Fake Conservative David French Uses Holy Scripture to Justify Race-Based Reparations
So-called “conservative” political commentator David French has managed to twist the Bible to support race-based reparations for blacks, in a stunning new low for someone who’s racked up a few lows over the years.
French recently wrote an article for The Dispatch titled “Structural Racism Isn’t Wokeness, It’s Reality.” In it he comes to the defense of Southern Baptist pastor David Platt, who is upsetting conservative members of his congregation by condemning the alleged persistence of “systemic racism” in the United States.
“On the core issues of American racism, Platt is biblically and historically right, and it’s his detractors who are biblically and historically wrong,” French writes. “These ‘conservatives’ have placed a secular political frame around an issue with profound religious significance. They’ve thus not just abandoned the whole counsel of scripture, they’ve even contradicted a core component of the secular conservatism they claim to uphold.”
This is the point where French tries to marshal scriptural evidence in support of his pro-critical race theory sentiments. He summarizes a passage from 2 Samuel 21 as follows:
During the reign of King David, Israel was afflicted with three years of famine. When David “sought the face of the Lord” regarding the crisis, God said, “There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house.” (Saul had conducted a violent campaign against the Gibeonites, in violation of a covenant made with the Israelites many centuries before.)
Saul was king before David, and God was punishing Israel years after Saul’s regime because of Saul’s sin. It was the next king, David’s, responsibility to make things right. And so David turned to the remaining Gibeonites and said, “What shall I do for you? And how shall I make atonement, that you may bless the heritage of the Lord?”
The Gibeonites’ request was harsh—to hand over seven of Saul’s descendants for execution. David fulfilled their request, and “God responded to the plea for the land.”
To French, this passage communicates the idea that a society bears the responsibility of its past sins, which can only be rectified by “making amends.”
“The reason for this obligation of repentance and atonement is obvious,” French claims. “The death of the offending party does not remove the consequences of their sin. Those who’ve been victimized still suffer loss, and if the loss isn’t ameliorated in their lifetimes, that loss can linger for generations.”
French was quickly blasted by anti-CRT activist Christopher Rufo, who pointed out how French called CRT “racial poison” that “leads to sheer cruelty and malice” in 2017.
“[You described] it as a cult-like movement that uses bullying, intimidation, and harassment to enforce its orthodoxy,” Rufo tweeted. “Now you want to institutionalize it in schools and churches.”
Conservative researcher and academic Michael Anton also responded to French’s abuse of Holy Scripture in an article for American Mind titled “David French and the Conservative Case for Hereditary Bloodguilt.”
“I leave [it] to theologians to justify the principle of visiting the sins of the fathers unto the sons,” Anton writes. “I will, however, note that in the Biblical passage French cites (and others), it is very explicitly GOD either doing or commanding the visiting. This is, however, not a practice the Almighty requires or even recommends that men take up on the basis of their own judgement. French on the other hand is explicitly calling for this principle to become the basis for law and public policy.”
Anton then flips the script and calls David French the racist—an anti-white racist.
“I have little to add to the many genuinely conservative eviscerations of such a policy and its groundings. My purpose here is rather to point out, for all to see, what a corrosive, malevolent figure French has become. He IS the racist he claims to oppose; he just hates whites. Except, of course, himself—the only virtuous white man in America.”
We should gladly take up every opportunity we can to eviscerate David French. He may even be more dangerous than the average leftist, for he dresses up explicitly progressive ideology in “conservative” terms to make it more digestible. Shame on him.