by D.L. Parker

In the world of entertainment, the Christian Post interviewed Veggie Tales creator Phil Vischer, who has spent enormous amounts of time speaking out on the topic of racism. Although the website posted a thirty-minute recording, this does not directly delve into the subject—to the contrary, this starts off with the shared experiences Phil had while growing up from his childhood years and onto his views. As the interview continues, Phil emphasizes the subject using examples of racial injustices originating from the 1930s to exercise his points.

Unfortunately, he does not make the Democratic connection.

It is, at this point, where he gets the pushback.

Even though he candidly admits there are no laws that promote racial injustices like the ones prior to the start of the Civil Rights era, he does attempt to draw conclusions that these injustices likely occur today due to a systemic racism on an invisible front. The biggest problem behind this, in and of itself, is a comparison between apples and oranges.

The apples being the blacks who had parents that knew how to raise their kids.

The apples being the blacks who knew what racism was and how to work around those problems.

The apples being the blacks who knew racism was no excuse to fail.

Contrast this with today’s generation of blacks—more specifically, the ones who are inner-city and are falling behind–this generation, unlike their predecessors are the not ones of yesteryear.

To the contrary, the ones who complain about injustices are the same ones who believe a series of ideals which make that same group a paradoxical pariah. The ones who whine about educational disparities but consistently believe that logic, reasoning, and studying for the pursuit of academics is a form of ‘whiteness.’ The ones who reject the political stereotypes of being the current democratic voting bloc also believe those who disaffect to the GOP (e.g., Candace Owens) are nothing short of tokens and Uncle Toms. The ones who argue Protestant Christianity—particularly the orthodox wing who believe in predestination, limited atonement, and the nuclear family—expose their ‘whiteness’ and supremacy are the same ones who actively condone the messages of sexuality, misogyny, drugs, violence, and any other form of deviant misbehaviors. Such a religion to oppose such directly go against the norm for black life.

Has anyone caught on with this mess?

The response to these problems—in Mr. Vischer’s eyes—all stem on the belief dismantling whiteness and its culture is the concise resolution everyone needs. Let’s be honest and face it: Phil Vischer did not do his homework entirely—the only thing he has running to promote this idea goes on a series of anecdotes, nothing empirical.

Had it not been for places like The Daily Wire, Rush Limbaugh, and Prager U, this conceptual belief would have been accepted without a doubt. Now that everyone knows systemic racism has more to do with the progressive movement within the Democratic Party, one should quit distancing himself from factual reality.

To be clear:

It was a political ideology that maintained slavery, not one’s skin color.

It was a political ideology that maintained systemic racism, not one’s skin color.

It was a secularist religion that justified these approaches, not one’s skin color.

And (again) it was ideologies religious, political, and secular that stood up to these existent ones and fought back.

Not one’s skin color.

While complaining that conservative Christians haplessly fall for a lot of conspiracy theories, Phil Vischer compares the race-fueled rioting and violence to that of the 18^th Century Colonists and 16^th Century Reformers. But what should we say about those then?

Two Words: Apples & Oranges.

For Vischer to say these groups acted on their outrage is correct, one major difference remains between today’s rioter, the colonist, and the reformer.

Temperance.

One group engaged not only in countless millions in damages but also sought to attack bystanders who did not acquiesce to their causes while the latter groups used self-control to tackle issues.

One group not only looted as part of their rage against injustices, but also did so at the expense of institutions which had little or nothing to do with the problem (e.g., black owned businesses) while the latter groups did no such thing. Not even the Boston Tea Party Patriots encouraged looting of businesses belonging either to Loyalists or their own, their anger was targeted at the British Government.

One group belongs to Marxist organizations like Black Lives Matter, who not only use this as an opportunity to oppose police brutality and eliminate the system, but also use this for socialist causes. The latter groups did not belong to any private organization.

One group denounces dissention and skepticism by threatening violence to those who dare question their doctrines and motives because their views appear clandestine and sinister, the latter groups were open to discussing their differences.

Big Difference.

Phil Vischer’s desires to dismiss the concerns most Christians have as ‘conspiracy theories,’ flies in the face of issues which are easily proven. A simple visit to websites belonging to Black Lives Matter and the National Museum of African-American History would render quite the opposite.

While Vischer wraps up the interview by suggesting Christians should be more open to the ideological criticisms the left has pointed out for so long because Christ embraces those who are different and listens to them, it is perhaps wiser to examine the basis of these beliefs instead of promptly embracing them as a sign of good favor for the radical left.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Today’s evangelicals, like Phil Vischer, are keen on maintaining doctrinal reductionism to the point where heresy remains untouched or unfazed by steep criticism. Just like the Evangelicals who signed the Catholics and Evangelicals Together (ECT) document, Vischer has no intent on making any visible or factual distinction between the groups to make the audience even consider the differences from the beginning.

Despite Vischer’s intentions, this third-way approach (a.k.a., ‘neither democrat nor republican, but Christian’) rests on a lot of ideals that are not necessarily truthful, accurate, nor biblical.

If honoring Christ remained solely a humanitarian issue to accept and love anyone, this would be a perfect moment where Vischer and Christians can celebrate each other. No one needs to disagree and embark in a long-written rants and arguments—however, this is not the case.

The movement to approach social justice from a biblical standpoint is hardly Christian, let alone biblical. The main point to this movement is to pronounce the necessity of Marxism in a world that has had enough of it.

A pronouncement of Marxism run afoul by fools who are remain ignorant of it.

A pronouncement of Marxism run afoul by fools who are yet to be robbed by it.

Why has Phil Vischer not realized it?