Ship of Fools: Are evangelicals the problem with racism and trumpism?

Thread: Are evangelicals the problem with racism and trumpism? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020268

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

This says so. No doubt there are different groups and species of evangelicals, this article talks of the largest group in the United States of America. So if it analyses correctly at all, I get why I have trouble finding common ground with them and finding myself incredulous at their purported Christianity, having being steeped in the social gospel, which apparently is anathema to them.

The analysis suggests that evangellos care only about conversionism on an individualized basis, everything else be damned. It says they care little for any social causes, and thus are willing to tolerate all sorts of social injustices including racism, economic inequlity, and are willing to support profoundly defective and harmful people like trumpy because they don't care about anything but 'winning souls'. Is this true? Is it partly true?

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

Warning signs were raised back in 1995 in the book Power religion, the Selling out of the Evangelical Church...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The analysis suggests that evangellos care only about conversionism on an individualized basis, everything else be damned. It says they care little for any social causes, and thus are willing to tolerate all sorts of social injustices including racism, economic inequlity, and are willing to support profoundly defective and harmful people like trumpy because they don't care about anything but 'winning souls'. Is this true? Is it partly true?

Evangelical preacher Billy Graham allegedly had two great regrets in his life. One of them was his failure to support the Civil Rights movement in a timely manner. His justification at the time was that getting involved with social issues like that distracted from his mission to spread the message of the gospel. A contrary argument might be that basic human dignity and justice are the message of the gospel, which may be why Bill regrets his relative inaction. (At least he didn't have a lot of embarrassing quotes to walk back or explain away like so many of his white Protestant contemporaries.)

Fred Clark notes that racism presents an interesting theological exception to the usual Evangelical idea of sin:

quote:
We should note, though, that this prosecutorial discussion of sin is always universal. “All have sinned and fall short.” “There is none just, no not one.” When the evangelist accuses the would-be convert of sin, they’re not suggesting this that this makes that person exceptional. “You’re a sinner. I’m a sinner too. We’re all sinners.”

This sincere, emphatic insistence on the universality of sinfulness is interesting in light of the claim we’re discussing here. Say, “You’re a sinner, too” to even the most piously devout evangelical and they will wholeheartedly agree. They will almost happily agree — without any trace of offense or indignation. They may even up the ante — enthusiastically insisting that their sin means they’re no better than anyone else, because breaking one commandment is the same as breaking all of them, or because entertaining sinful thoughts is just as bad as committing sinful acts.

“You’re a sinner too!” “Yes, yes, I am. We all are.” And this cheerfully unoffended agreement can even endure if the shared accusation is made more specific.

“You’re a liar, too!” “Yes, we have all missed the mark of perfect honesty.”

“And you’re an adulterer, too!” “Yes, yes, we’ve all entertained lust in our hearts.”

But this comes crashing to a halt when we arrive at “racism is sin.” Somehow it’s perfectly fine and wholly agreeable to insist that we’re all sinners, but we get angrily indignant and defensive if anyone suggests that we’re all racists. This particular sin seems to be regarded differently than most other sins. It seems to be the one sin we are incapable of confessing, the one sin we refuse to allow ourselves to be accused of.

That’s … interesting. Evangelist-prosecutors wouldn’t allow anyone to speak this way of any other sin. They would never accept such an indignant claim of total innocence from any would-be convert who asserted that they had never lied or stolen or envied or lusted. But this sin, somehow, is different.

It’s astonishing, if you think about it. People who are perfectly willing to admit that they are wretched sinful sinners deserving to suffer an eternity of conscious torment in Hell due to their wicked sinfulness will turn on a dime and proclaim their absolute innocence when it comes to one particular sin.

Reading this put me in mind of Jerry Falwell, Jr.'s recent insistence that Donald Trump doesn't have a racist bone in his body. The rest of Clark's post is worth a read, as is Part 2.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

At the risk of sounding chauvinistic, I'd say it's more true of US evangelicals than their UK counterparts.

Although I did smirk at mr cheesy's latest sig which involves something overheard in a bus stop in South Wales, 'Jesus isn't interested in you: he's only interested in your soul ...'

Or something along those lines.

That summed it up.

I'm tempted to say that in US terms evangelicals may be part of the solution as well as part of the problem, that is if sufficient of them distance themselves from the crap and start to 'evangelise' as it were within their own constituency and communities to challenge the prevailing mores ...

That may sound loopy but I'd suggest it's the only way that this particular section of US Christianity would listen to reason - if they heard it from their own side.

One can but hope.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

My Dad (if American and alive) would have voted for Trump in a second, and he despised God-botherers of all stripes, especially born again types. He would have liked that Trump was rich, that he stuck it up people, that he was promising tax cuts, and he would have responded to the dog-whistling on race and women. He would have crapped on about making America great again and laughed his wheezy laugh at my pain when Trump won.

It's not rocket science, and I reckon that author is still rubber-banding from his youth in an evangelical church.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[

The analysis suggests that evangellos care only about conversionism on an individualized basis, everything else be damned. It says they care little for any social causes, and thus are willing to tolerate all sorts of social injustices including racism, economic inequlity, and are willing to support profoundly defective and harmful people like trumpy because they don't care about anything but 'winning souls'. Is this true? Is it partly true?

