Woke Restaurant Serves Discomfort Food

The DC reader who sends this says the Schadenfreude is delicious. He is correct. Washington City Paper reports on the hilariously failed effort of Busboys and Poets, a local restaurant, to be racially woke. Excerpts:

Sometimes you can have the best of intentions and still miss the mark completely. Such is the case with Busboys and Poets‘ “Race Card” initiative, which aims to foster discussions about race and privilege among its diners by handing out literal “Race Cards”—cards featuring larger questions about the state of race relations in America—to patrons as they enter.

recent Facebook post featuring one of the “Race Cards”—which reads “Did you perceive me as racist because I’m a white male?”—has garnered more than 150 shares and even more comments, with people criticizing Busboys and Poets for taking a somewhat tone-deaf approach in trying to foster a conversation about race. Other “Race Cards” that Busboys and Poets employees are handing out read: “What is your experience with race in America?,” “Have you ever been in a place where you were the racial minority?,” and “How often do you discuss race with your friends or family?”

Akosua Johnson, who posted the picture that went viral, says that a bartender at Busboys and Poets handed them the card when they sat down at the bar. Johnson, who identifies as nonbinary and uses they/them pronouns, wrote on Facebook that the bartender, who was white, “had no idea how to actually engage with this poorly constructed, forced ‘conversation’ and so just walked away immediately after dropping the cards in the middle of my meal.”

Oh boy. This is getting good. I had to re-read the next part of the story to realize that the antecedent to the pronoun “them” is actually one person. A very woke person: Akosua Johnson, who was REALLY OFFENDED that Andy Shallal, owner of the restaurant had no reached out to the Professionally Woke Grifter-American Community for advice before playing the race card. He probably figured that by being intentionally progressive — left-wingery is written into the mission statement of the local restaurant chain — he was covered. Wrong!

You can imagine what happened next — but it’s fun to read the indignant statement from DC’s Black Lives Matter, in which its spokeswoman excommunicates Shallal and his restaurant, because he tried to do the racially correct (by BLM standards) thing in the wrong way. Akosua Johnson concludes, sadly: “The creators of this Busboys program erred in not choosing to engage more directly with racial justice activists and educators.”

Whole thing here. It usually makes sense to just shut up and cook. Who the heck wants to go eat or drink at a restaurant that serves discomfort food? Busboys and Poets, which describes itself as “a community where racial and cultural connections are consciously uplifted,” deserves this pain.

Meanwhile, Akosua Johnson would like you to compensate Akosua Johnson for Akosua Johnson’s  semi-hemi-demi-shakedown social justice accomplishment (or at least hire zir to enlighten the unenlightened):

Read more from The American Conservative…

The Racial Double Standard

Coleman Hughes, a black student at Columbia, goes there. His essay begins like this:

In the fall of 2016, I was hired to play in Rihanna’s back-up band at the MTV Video Music Awards. To my pleasant surprise, several of my friends had also gotten the call. We felt that this would be the gig of a lifetime: beautiful music, primetime TV, plus, if we were lucky, a chance to schmooze with celebrities backstage.

But as the date approached, I learned that one of my friends had been fired and replaced. The reason? He was a white Hispanic, and Rihanna’s artistic team had decided to go for an all-black aesthetic—aside from Rihanna’s steady guitarist, there would be no non-blacks on stage. Though I was disappointed on my friend’s behalf, I didn’t consider his firing as unjust at the time—and maybe it wasn’t. Is it unethical for an artist to curate the racial composition of a racially-themed performance? Perhaps; perhaps not. My personal bias leads me to favor artistic freedom, but as a society, we have yet to answer this question definitively.

One thing, however, is clear. If the races were reversed—if a black musician had been fired in order to achieve an all-white aesthetic—it would have made front page headlines. It would have been seen as an unambiguous moral infraction. The usual suspects would be outraged, calling for this event to be viewed in the context of the long history of slavery and Jim Crow in this country, and their reaction would widely be seen as justified. Public-shaming would be in order and heartfelt apologies would be made. MTV might even enact anti-bias trainings as a corrective.

