You might wish to define "religion" before starting a Holy War against "Wokeness." The reality of millions of USians who share a certain understanding of the errors of this nation, which is still quite young, and to some extent ignorant of its own darker passages need not be elevated (or degraded) into a "religion." It's kind of surprising in fact that you are so free with the term. Millions are passionate about baseball, Drake, Ayn Rand, etc. - that doesn't make them religions. In fact by using a term that normally involves a tradition surrounding a divine being, rituals and a narrative that informs the practices handed down from higher powers, you are debasing the very notion of religion. If you fail to exhibit tolerance AND wish to ban a religion, are you any different from the Taliban?

Expand full comment

Richard, wokeism is a term that means different things to different people and I think we need to move past using it. I have said this to Eddie elsewhere, but if the goal is productive conversation, it would be helpful to be more precise with language to say what you mean, rather than using pejoratives that are only meant to make people have an emotional response about a collective “enemy.” It’s like if someone on the left said that they wanted to issue a formal declaration stating that all Trump followers are part of a racist personality cult. What good would that do other that stoking flames of anger?

Expand full comment

When I used to work as high school English teacher, I would have students read both Ayn Rand and Upton Sinclair in order to analyze and evaluate the perspectives of each and form their own conclusions. It feels like North Korea to have officials tell students what they are and are not allowed to learn about. If you believe your ideas are superior, then engage in reasoned debate and try to make a better argument.

Expand full comment

I asked ChatGPT to offer feedback on the logic of your “Woke is a Religion” article and this is that it had to say:

The article aims to present wokeism as a religion and argues that it is dangerous and destructive to society. While the author makes some interesting points, the argument contains logical fallacies and oversimplifications that undermine its overall effectiveness.

1. Oversimplification: The author reduces complex theories and ideologies, such as Critical Social Justice, Critical Race Theory, and postmodernism, to a single label, "wokeism." This approach overlooks the nuances and differences between these theories and may lead to misinterpretations.

2. False analogy: The author attempts to draw a parallel between wokeism and religion by pointing out various elements that they supposedly share, such as original sin, prophets, and rituals. However, these comparisons are often superficial and forced, making the analogy unconvincing.

3. Straw man fallacy: The author misrepresents the ideas and beliefs associated with wokeism, presenting them as dogmatic, irrational, and destructive. This misrepresentation makes it easier to attack and criticize the ideology, but it fails to engage with its actual arguments and principles.

4. Slippery slope fallacy: The author claims that wokeism leads to perpetual revolution and societal destruction, suggesting that accepting its ideas will inevitably result in chaos and collapse. This argument relies on a series of assumptions that are not necessarily supported by evidence, and it exaggerates the potential consequences of engaging with woke ideas.

5. Circular reasoning: The author argues that declaring wokeism a religion would lead to an awakening of its devastating effects on society. This assertion assumes that wokeism is inherently harmful, which is the same conclusion the author is trying to reach.

6. Lack of evidence: The article provides little empirical evidence to support its claims, relying instead on anecdotal examples and generalizations. This lack of evidence weakens the overall argument and makes it less persuasive.

In summary, the article's argument contains logical fallacies and oversimplifications that detract from its credibility. While it raises some valid concerns about the potential dangers of dogmatic and uncompromising ideologies, the critique would be more effective if it engaged with the actual ideas and principles of the theories it critiques, provided empirical evidence, and avoided logical fallacies.

Expand full comment

I really appreciated that you were the only Trustee who came to the Ethics committee and witnessed to your motivation being Jesus Christ. Where were the other Trustees and what is their motivation? In many ways they seem driven by fame or power or money - are you willing to witness to them? Scripture warns us of ravening wolves - is that really who you want to be aligned with, or are you going to speak to their motives the next time you have an opportunity to?

Expand full comment