I would say that this is indeed true, with one very large exception: abortion. This cause, mysteriously, must be fought to the last ditch. Lyin' Don got their vote because he promised them a Supreme Court justice who would vote antiabortion. His multiple wives, indisputable adultery, and pussy-grabbing meant nothing if only this could be achieved.

The evangelical anti-abortion stance is not, however, supported by any logic. If you really wanted to have mothers birth babies, you would be a maniac about health care, for instance. If all you wanted was healthy marriages, you wouldn't be so anti-gay. If your goal was to prevent birth out of wedlock, you'd hand out condoms from big bins at the church door. One is forced to conclude that being pro-life is actually all about controlling who has sex and with whom.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The analysis suggests that evangellos care only about conversionism on an individualized basis, everything else be damned. It says they care little for any social causes, and thus are willing to tolerate all sorts of social injustices including racism, economic inequlity, and are willing to support profoundly defective and harmful people like trumpy because they don't care about anything but 'winning souls'.

To elaborate on what Brenda Clough says, this is only true if you use 'social causes' to mean 'social justice issues'. Banning gay marriage, campaigning against affordable and effective health care, and keeping women out of public toilets because of their sex-assigned-at-birth all look like social causes. It goes well beyond tolerating racism and economic inequality and looks like actively embracing it.

As noted, UK evangelicalism is a different beast. I suspect (based on little to no rigourous evidential support) there are proportionately more middle-of-the-road Anglicans in UKIP than evangelical Anglicans.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

I would say that this is indeed true, with one very large exception: abortion. This cause, mysteriously, must be fought to the last ditch.

Which explains many things, but not why his approval ratings went *up* among evangelicals after his Charlottesville pronouncements.

quote:

If all you wanted was healthy marriages, you wouldn't be so anti-gay.

and if they were really anti-gay they'd be pushing prison reform heavily in order to get eliminate the epidemic of rape in the US prison system.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[

The analysis suggests that evangellos care only about conversionism on an individualized basis, everything else be damned. It says they care little for any social causes, and thus are willing to tolerate all sorts of social injustices including racism, economic inequlity, and are willing to support profoundly defective and harmful people like trumpy because they don't care about anything but 'winning souls'. Is this true? Is it partly true?
I would say that this is indeed true, with one very large exception: abortion. This cause, mysteriously, must be fought to the last ditch. Lyin' Don got their vote because he promised them a Supreme Court justice who would vote antiabortion. His multiple wives, indisputable adultery, and pussy-grabbing meant nothing if only this could be achieved.

The evangelical anti-abortion stance is not, however, supported by any logic. If you really wanted to have mothers birth babies, you would be a maniac about health care, for instance. If all you wanted was healthy marriages, you wouldn't be so anti-gay. If your goal was to prevent birth out of wedlock, you'd hand out condoms from big bins at the church door. One is forced to conclude that being pro-life is actually all about controlling who has sex and with whom.

I can only comment from a distance on this. Yet I would observe that this is a cause that US Evangelicals came to rather late in the game. Historically, it was the domain of Catholics (and possibly others though I don't have the insight to say who they may have been). And now it is de rigeur. What's going on here? The time-frame thing suggests there is something else going on also.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Oh, that's well-known. I can't find you the link just now, but look at the time line. Once civil rights legislation was passed during the Johnson administration, evangelicals suddenly discovered abortion. Previous to that point nearly every religious group (except the Catholics) supported it. The conservative churches needed another cause, now that they could only overtly target black people. It's a fundraising thing.

This is a free click, an article pondering when, if ever, evangelicals will stop making excuses for their favorite president.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Or, the classic solution: Blame Obama. Everything, from the defenestration of Prague to the death of the dinosaurs, can be easily and conveniently laid at Obama's door.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Brenda Clough wrote:

quote:
Oh, that's well-known. I can't find you the link just now, but look at the time line. Once civil rights legislation was passed during the Johnson administration, evangelicals suddenly discovered abortion.

Yes, I don't mean to suggest it is something hidden. But LBJ was the sixties, and I don't recall much of this position before the eighties. Nineties even for major traction. That seems to be too long a gap for that thesis alone.

Still, as I say I am not in the US.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

If you want to have an extended discussion on evangelicals and abortion, please head off to Read Horses.

Barnabas62
Purgatory (and DH) Hos

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Here is Jerry Falwell Jr. saying that it's offensive for anyone to call the president a racist. I assume it is OK to name him a serial adulterer and a self-confessed groper of women's genitals.

And here is the POST columnist calling out evangelicals for their cowardice and hypocrisy. This is not a good look on the church, folks. People will remember. No wonder young people are leaving the faith in droves.

[ 22. August 2017, 22:30: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oh, that's well-known. I can't find you the link just now, but look at the time line. Once civil rights legislation was passed during the Johnson administration, evangelicals suddenly discovered abortion. Previous to that point nearly every religious group (except the Catholics) supported it.

I'm going to quibble with that. I don't know of any religious groups that "supported" abortion. Many supported choice, or took a "it's between you and God" position, but that's different from supporting abortion.

I also think you're overselling the Evangelical change of position on abortion. For years it wasn't a big deal because it was illegal so many places, so there was little need to talk about it. Evangelical emphasis on abortion started with Roe v. Wade in 1973, and it became part of opposing the "un-Godly liberal agenda." The Civil Rights movement did play into that, too. That was a major impetus for the rise of "Christian" private schools in the late 60s and the 70s. (Along with evolution and school prayer.)