Though the question seems naïve to some, it is in fact perfectly valid to ask why black people can get away with behavior that white people can’t. The progressive response to this question invariably contains some reference to history: blacks were taken from their homeland in chains, forced to work as chattel for 250 years, and then subjected to redlining, segregation, and lynchings for another century. In the face of such a brutal past, many would argue, it is simply ignorant to complain about what modern-day blacks can get away with.

Yet there we were—young black men born decades after anything that could rightly be called ‘oppression’ had ended—benefitting from a social license bequeathed to us by a history that we have only experienced through textbooks and folklore. And my white Hispanic friend (who could have had a tougher life than all of us, for all I know) paid the price. The underlying logic of using the past to justify racial double-standards in the present is rarely interrogated. What do slavery and Jim Crow have to do with modern-day blacks, who experienced neither? Do all black people have P.T.S.D from racism, as the Grammy and Emmy award-winning artist Donald Glover recently claimed? Is ancestral suffering actually transmitted to descendants? If so, how? What exactly are historical ‘ties’ made of?

Hughes goes on to lament the double standard the public applies to famous black writers. For example:

The celebrated journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates provides another example of the lower ethical standard to which black writers are held. In his #1 New York Times bestseller, Between the World and Me, Coates explained that the policemen and firemen who died on 9/11 “were not human to me,” but “menaces of nature.”1 This, it turned out, was because a friend of Coates had been killed by a black cop a few months earlier. In his recent essay collection, he doubled down on this pitiless sentiment: “When 9/11 happened, I wanted nothing to do with any kind of patriotism, with the broad national ceremony of mourning. I had no sympathy for the firefighters, and something bordering on hatred for the police officers who had died.”2 Meanwhile, New York Times columnist Bari Weiss—a young Jewish woman—was recently raked over the coals for tweeting, “Immigrants: They get the job done,” in praise of the Olympic ice-skater Mirai Nagasu, a second-generation Japanese-American. Accused of ‘othering’ an American citizen, Weiss came under so much fire that The Atlantic ran twoseparate pieces defending her. That The Atlantic saw it necessary to vigorously defend Weiss, but hasn’t had to lift a finger to defend Coates, whom they employ, evidences the racial double-standard at play. From a white writer, an innocuous tweet provokes histrionic invective. From a black writer, repeated expressions of unapologetic contempt for public servants who died trying to save the lives of others on September 11 are met with fawningpraise from leftwing periodicals, plus a National Book Award and a MacArthur ‘Genius’ Grant.

Hughes says this double standard is common in society:

But we make an exception for blacks. Indeed, what George Orwell wrote in 1945seems more apt today: “Almost any English intellectual would be scandalised by the claim that the white races are superior to the coloured, whereas the opposite claim would seem to him unexceptionable even if he disagreed with it.” Only a black intellectual, for instance, could write an op-ed arguing that black children should not befriend white children because “[h]istory has provided little reason for people of color to trust white people,” and get it published in the New York Times in 2017. An identical piece with the races reversed would rightly be relegated to fringe white supremacist forums. In defense of such racist drivel, it won’t suffice to repeat the platitude that ‘black people can’t be racist,’ as if redefining a word changes the ethical status of the thing that the word signifies. Progressives ought not dodge the question: Why are blacks the only ethnic group routinely and openly encouraged to nurse stale grievances back to life?

Read the whole thing. It’s very, very brave. Hughes is a black undergraduate at an Ivy League university, yet he has no been afraid to say what has been unsayable. That man has guts.

By the way, his essay is not merely an exercise in whataboutism. He addresses real philosophical and moral concerns in it. He focuses on blacks, but as a general matter, if you read the mainstream press, you’ll find there’s a tendency to treat gays and other minority groups favored by liberals with kid gloves — as if they were symbols, not real people, with the same virtues and vices that everybody else has. For example, in a previous job, I observed that some liberals in the newsroom viewed local Muslims through the lens of the culture war between liberals and conservatives, and did not want to hold them to the same standard with regard to extremist rhetoric, apparently because doing so might encourage conservatives in their own biases.

