Log in

Opinion

Dudash: My response to Michael Scott and woke academics

Recently, Michael Scott wrote a letter warning against using the slogan “Fountain Hills first,” citing a Yale study entitled “Understanding White Christian Nationalism.” It sounded interesting enough, so I took him up on his offer to read it and discovered a pretentious piece of shoddy logic.

The entire premise was based on a logical fallacy called “begging the question,” which occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premise, essentially arguing in a circle. While this came from Yale’s academic community, their argument would have failed Yale’s own “Introduction to Logic” course.

The actual point of the article was to attack conservative Christian values from a Marxist perspective. Classical Marxism abhors religion but its modern incarnation of “identify politics” is perfectly content to co-opt religion to advance its agenda. In fact, we see a division in Christianity today between conservative and progressive denominations.

You must be a member to read this story.

Join our family of readers starting at $5 for your first month and support local, unbiased journalism.


Already have an account? Log in to continue.

Otherwise, follow the link below to join.

Please log in to continue

Log in
I am anchor
Opinion

Dudash: My response to Michael Scott and woke academics

Posted

Recently, Michael Scott wrote a letter warning against using the slogan “Fountain Hills first,” citing a Yale study entitled “Understanding White Christian Nationalism.” It sounded interesting enough, so I took him up on his offer to read it and discovered a pretentious piece of shoddy logic.

The entire premise was based on a logical fallacy called “begging the question,” which occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the premise, essentially arguing in a circle. While this came from Yale’s academic community, their argument would have failed Yale’s own “Introduction to Logic” course.

The actual point of the article was to attack conservative Christian values from a Marxist perspective. Classical Marxism abhors religion but its modern incarnation of “identify politics” is perfectly content to co-opt religion to advance its agenda. In fact, we see a division in Christianity today between conservative and progressive denominations.

The Yale academics had no problem with any Christian denomination preaching the gospel of woke. But they had a serious quarrel with traditional Christianity. More to the point, they focused their wrath on Christians who are active in conservative politics. Simple prayer, without political action, was deemed tolerably inoffensive, if done in private.

The authors defined non-progressive denominations using woke labels. These include: racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, fascist or simply white supremacist. They quickly disparaged traditional Christian beliefs as “white Christian nationalism (WCN).” If Wokies use the word “white” in the title, it can’t be good.

No surprise, WCN was painted as racist. Woke academics are very predictable. Thanks to Mr. Scott’s suggestion to read this Yale article, we learned that it is nothing other than anti-Christian bigotry masquerading as scholarship. Moreover, this sham piece fails to justify attacks on anyone campaigning on the slogan “Fountain Hills first.”

Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.

Share with others


Have an opinion on this story? Click here to send a letter to our editors.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here