There is no question that much of American Evangelicalism has been highly selective when it comes to what is meant by "pro-life." There's also no question that there is a heavy emphasis on conversion and a personal relationship with Jesus, often to the exclusion of much else, including social justice. But another major trait, it seems to me, is a perceived connection between Christianity (of the Evangelucal variety, of course), patriotism and the idea of America as a chosen Christian nation.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

The "gay agenda" stuff was pushed hard, and doubled down on along with Jihad watch stuff. When aqt/Taliban/Isis promoters like Anjem choudhary were the loudest Islamic voice, I will admit to being interested in what Spencer had to say. Mea culpa.

But was a massive shock when they came out as neonazi.

It's been very confusing times when sat observing it all.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

There's a massive danger here of painting evangelicals as a "basket of deplorables" and then getting ourselves lathered up about a series of deplorable attitudes we can attach to that image.

I despair of white evangelical support for Trump as much as anyone, but if we are going to have a discussion here then we need to get past that.

The word analysis has been used on the thread but I can't find many figures. Is the support for Trump actually monolithic among white evangelicals or is it more patchy? And what does the black evangelical church say?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

On the plus side:

Some Evangelicals are environmentalists. There are organized groups, rooted in their faith.

Years ago, I heard an amusing incident on an anonymous radio show. You might class it as loosely New Age or generally spiritual. The host is basically about making the world better, however strange some of the host's ideas and methods might be.

Anyway, the guests that day were some young environmentalists. One young man happened to mention being Evangelical. (No fuss. Just mentioned it in passing.) The host choked, spluttered, and said "Really? You're WHAT?" Said it a couple of times. The host likes Jesus as a teacher, but is fundamentally against mainstream, official, institutional Christianity. So this was a *big* shock.

I still chuckle at this, after all these years.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

Seems as though Purity Culture and hardline American Evangelical culture was originated in the bunch we Brits booted out onto the Mayflower. downstream of them are Focus ont he Family and the whole Dobson/Falwell/Jeremiah/MacArthur ball of wax.

And then you had the dworkin/Mackinnon/Dobson tie-up during the Sex Wars, that got Atwood writing The Handmaid's Tale (and being reheated by Trump/Pence/May/Davis)- equally repressive on both sides of the spectrum...

Almost a reheat of Reagan/Thatcher...

when the antislavery stuff comes up - is the pond difference catered for, where we had Wilberforce etc, and the Royal Navy destroying the slavery networks?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To be fair, we didn't exactly 'boot out' the Pilgrim Fathers, they left on their own accord ... although things would certainly have been difficult for them had they stayed. That said, between 1620 and 1640 there was a steady growth of Separatist and independent churches and although they weren't regarded favourably very few of them felt the need to leave the country.

Also, to be fair, there were voices calling for the abolition of slavery very early on in US history. Pennsylvania voted to phase out slavery as early as 1780 from what I can gather, and several States adopted a policy of gradual emancipation.

I do tend to tease Americans about 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' not being extended to slaves and Native Americans, but as with all these things, the historical reality was more complex than that.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Brenda Clough wrote:
quote:
Oh, that's well-known. I can't find you the link just now, but look at the time line. Once civil rights legislation was passed during the Johnson administration, evangelicals suddenly discovered abortion.
Yes, I don't mean to suggest it is something hidden. But LBJ was the sixties, and I don't recall much of this position before the eighties. Nineties even for major traction. That seems to be too long a gap for that thesis alone.

Brenda's timeline is a little compressed. White American Evangelicals didn't suddenly do an about-face of civil rights in 1964 or 1965. Some were still openly advocating racist policies as late as 1983, though most had given up on the effort by that point. They didn't exactly embrace the civil rights movement, they just changed the subject.

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Evangelical emphasis on abortion started with Roe v. Wade in 1973, and it became part of opposing the "un-Godly liberal agenda."

Not really. A lot of prominent white evangelicals still considered abortion a morally neutral act for years after Roe v. Wade. The switch seems to have been flipped sometime in the late 70s / early 80s, about the time they were abandoning the idea of segregated private religious schools and trying to form common political cause with America's Catholics.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The word analysis has been used on the thread but I can't find many figures. Is the support for Trump actually monolithic among white evangelicals or is it more patchy? And what does the black evangelical church say?

Donald Trump got 81% of the white evangelical vote in 2016. That's a pretty monolithic percentage.

Black evangelicals seem quite alarmed (though not necessarily surprised) by support for Trump and the alt-right among their white counterparts. They seem willing to devote significant energy to convincing their white brothers and sisters that this is a big problem, an idea white American evangelicals seem to have a hard time accepting.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Among non-Christians the universal perception I get is hypocrisy. Evangelicals stand revealed as whited sepulchres, able and joyous in supporting a crass criminal if only they can sniff the delicious power. If (as seems likely) Crooked Don goes down in flames I fear the evangelical wing of Christianity in America will go down with him.

Even Satanists know better.

[ 23. August 2017, 15:01: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Warning signs were raised back in 1995 in the book Power religion, the Selling out of the Evangelical Church...

LOTS of warning signs and concerns from within evangelicalism, among them Jim Wallis' God Politics and Soong-Chan Rah's The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If (as seems likely) Crooked Don goes down in flames I fear the evangelical wing of Christianity in America will go down with him.