Another personal example: last year, I wrote several posts about Tommy Curry, a radical black nationalist who teaches philosophy at Texas A&M (see here and here). In his written work and spoken advocacy, Curry advocates what can only be described as anti-white hatred. Don’t take my word for it; go read the blogs I wrote, which quote generously from, and link to, Curry’s own work. A white man who spoke the same way about any racial minority would never have been hired by a university — A&M hired him knowing exactly what they were getting, because he had published — and would never be retained by one after his racism became known. I linked in one of the blogs to a podcast (subtitled, “White People Are The Problem”) on which Curry was a regular guest; on that particular episode, this philosophy professor argued that white people cannot be reasonable, because they are white.

Imagine being a white student in that man’s class.

But there is a different standard for bigots from the left. The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote a long piece about the fallout from my blogs, and positioned it as Curry having suffered because he wanted to “force a conversation about race and violence” — a conversation that people didn’t want to hear. The writer — no doubt reflecting the biases of his own professional class — could not seem to grasp why people would be really offended by the unapologetic racism of Tommy Curry’s writing and speaking. This is precisely the double standard that Coleman Hughes decries. It is lucrative for radicals like Curry, Coates, and others, but a just society should hold us all to the same standard of discourse and morality. This is one aspect of the Enlightenment that I am eager to defend. It’s not only morally right, but practically, observing it it is the only way we will be able to keep the peace in a pluralistic country.

I found Hughes’s essay via Prufrock, a free daily digest that comes to you in e-mail, to which you can and should subscribe by clicking here. 

Read more from The American Conservative…

Washington Dingbats Want Your Guns

Awake before it’s too late.

If you are a believer of what our forefathers wrote in the constitution and then amended it because the founders realized the dangers of government control, you are the minority.

They and we believe the Second Amendment was considered essential for its citizens to be armed to protect the rights for which they fought and died to  free themselves from the yoke of King George III who was really (Mad King George) during  part of his reign.

Today, in the United States, the central faction within the Democrat Party stems from Vladimir Ulyanov, better known as Vladimir Lenin who founded Communism and led the Bolshevik Party until the advent of Stalin or Stalinism an even more ruthless, murderous regime.

The Tsar abdicated his position in 1917 and within days, he and his family were prisoners of Lenin who authorized their murder to eliminate any possibility of Tsarism’s return.  The ruthlessness of Lenin was openly revealed and instrumental in   creating Russia into a totally controlled authoriarian state.

The methodology of Lenin was first to promise the Russian populace their needs such as basic food and sustenance.    The Russian people were destitute and totally sick of war and the terrible military losses,  so Lenin’s promises were openly accepted.

THE THREAT IS NOW IN OUR COUNTRY

The United States is in a state of rapid revisionism, a significant part of a plan to institute sophisticated Communism that Vladimir Lenin formulated, but lacked the foresight to train generations through our public schools.

The plan installs utopian ideas imbedded from the time a child enters the first grade.  What is interesting is that the parents are the radical dope smoking, fornicating misanthropes, who swayed to the rock music of Jimmy Hendricks strumming and pounding his guitar.  These were the core generation whose morals stemmed from the Biblical days of Sodom and Gomorrah. The misfits of the sixties were parents of the 2018 politically indoctrinated leaders of today’s communist revolution.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT MUST NOT BE A MYTH OF THE PAST WHERE AMERICANS ARE NOTHING BUT SLAVES TO THE WASHINGTON’S SWAMP LEADERS.

WE MUST STAND UP AND SUPPORT GUNOWNERS OF AMERICA AND THE NATIONAL RIFILE ASSOCIATION SO THEY CAN HELP US SAVE OUR NATION. 

© 2018 JW Kress – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail JW Kress: [email protected]

Read more from News With Views…

With HB 514, Legislature Unambiguously Embraces School Segregation

There’s a word for what happens when majority-white suburbs pull their children from a majority-minority school district and place them into exclusionary, majority-white schools: segregation. With the advancement of HB 514, lawmakers are unambiguously embracing school segregation as state policy.

HB 514 allows four Charlotte suburbs – Cornelius, Huntersville, Matthews, and Mint Hill – the authority to create and operate their own charter schools. These suburbs can then limit enrollment in these schools to municipal residents. Cornelius is 85 percent white. Huntersville is 77 percent white. Matthews is 78 percent white. Mint Hill is 73 percent white. Students in these majority-white suburbs are assigned to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS), where white students comprise just 29 percent of enrollment.

