrative that does not permit questioning.)
Dr. King never advocating (sic) for the whitewashing of our historical record. (No one has expressed a desire to do this. Another leftist talking point.)
Secondly, CRT is not some secret plan to dismantle society and install Marxism and that accusation is absurd and political in nature. (The denial is absurd and political in nature.)
The larger point here is why someone who claims to be a minister of the gospel, is writing against a movement designed to tell the truth about the history of this country. (Undocumented, false claim. We could just as well ask, why is a "reverend" writing a political opposition piece in an attempt to debunk a minister of the gospel?)
These truths can co-exist. America can be a great nation and have some real flaws in her history. (This is not what CRT teaches.)
America can still be a great nation and recognize that kneeling on a man's neck for nine minutes until he dies is not the best way to protect and serve the public. (Continuing to spout the Leftist Narrative.)
The key verse is the opening line of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. (Finally, he gets around to discussing the Bible!)
There is a reason why Jesus makes the Samaritan the hero of this parable. The Samaritans were despised by the Jewish people in the days Jesus walked the earth. They were considered half-breeds. If that kind of hatred, based solely on ethnicity, sounds familiar than you are starting to get the point. We are Christians beloved, not American Christians. Not white Christians. God does not play the hateful games we play. Do you think Jesus was white? Israel is in the Middle East! It is time for Christians to stop allowing themselves to be used by the hate-filled politics of man. (We would agree. But Rev. Wade never, ever has any advice for the progressives and race-baiters. He never has unkind word to say to the "Christians" who make Jesus into a socialist hero.
But why would he criticize his own? That's one of the reasons we know Rev. Wade is a leftist, he only has criticism for one side, with "dominionism" a convenient excuse.)
Critical race theory is not some Marxist boogeyman trying to take away your identity. (Another leftist talking point, and a summary denial as well.)
Unless you have based your identity upon lies. In which case as Christians, you should be always thankful for the truth. (Finally the leftist diatribe has ceased, concluding with the obligatory shot across the bow of those who are his shipmates, ostensibly. Forgetting he was writing a "devotional," Rev. Wade provides some last minute religious cover by citing the Good Samaritan.
What a mess, logically and rhetorically.)
No comments:
Post a Comment