I don't think it'll matter whether or not Trump goes - they've still tied their name to his brand.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The modern Evangelical Movement in the United States was birthed shortly after the Supreme Court of the US desegregated schools (1955 circa). Many churches began setting up their own schools for white children. The NAE became a political force after the Internal Revenue Service threatened to deny the schools' tax exempt status because of their segregationist policies.

About this time Roe v Wade (the pro choice decision) was handed down. The NAE latched on to that because they said it allowed for abortion. Technically, it has nothing to do with abortion. It only says a woman has a right to make her own reproductive decisions, the state cannot interfere at least until the second trimester. Nevertheless, the NAE grabbed on to this.

Meanwhile, Roger Ailes, an aide to Richard Nixon had started a campaign, called the Southern Strategy, to wrest the Southern States away from the Democratic Party. The Southern States were upset with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act and the Voting Rights Act of subsequent years.

Since the majority of the NAE churches were concentrated in the Deep South, the GOP Southern Strategy focused on their people.

This has created a perfect storm, that allowed for the election of Donald Trump.

In many ways, I see this as the last gasp for the Baby Boom generation as well. This generation has seen a lot of changes. It was hit the hardest in the last deep recession. Consequently, people in the rust belt were grasping at straws when they moved into the Trump camp.

2020 will be a very interesting election. I look for a Gen X to when, and I see a number of the red states in the Deep South becoming purple if not totally blue.

But, in sum, the modern evangelical movement in the US has a racist tinge. It will be hard to shake off at least while Trump (their man) is in office.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Yes, large chunks of American Christianity are rooted in racism. You know why they're the =Southern= Baptists, right? Because the idea of sitting in a pew with a black person was intolerable. And that's also why there are different flavors of Methodism. African-American Methodists had to go and start their own churches, because white Methodists wouldn't fellowship with them. That the denominations (along with the Mormons) have more or less repented of this has no meaning, as long as they're in bed with a racist and anti-Semitical president.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Donald Trump got 81% of the white evangelical vote in 2016. That's a pretty monolithic percentage.

It's dispiritingly high enough. But only 22% more dispiriting than all protestant voters. And 24% more dispiriting than all white voters.

So no doubt evangelicalism has had a bad effect here, but it's not really the whole story.

From polls it looks like Trump's support has fallen over time. Is there evidence that the places it has clung on in are evangelical white places? I couldn't find this.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

From Jennifer Rubin's POST column earlier this week:
"Trump’s favorability among white evangelical Protestants never crossed 50 percent. Once he became the nominee, his favorability among white evangelicals shot up to 61 percent,” Robert P. Jones of PRRI tell me with regard to its recent polling. “This is a pretty typical pattern for white evangelicals, who are strong Republican partisans. It peaked at 74 percent right after his inauguration in February. It has decreased modestly to 65 percent in our most recent poll, but that is nearly 30 percentage points higher than Trump’s favorability among the general public.”

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Wishful thinking, maybe, but perhaps when The Orange Abomination does go down (or up) in flames, his 'religious advisers' will repent them of their conversion to Trumpianity (or should that be Trumpinanity?).

Having repented, they might then go back to their flocks, and start preaching the Gospel of Christ.

Probably not, but one can but hope...

IJ

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Evangelical emphasis on abortion started with Roe v. Wade in 1973, and it became part of opposing the "un-Godly liberal agenda."
Not really. A lot of prominent white evangelicals still considered abortion a morally neutral act for years after Roe v. Wade. The switch seems to have been flipped sometime in the late 70s / early 80s, about the time they were abandoning the idea of segregated private religious schools and trying to form common political cause with America's Catholics.

Thanks for that correction. I recall anti-abortion positions being taken by the evangelical side in the 70s, and I know there were some on that side who spoke out against Roe. But it's always good, I guess, to be reminded that one should exercise care when taking ones own experiences and (possibly faulty) memory and generalizing from them.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It has decreased modestly to 65 percent in our most recent poll, but that is nearly 30 percentage points higher than Trump’s favorability among the general public.”

So considering the general public includes the non-white voters, the difference between white evangelicals and white non-evangelicals is probably a similar 20 plus percentage points as was on the exit polls.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Wishful thinking, maybe, but perhaps when The Orange Abomination does go down (or up) in flames, his 'religious advisers' will repent them of their conversion to Trumpianity (or should that be Trumpinanity?).

Having repented, they might then go back to their flocks, and start preaching the Gospel of Christ.

IJ

It's imaginable, I suppose. But even if they did, would anyone believe them? There's such a thing as rendering yourself intolerable. In this day of YouTube videos, there will, forever and ever, be inconvenient footage or detailed news accounts of the pastor or advisor
proclaiming the president to be Anointed of God.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I don't think losing would change anything. The problem here is an overwhelming attachment to identity. They would vote for the devil himself if he was a republican.

I'm sure most would prefer a strong upstanding Republican Evangelical Christian over Trump who provided less cognitive dissonance, and if that was the choice would advise accordingly, but none are going to accept in retrospect that they should have supported Clinton over Trump.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Look, this is all very depressing, but Trump isn't going to end the Christian church or even the evangelical bit of it. What's going to happen (is happening already) is that we're all going to have our asses handed to us on a plate because Christianity has become associated with something deeply anti-Christian (as has happened many times before) and the broken-ness of the Church will be on full display (as has happened many times before) and none of us will escape it (because the non-Christian world by and large knows crap-all about the different groups within Christianity). And this is all going to suck mightily. And it will look like the end of the world.