To facilitate the funding of the schools authorized by HB 514, a related budget provision (Section 38.8) creates a new authority allowing North Carolina municipalities to spend property tax revenues on any public school that “benefits the residents of the city,” including charter schools. As national school finance expert Michael Griffith notes, similar provisions in other states have led to school funding becoming “divided on class lines and on racial lines.”

It’s quite the one-two punch. First, the General Assembly allows these suburbs to create schools with the legal authority to exclude children from nearby communities comprised mostly of non-white students. Then, these suburbs can then use their out-sized property wealth to provide their racially-isolated schools with resource levels denied to other students in the school district. In other words, these schools will be both separate and unequal.

{snip}

{snip} What message does HB 514 send to the students of color in Charlotte who are witnessing policymakers use their power to create new schools for the exclusive use of their mostly white suburban classmates? Consider also the message delivered to white children in these suburbs who might emerge thinking that racially-isolated, better-funded schools are something that they deserve on the basis of their privileged status.

Furthermore, by exacerbating racial segregation, policymakers will be harming the educational trajectories of CMS students. Inclusive, integrated schools are a proven model for lifting the performance of all students. School integration leads to large, persistent academic gains, lower dropout rates, and higher lifetime earnings for students of color and students from low income families. When schools are integrated, white students become less prejudiced and enhance their capacity for working with others, with no negative impact on white student test scores. But when schools become more segregated, as proposed by HB 514, achievement gaps, incarceration rates, and dropout rates all tend to rise.

{snip}

The result of (HB 514) will ultimately amount to systemic racism. It’s about a system, not personalities, that marginalize communities of color. Supporters of HB 514 do so either because, or in spite of, this fact.

The fact is, we are now 64 years removed from Brown v Board of Education. We’re 53 years removed from the terroristic assassination attempt on Julius Chambers, whose legal heroism culminated in 1971’s Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education ruling that forced the integration of CMS. Yet the proponents of school segregation persist. In 2018, we have municipal governments in Cornelius, Huntersville, Matthews, and Mint Hill that are openly segregationist. We also have a General Assembly eagerly using the sanction of law to accede to the segregationist wishes of these communities. The mechanism created by HB 514 will undoubtedly be seized upon by other municipalities seeking to create white-flight schools of their own.

{snip}

The post With HB 514, Legislature Unambiguously Embraces School Segregation appeared first on American Renaissance.

Read more from American Renaissance…

Poll: majority of Americans approve of NFL kneeling ban

Just this morning I was musing over the new kneeling ban in the NFL and what led to the outpouring of anger from fans. While mulling that over, I concluded that the new policy likely wouldn’t make much of a difference at this point because too much water has passed under the bridge. But a new survey released by SurveyMonkey this week provides at least a hint that I may have been wrong. After a lot of bad polling days for the league, a solid majority of respondents are now saying that they support the new policy.

Americans—and especially NFL fans—are supportive of the league’s recently-announced policy to fine teams whose players kneel on the field during the national anthem. More than half of adults in the U.S. (54 percent) say they approve of the policy, while just 43 percent disapprove. Among those who call themselves NFL fans, 56 percent approve and 42 percent disapprove. Drilling down even further, “big fans” of the NFL approve by a margin of 59-40.

More than four in 10 people (42 percent) say that kneeling during the national anthem “is not related to patriotism.” Nearly as many (41 percent) say that kneeling during the national anthem is unpatriotic–almost three times more than the number of respondents who think it is patriotic (14 percent).

A majority of people (55 percent) say it is fair for teams to be fined for a player’s actions. About as many (57 percent) say that the ability for players to stay inside the locker room during the national anthem rather than kneeling on the field is a fair compromise.

You can read the full results here. There are several clear demographic breaks in the responses. Democrats were far less impressed with the new policy, with 65% disapproving and 67% saying it would be unfair to fine the teams for the actions of the players. But 81% of Republicans approved, with only 19% disapproving.

The racial divide was almost equally stark, with whites approving at a rate of 59% while only 38% of blacks do. That may still prove troubling for the league since an even more interesting question had to do with who considers themselves fans or “big fans” of football. 68% of black respondents said they were fans, while 53% of whites did.

With all that in mind, I have to wonder if the plan among some players which Allahpundit reported on the other day will have much of an effect. If any significant number of starters who will have a real impact on their teams’ prospects decide to “sit out” the games until Kaepernick and Eric Reid are signed, how would the fans of their individual teams respond? I know that if any of the Jets’ starters decided to do that and reduce our already comically low shot at a Super Bowl ring even further, I’d be pretty ticked off at the players, not the league. But then again, am I in the minority there? From the looks of this poll, I’m guessing I’m not.

Anyway, that’s just some recent polling for you to mull over until the preseason kicks off. (Assuming it actually does.)

The post Poll: majority of Americans approve of NFL kneeling ban appeared first on Hot Air.

Read more from Hot Air…

Read an Exclusive ‘Story of Science Fiction’ Interview Excerpt…

In the new book James Cameron’s Story of Science Fiction , the renowned filmmaker sits down with Guillermo del Toro , George Lucas , Christopher Nolan , Ridley Scott , Steven Spielberg and more to get their perspectives on the importance and impact of the sci-fi genre. STEVEN SPIELBERG ‘S UNPARALLELED CAREER has spanned five decades and encompassed every imaginable genre, but it is to science fiction that the director has returned most often, creating enthralling modern classics such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind , E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial , Jurassic Park and its sequel, The Lost World: Jurassic Park , A.I. Artificial Intelligence , Minority Report , and War of the Worlds .

Read more from Artificial Intelligence…

Are blacks more racist than whites?

I don’t think we are. We only sound like it sometimes. The poll by the conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports finds a larger minority of Americans, 37 percent, think most black Americans are racist compared with the 15 percent of the respondents who think …

Read more from Conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports…

RCOM subsidiary reaches settlement with minority investors

New Delhi, May 29 : Reliance Infratel, a subsidiary of Reliance Communications , has informed the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on Tuesday that an amicable settlement has been arrived at with its minority investors holding 4.26 per cent equity in the company, and consent terms will be filed shortly.

Read more from New Law…

An International Christian Confederation

The best news in ages came this afternoon, thanks to reader Bonifatius, who sent news of a new, Munich-based lay Catholic organization: the Bund Sankt-Michael (Confederation of St. Michael). It’s a Catholic organization — but one that reaches out to all Christians — dedicated to shoring up the Christian faith in post-Christian Germany. Its strategy page says that The Benedict Option is a “major inspiration,” but not the only one. If your browser is Google Chrome, you can have everything on the site translated easily, on the page. Otherwise, use translate.google.com.

I’m going to post some of the Bund’s strategy page in English below. The English translation is via Google’s bot. If it sounds inelegant, that’s because it wasn’t done by a human being. I welcome any corrections from German speakers:

2.2 Strategic assumptions

The Bund’s strategic draft is based on the following strategic assumptions about the future development of the environment in which Christianity moves in Europe, as well as the associated requirements for its own actions.