But it isn't the end. Christ is still Lord of his Church. We'll repent (some of us) and get back to our proper business. Others of us will be revealed for the weeds that we are, and eventually (not too soon, [Waterworks]

) get separated out of the wheat. And the bulk of the Church will get on with what it's always been doing under the radar--praying, preaching, caring for the weak and poor, etc. etc. etc. without any TV coverage and nothing but sneers in social media, but ultimately, who cares? If we're doing now what Jesus wants us to do now, that's the opinion that matters. And he can deal with the other fall-out. Because we can't stop our fellow idiots any better than what we're doing now. (which we should be doing, I'm not saying we shouldn't protest--but we shouldn't set our hearts on being successful as if the Church would fall when they don't listen)

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm sure most would prefer a strong upstanding Republican Evangelical Christian over Trump

They'll have one shortly. His name is Mike Pence, and he's as upstanding as they get.

I have lots of friends in Indiana, and they're all very scared, having had him as governor.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

What Lamb Chopped said.

[Overused]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

in the Post today, a report of former Rep. Tom
Perriello twitter posts.
"He tweeted after the rally to denounce hate groups and President Trump’s equivocating response to the violent events. He also turned his fire on Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. after the prominent evangelical leader praised Trump for his “bold truthful stmt about #charlottesville tragedy.”

“The devil has his grip so firmly around @JerryFalwellJr that I’m praying for his exorcism. #Repent,” Perriello tweeted.

The former congressman also tweeted: “If you have a white pastor/priest who doesn’t preach on white supremacy as blasphemy against image of God in another, please say something.” And: “White evangelical leaders, your whiteness is the golden calf you choose to worship and idolize, in blasphemy of God’s word. #RepentNow.”

The GOP replied to the last of those with, “.@tomperriello Let’s not mince words: you are a Christian-hating bigot We were better off when you were out of the country #LeftWingBigot.”

Perriello, who served overseas in the State Department under President Barack Obama, later said he was not accusing all white evangelical leaders of racism, only those who do not preach that white supremacy is blasphemy.

“If they can produce a single Christian leader who agrees with their nonsense, I am happy to sit down with them,” he told The Washington Post. “Otherwise they should delete these tweets that insult Christianity and stoke hate.”

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Probably not completely factual, but a California friend messaged that a fit of humour a young person told them that he would tell anyone who said they were Christian "no, you worship Satan". My thought was "that's not funny". Except it is. Satan does appear to be lord of some of these "christians". I do not know you, He said.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Here is a report of a great evangelical and a true Christian leader standing up to a segregationist. If you don't have POST access, it is how as governor of Georgia Jimmy Carter whipped his lieutenant governor Lester Maddox (famed for driving black teens out of his restaurant with a club) into line.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

How are the mighty fallen. You've had courageous and upright Presidents like Carter and Obama (OK, OK, I know they weren't perfect), and doubtless others as well, and you end up with the Man With A Cat On His Head.

Oh, sorry - MWACOHH endorsed and anointed by some god or other...

[Disappointed]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
MWACOHH endorsed and anointed by some god or other...

Moloch.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What's going to happen (is happening already) is that we're all going to have our asses handed to us on a plate because Christianity has become associated with something deeply anti-Christian (as has happened many times before)

You are right, we're forgetting a historical perspective here. Crusades, Charlemagne, the inquisition, burning witches... it is hardly a break with form here. I'm not sure if I find that entirely cheering on the other hand...

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Re historical perspective on evil things done in the name of Christianity:

CS Lewis wrote that, someday, a Christian should write a book of all the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, and apologize for them.

Many people have attempted a list. Here's one:

"Victims Of The Christian Faith: Listed are only events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)" (Truth Be Known).

The site is not exactly pro Christianity. But I've heard of a good many of the incidents, so I think the list is probably in sync with more mainstream sources. I used this because it went beyond the "Top 10 Christian Atrocities" approach of other sites.

Personally, I'd add treatment of LGBT folks, and covering up sexual abuse.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, we didn't exactly 'boot out' the Pilgrim Fathers, they left on their own accord ... although things would certainly have been difficult for them had they stayed. That said, between 1620 and 1640 there was a steady growth of Separatist and independent churches and although they weren't regarded favourably very few of them felt the need to leave the country.

Also, to be fair, there were voices calling for the abolition of slavery very early on in US history. Pennsylvania voted to phase out slavery as early as 1780 from what I can gather, and several States adopted a policy of gradual emancipation.

I do tend to tease Americans about 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' not being extended to slaves and Native Americans, but as with all these things, the historical reality was more complex than that.

Got REALLY confusing back in the 80s and 90s, as most of the books and material in Christian bookshops was of American origin - so the political views were somewhat obscured and everything written based around this cultural war... a very easy tarpit for an autistic brain to lock into and get sucked into. Then add Josh Harris going even MORE legalistic...

I remember the Texe Marrs stuff, and the way the EU was ranted against - also locked into the whole Murdoch press thing.. I was actually very close to voting Leave - until I talked about it all - and remembered how much support the EU gives to ASD folks... I voted Remain..

Of course - this side of the pond we gufawed at Jack Chick etc - and the moral panics over RPGs..

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, large chunks of American Christianity are rooted in racism. You know why they're the =Southern= Baptists, right? Because the idea of sitting in a pew with a black person was intolerable. And that's also why there are different flavors of Methodism. African-American Methodists had to go and start their own churches, because white Methodists wouldn't fellowship with them. That the denominations (along with the Mormons) have more or less repented of this has no meaning, as long as they're in bed with a racist and anti-Semitical president.

Would that also have driven all the "nigger rock and roll bop" invective in the 50s, which led to Chitlin Circuit acts bouncing round via the UK and then getting booked in WASP venues?

Assoc Rediffusion and BBC helping out there?

Nice bit of shortsightedness there...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

From polls it looks like Trump's support has fallen over time. Is there evidence that the places it has clung on in are evangelical white places? I couldn't find this.

His approval ratings have dropped. This is a different beast than support

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I don't follow the point.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, large chunks of American Christianity are rooted in racism. You know why they're the =Southern= Baptists, right? Because the idea of sitting in a pew with a black person was intolerable. And that's also why there are different flavors of Methodism. African-American Methodists had to go and start their own churches, because white Methodists wouldn't fellowship with them. That the denominations (along with the Mormons) have more or less repented of this has no meaning, as long as they're in bed with a racist and anti-Semitical president.
Would that also have driven all the "nigger rock and roll bop" invective in the 50s, which led to Chitlin Circuit acts bouncing round via the UK and then getting booked in WASP venues?

Assoc Rediffusion and BBC helping out there?

Nice bit of shortsightedness there...

Cultural appropriation and the white-ification of other folks' music and/or art is probably a big enough subject that we could start a separate topic.
I spend all day every day culturally appropriating, and so I think that music, literature and art is a very different thing than overt racism. For one thing, it's a pleasantly two-way street. Write about Chinese girls if you want; I'm writing about white men.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

In a speech, the president of the American Atheists says there is no room in atheism for bigotry. You know it's bad, when atheists do what Christians won't.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Trump is racist by being a billionaire, by being Republican, by being the beneficiary of the slaving racist Reformation of the slaving racist Catholic church. Privilege, power is racist. Privilege in the West makes you white. And I was white to begin with. The problem is racism.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In a speech, the president of the American Atheists says there is no room in atheism for bigotry. You know it's bad, when atheists do what Christians won't.

Just because someone says they're Christian doesn't mean it is true. I know the "born again" meme is that if you utter the magic Jesus prayer or some such, your ticket to heaven and everlasting life is booked, paid for, guaranteed and the Silver Engine won't take the Train of Salvation to heaven except if you're all aboard, but it isn't enough if you didn't actually care to accept grace and merely went through the motions. There's something somewhere in Luke 13 somewhere in the mid 20s for verses about "I don't know you" and "get away you evil doers". I think it applies.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Just because you don't like what they think, you can't disavow someone's Christianity.
Christianity and racism have walked arm in arm for a long time. Disown what they believe, but pretending they aren't "real" Christians is ridiculous.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

There's a Lutheran church in Berlin with swatikas and Wehrmacht soldier images in the wood carvings and stained glass. We are allowed to call bullshit on claims of Christianity. By the fruits, some of which are rotted to the core.

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Yes, large chunks of American Christianity are rooted in racism. You know why they're the =Southern= Baptists, right? Because the idea of sitting in a pew with a black person was intolerable. And that's also why there are different flavors of Methodism. African-American Methodists had to go and start their own churches, because white Methodists wouldn't fellowship with them. That the denominations (along with the Mormons) have more or less repented of this has no meaning, as long as they're in bed with a racist and anti-Semitical president.
Would that also have driven all the "nigger rock and roll bop" invective in the 50s, which led to Chitlin Circuit acts bouncing round via the UK and then getting booked in WASP venues?

Assoc Rediffusion and BBC helping out there?

Nice bit of shortsightedness there...
Cultural appropriation and the white-ification of other folks' music and/or art is probably a big enough subject that we could start a separate topic.
I spend all day every day culturally appropriating, and so I think that music, literature and art is a very different thing than overt racism. For one thing, it's a pleasantly two-way street. Write about Chinese girls if you want; I'm writing about white men.

Good point. What I was referring to was how black acts were able to springboard into playing major places in the States after performing in the UK. Rather than PAt Boone covering Little Richard - the Upsetters, John Lee Hookers, Broonzy, Booker T etc etc played the UK, and ended up on Bandstand via UK tours...

Happened a LOT back in the 60s. Bandstand would air ready Steady Go and Top of the Pops clips.. same as TOTP airing Soul Train footage here..

Uk was and is more gender egalitarian - and sadly we've seen the racists come out on the back of Brexit...

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Religious leaders are holding a rally in Washington on Monday. It is the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Had a Dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial. Alas, it's a work day and so I am not going to go.

[ 25. August 2017, 20:01: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Oh, and because of the oncoming hurricane in Texas, the POST has dropped its paywall. So you can enjoy today's article about the Catholic Church denouncing racism. There's also one, in the same Acts of Faith section, about Jewish leaders refusing the annual conference call with the president. Since it had been started by Obama, I doubt if Lyin' Don is really interested, however.

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

Rushes off to read the POST. Thanks, Brenda.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In a speech, the president of the American Atheists says there is no room in atheism for bigotry. You know it's bad, when atheists do what Christians won't.