  • Christians will become a minority in Europe. Due to demographic trends, migration and diminishing strength of religious ties among Christians, they will become a minority in the coming decades which will initially shrink steadily.
  • The environment for Christianity will become more difficult in Europe: as a religious minority, Christians will live alongside other religious and philosophical groups who are not always friendly to Christians and the heritage of Christianity. In the perception of a growing number of Christianity, Christianity will appear alien, incomprehensible or backward. This perception will be marked by misrepresentations about Christianity as well as aberrant developments within Christianity.
  • The general crisis potential in Europe is increasing : Increasing decay and dissolution phenomena in all areas of social life will lead to a steady increase in the general instability and the crisis potential in Europe. The remaining cultural substance in Europe has become too weak to avert such developments. Even political actors and political action can no longer avert this development, which has cultural causes at its core, but at best delay it. In the medium term, this will be linked to a series of converging crises that will further worsen the environment for Christians in Europe, and possibly over a very long period of time.
  • Above all, it will depend on the creation of freedom for Christian life: under future conditions, a major political task will be the creation and maintenance of open spaces that enable Christians to lead a Christian life. Moreover, in largely Christianized societies, Christian elements in the state order will become increasingly difficult to sustain, and such attempts will increasingly be negatively answered by non-Christians and will be fruitless.
  • Non-binding forms of Christianity will not be able to survive in the future environment: in an environment that is increasingly difficult for Christianity, non-binding forms of Christianity will be unable to resist social pressure and dissolve, assimilate, or, at most, seemingly Christian-looking extensions of secular ideologies transform. The remaining Christians will increasingly be those who can withstand the pressure of the increasingly difficult environment, because they can practice more binding forms, have strong religious ties and can rely on robust solidarity structures.
  • Europe needs the ministry of Christianity: Under the conditions of imminent upheaval, more and more people in Europe will be ready to acknowledge that the cause of Europe’s crisis is the separation from its Christian roots, and that overcoming this crisis requires reconnecting to those roots. Under these conditions, the Church will need to be able to provide the necessary service to Europe, offering more convincing explanations of what’s going on, as well as better solutions and approaches to tackle the challenges that its decay-and-dissolution environment may be.
  • Long-term thinking is needed: both the assurance of the continuity of Christianity in Europe and the renewal of Europe in the spirit of Christianity are long-term oriented tasks that must be carried out over many generations. To fulfill them presupposes to think in long periods of time and to be prepared to no longer see the effects of one’s own actions.
  • Elites are the bearers of cultural development: cultural change always starts with elites. Because addressing the challenges to Christianity’s continuity in Europe in the long term requires above all a change in the cultural environment, Christians must be part of the cultural and other elites to work and win over these elites. In this context, positive change can also be achieved by small, but highly capable and service-ready groups.

2.3 Risks

  • Exclusive thinking:  projects based on strong religious ties tend to be exclusive, unnecessarily excluding potential supporters and allies. In communication, for example, such projects tend to use a language that is only understood by their own members. In addition, there is a tendency in such projects to isolate themselves from the environment rather than following the Christian mission and acting in it.

  • Internal divisions: In such projects, there is an increased risk of internal divisions, for example, when different currents accuse each other of lack of faithfulness.

  • External Conspiracy Theories: Strategically oriented religious intentions are reported to be met with great distrust by parts of their environment that often form the basis for irrational conspiracy theories. A transparent presentation of one’s own goals and one’s own actions can counteract this.

  • Intolerance and hostility: Actors who fundamentally reject Christianity will also reject attempts to facilitate Christian life in a post-Christian Europe. As in the past, in the past, for example, in the realm of totalitarian ideologies, they are generally practiced and will react with attempts at reputational damage, social isolation and attacks on professional existence.

More:

5.1 Creating spaces of Christian life
The physical and cultural spaces of Christian life enable Christians in Europe’s culturally increasingly heterogeneous societies to cultivate their culture and pass it on to future generations. The creation and consolidation of such spaces is the prerequisite for Christians to act as creative minorities in these societies and thus to serve them.

The greater the balance between Christian life and the surrounding society, the greater will be the pressure on Christians to assimilate into non-Christian culture. Spaces of Christian life can reduce this pressure and thereby support Christians in their Christian way of life and strengthen their ministry. These spaces should be designed so that they could perform this task even under the most difficult conditions.

These spaces should not be places of retreat, but nuclei of renewal radiating to their environment.

Creating physical spaces of Christian life

In spaces of Christian life, this life can grow in such a way that it can affect the world. This requires certain conditions, such as an intact environment in which uncertainty or other signs of disintegration and deterioration are minimized.

Such spaces require physical infrastructure, such as churches and schools. Around this infrastructure Christian families can settle, who support each other in their lives as Christians.

Creation of Christian solidarity structures

Solidarity structures help Christian families lead a Christian life in the midst of the surrounding society and raise their children in the spirit of Christianity. Such structures are based on reciprocity and trust. Because of their independence from government infrastructure, they are also reliably available if it is temporary or permanent or people are excluded from their claim for political reasons.

Creating cultural spaces of Christian life

It is in the nature of Christianity not to consider a difficult environment as an adversary, but to work for its well-being and renewal. However, in order to do this, Christians need to be kept away from the corrupt cultural trends that shape this environment, that is, they must live in the world but not be molded by their minds (Jn 17, 11-19).

This requires the creation of cultural spaces that are delimited from the world around them, and within whose protective borders Christian life can grow.