The negative self-awareness rating a person needs to make that statement is mind-blowing. What about the anti-religious museums of Soviet Russia? What about the persecution of many faithful believers in a multiplicity of faiths in Soviet Russia, Mao's China, North Korea etc? And nearer home what about Professor Dawkins?

The bigot label fits all those just as well as it has ever fitted any of our own home grown bigots.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Enoch, if you read the article you will see that you have spectacularly missed the point.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

When I say the problem is racism, I mean the unacknowledged, even vehemently denied racism ("He hasn't got a racist bone in his body.") that goes with privilege, that goes with not just being a survivor of history, each sitting on our mountain of corpses, but sitting on a pyramid of up to billions of the living and freshly dead. Who are predominantly non-white.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's a Lutheran church in Berlin with swatikas and Wehrmacht soldier images in the wood carvings and stained glass. We are allowed to call bullshit on claims of Christianity. By the fruits, some of which are rotted to the core.

You can challenge how they live their Christianity, but if you go down the road of judging whether they are actually Christian, you'll be left with no members but yourself.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's a Lutheran church in Berlin with swatikas and Wehrmacht soldier images in the wood carvings and stained glass. We are allowed to call bullshit on claims of Christianity. By the fruits, some of which are rotted to the core.

That'll be the Martin Luther Gedächtniskirche with the historical and artistic details explained here (pdf) in all its shocking detail.

Apparently it is now kept as a memorial - so nobody can deny that it happened. I understand that a Protestant church continues to hold services in the building.

I'm not sure I could do that.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Christ deserves better followers than he gets among the racist-evangellos. Why do Jesus' teachings appeal so strongly to people of narrow and malignant nature? Who use it for their own ends?

So we're all God's children. Well, some of us are a disgrace to the family.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Christ deserves better followers than he gets among the racist-evangellos. Why do Jesus' teachings appeal so strongly to people of narrow and malignant nature?

Jesus' actual teachings don't appeal to these people at all, but then they don't really appear to know anything about Jesus' actual teachings.

I think what attracts them to the label is that being a Christian and being a good American are synonymous throughout much of Sarah Palin's "real America."

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Christ deserves better followers than he gets among the racist-evangellos. Why do Jesus' teachings appeal so strongly to people of narrow and malignant nature? Who use it for their own ends?

So we're all God's children. Well, some of us are a disgrace to the family.

Look mate, he deserves better in ALL of us. Why are we sainted liberals so CRAP at embracing racist-evangellos? You know, loving our enemies? Why did Trump follow Obama?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
When I say the problem is racism, I mean the unacknowledged, even vehemently denied racism ("He hasn't got a racist bone in his body.") that goes with privilege

I think there s a significant proportion of white evangelicals in the US who either don't think that racism exists any longer, or thinks that it doesn't exist on a structural level. Hence the reactions they have to BLM in particular (the charge that BLM are racist).

I'd draw some parallels with the point Doc Tor makes in this post here:

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020263;p=9#000409

The left in the UK understands that there are times when the police uphold the establishment rather than the law. Certain minority groups also understand this. US Evangelicals seemingly not so much. So you get stuff like this tweeted by Rodney Howard-Browne of 'Toronto Blessing' fame (also on Trumps advisory board):

https://twitter.com/rhowardbrowne/status/897034833951469568

"We strongly condemn all white supremacists, KKK, Antifa and Black Lives Matter, Main Stream Media in the strongest of terms !!!!!"

[Look at his followups too]

If you follow the twitter feeds of the folk on that side of evangelicalism, there are loads who re-tweet things by prisonplanet, alexjones and so on. I suspect the dispensational backgrounds of such people lends itself to conspiratorial thinking.

[ 26. August 2017, 21:21: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think there s a significant proportion of white evangelicals in the US who either don't think that racism exists any longer, or thinks that it doesn't exist on a structural level. Hence the reactions they have to BLM in particular (the charge that BLM are racist).

ISTM, there is a mix of issues here. People think if they do not hate or actively oppress, that they are not racist. Sorting out advantage is difficult. People think in Zero-Sum terms. If they get more, I get less.
And there is the Backfire Effect.

quote:

I suspect the dispensational backgrounds of such people lends itself to conspiratorial thinking.

If one rejects critical thinking in one area...

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

A substantial number of white evangelicals in the US not only believes that there is no prejudice against black persons, they believe that white people are discriminated against, and that Christians are persecuted. Somehow the Christmas season (due to begin any day now) in all its overwhelming presence in our culture does not mean we are not persecuted. To quote Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What a fucking disgrace RHB is. It ALL fits. Charismatic BOLLOCKS. Ah well. The thing is Doc is right. Because as MKG said, Christianity would be a good idea. In its absence, we'll have to have the failing left, it loses nearly every battle but might win the war at everybody else's expense.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The alt-right has its alt-Christianity, just like extremists in the Middle East have their alt-Islam.
The money quote: "If we don’t provide emerging generations with genuine identity, community and purpose through robust and vibrant spiritual communities, somebody else will do so. If good religion slumbers and stagnates, bad religion is the alternative."

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Historically speaking good religion only ever slumbers and stagnates, that's what its for. Bad religion emerges when inequality goes beyond the unbearable: people seem to be able to bear unbearable shit for lifetimes and centuries with sufficient 'good' religion. What makes them start squishing us on our shopping malls?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

Jeff Sharlet on the Lost Cause and the homeschooling movement:

https://wp.nyu.edu/therevealer/2017/08/22/stonewall-jackson-fundamentalisms-mythic-past/

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Christ deserves better followers than he gets among the racist-evangellos. Why do Jesus' teachings appeal so strongly to people of narrow and malignant nature? Who use it for their own ends?

You don't get it.

It's not the words of Jesus that appeal. It's not racism that appeals. It's conservatism - the idea that tradition is of God, tradition is normative, that the way things used to be is the way things should be. Used to be when ? In the Golden Age of America, when everything was better than it is now. Located somewhen after the Civil War and somewhen before the 1960s.

That is a very attractive worldview to a certain type of person.

I find the American usage of "conservative" for "right-wing" deeply unhelpful.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You don't get it.

It's not the words of Jesus that appeal. It's not racism that appeals. It's conservatism - the idea that tradition is of God, tradition is normative, that the way things used to be is the way things should be. Used to be when ? In the Golden Age of America, when everything was better than it is now.

There is an element of this - but equally there is an element of '...when everything was better than it was now and when blacks and jews knew their place', look at the where 'christian private schools' grew most post de-segregation.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
...there is an element of '...when everything was better than it was now and when blacks and jews knew their place', look at the where 'christian private schools' grew most post de-segregation.

Many parents took their kids out of public schools at the time of de-segregation because the integration programs were so badly managed. My brother-in-law lived in Birmingham, Alabama. Their son went to integrated public schools for the first three grades. He was in a different school each year with different classmates. At the end of third grade, his parents were told that they would be given information during the summer about where he would attend fourth grade. Two weeks before the opening of school, his mother phoned and asked what school he had been assigned to. She was told that they hadn't worked it out yet, but they would let her know before school started. At this point they enrolled him in a private Baptist school.

The adjustment to a new school every year is hard on a child. The boy spent the next several years at the same school with the same classmates. It was much better for him.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
...there is an element of '...when everything was better than it was now and when blacks and jews knew their place', look at the where 'christian private schools' grew most post de-segregation.
Many parents took their kids out of public schools at the time of de-segregation because the integration programs were so badly managed. My brother-in-law lived in Birmingham, Alabama. Their son went to integrated public schools for the first three grades. He was in a different school each year with different classmates. At the end of third grade, his parents were told that they would be given information during the summer about where he would attend fourth grade. Two weeks before the opening of school, his mother phoned and asked what school he had been assigned to. She was told that they hadn't worked it out yet, but they would let her know before school started. At this point they enrolled him in a private Baptist school.

The adjustment to a new school every year is hard on a child. The boy spent the next several years at the same school with the same classmates. It was much better for him.

I think it entirely depends on what you mean by many. I don't think it is by any means a stretch to say the the vast majority moved their children because of idea of desegregation rather than its implementation. Given the church separations, the protests against desegregation, Jim Crow...It is rather a stretch to impart motives other than racism to very many.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

This is a free click, today: the 'Million Minister' march opposed by conservative clergy. I am thrilled to hear that there is a group "POTUS Shield" to pray for the president. But they should work harder at it.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am thrilled to hear that there is a group "POTUS Shield" to pray for the president. But they should work harder at it.

So true.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Christ deserves better followers than he gets among the racist-evangellos. Why do Jesus' teachings appeal so strongly to people of narrow and malignant nature? Who use it for their own ends?
You don't get it.

It's not the words of Jesus that appeal. It's not racism that appeals. It's conservatism - the idea that tradition is of God, tradition is normative, that the way things used to be is the way things should be. Used to be when ? In the Golden Age of America, when everything was better than it is now. Located somewhen after the Civil War and somewhen before the 1960s.

That is a very attractive worldview to a certain type of person.

I find the American usage of "conservative" for "right-wing" deeply unhelpful.

A quote from a retired Chancellor of a theological college comes to mind, Russ.

There are indeed some people for whom the idea of change is disturbing and they are indeed attracted to conservative churches. But here is the quote, probably prophetic, from that retired Chancellor (at an ordination for a radical, forward looking priest).

"If you remember nothing else that I say this evening please remember this. The seven last words of the church are as follows.

We've
Never
Done
It
This
Way
Before."

I underline this observation with a quote from James Blish's "A Case of Conscience".

"He had wanted nothing to change
And now was, unchangeably, nothing".

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
I think it entirely depends on what you mean by many. I don't think it is by any means a stretch to say the the vast majority moved their children because of idea of desegregation rather than its implementation. Given the church separations, the protests against desegregation, Jim Crow...It is rather a stretch to impart motives other than racism to very many.

You are guessing; you may be right.

The statistic that would settle the question is,
AFAIK, not available. We need to know whether many children transferred to private schools after one or more years in integrated schools.

My in-laws were quite willing to have their son in integrated schools if the school system had been well-run. I suspect that many other parents put their kids in private schools when the school system said they didn't know what school the kids would attend. The school system failed to meet what many would consider a minimum standard.

Moo

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

The statistic that would settle the question is,
AFAIK, not available. We need to know whether many children transferred to private schools after one or more years in integrated schools.

You could also look at the forms those alternate schools took. This is an incomplete list, and there are other forms this kind of thing would have taken.

[ 28. August 2017, 22:11: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
You are guessing; you may be right.

I'm not guessing, but making a reasonable conclusion from the evidence available from pre segregation to the present. Could be wrong, but it is less probable.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0