Cultural spaces of Christian life include their own educational system as well as media and communication platforms as well as arts and cultural studies.

Care and mediation of the Christian heritage

Many present-day Christians are poorly acquainted with their heritage, or feel it out of ignorance as a burden. Christians, however, must be convinced that their inheritance is of the highest value before they can convince other people credibly.

This heritage also includes practical solutions for a successful life.

The care of the inheritance involves its development, its mediation and its further development in the sense of the demand to examine everything and to keep the good (1 Thess 5:21).

For this purpose, compendia should be created and maintained, which open up this legacy in all its aspects in such a way that people can reapply individually and in community. This practice has been successfully used in building nations, such as the US, where the “McGuffey Readers” helped to assimilate the country’s cultural identity.

5.2 Strengthening interdenominational and interreligious cooperation

Conservative actors in the various Christian denominations, but also in Judaism, who are committed to the preservation of the respective teaching and tradition, face the same challenges in Western societies and usually have similar positions in the field of social teaching. In the face of increasing challenges, this leads to increased cooperation between these denominations and religions.

Pope Francis spoke of an “ecumenism of the blood” and the convergence of denominations in the face of increasing persecution of Christians in many regions of the world.

The Russian Orthodox Bishop Tikhon is, among other things, head of the Council for Cultural Affairs of the Patriarch of Moscow and is considered a close confidant of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He said in 2018 that there was close contact with the Vatican Cultural Council . The common main task is to preserve the Christian identity of Europe. The Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion, who is currently head of the Foreign Office of the Moscow Patriarchate, advocates a strategic alliance between the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy and calls the Catholic Church an “ally”. The increasing challenges facing Christianity in Western Europe would require such cooperation .

The World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), the most important association of evangelical Christians, has been holding talks with the Catholic Church for some time , during which the participants confirmed that there is more in common than separation between them.

In 2017, several organizations of Jewish Orthodox rabbis in a letter addressed to Pope Francis called for a strategic partnership between Judaism and the Catholic Church in countering the threat of political Islam and radical secular ideologies. The Jewish Orthodox rabbi Jonathan Sacks had described corresponding common challenges and interests .

In the case of rapprochement between the Catholic Church and Orthodox Judaism, it is crucial that the common interests clearly outweigh the effects of the existing contradictions. In contrast to most Islamic actors, however, the conflicts predominate, which is why there is no relevant cooperation and will probably not exist in the long term. The recent ongoing dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Islamic World League is not a collaboration to achieve common goals, but an attempt to use diplomatic means to deal with the conflicts that are coming from Islamic actors.

In principle, however, it would be possible to cooperate with liberal minority currents in Islam, which, unlike the majority currents, forego confrontational positions in relation to Christianity. There are common interests here, such as the defense against radical currents in Islam, which pose a threat to both Christians and non-Muslim Muslims.

Read the whole thing.

Y’all, this thing is happening. And European Christians are leading the way. Americans, pay attention!

I would like to propose a big conference sometime in 2019 of Christians eager to talk seriously about this initiative, and to pioneer concrete ways to collaborate across international borders. We should hold it in Europe — perhaps at a large Benedictine monastery — because that’s where the Benedict Option is taking root now. We should include clergy and laity from Catholic, Protestant (Evangelical and otherwise), and Orthodox traditions. It should include North Americans and Russians, and perhaps even Middle Eastern Christians.

We do not need to include Christians who don’t see a need for a Benedict Option strategy. We will only waste time trying to convince those who don’t want to see what’s right in front of them. We need instead to be working hard on building these structures and networks, and getting to know each other.

I’ve not been in touch with anybody from the Bund, incidentally. I am no kind of organizer. But if any one reading this blog is in a position to organize this kind of international conference, and is eager to meet others interested in planning and funding it, please know that you can count on me to help in any way possible.

It seems like almost every day I see evidence that European Christians get the Benedict Option concept much better than we American believers do. This is surely because they have been living in a post-Christian civilization for generations now. They know what’s at stake. And they know what’s coming to us Americans. Meanwhile, we are wasting the headstart we have been given by history. How much are we traditional American Christians prepared to lose before we wake up one day and realize that the traditional European Christians were right all along?

 

Read more from The American Conservative…