Progressive Christian Writer: The "White American Church" Is Destroying America

[NeoGreen]

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/02/08/progressive-christian-writer-the-white-american-church-is-destroying-america/

Progressive Christian Writer: The “White American Church” Is Destroying America
By Sarahbeth Caplin, February 8, 2019

No matter what Donald Trump or the GOP tells you, white nationalism — not secularism, and certainly not immigrants — is destroying America. That’s according to Stephen Mattson, writing for the progressive Christian group Sojourners.

This is the state of our “Christian” nation: Our government isn’t working, and when it does it’s on behalf of behemoth corporations and influential lobbyists. Elected officials are openly racist, sexist, and xenophobic — without consequence. Police continue to kill people of color and jails have become a modernized form of slavery. The military is mired in endless violence throughout the world, participating in wars far beyond the interests of our citizenry, and defense contractors reap the profits. Teachers are underpaid, schools underfunded, and students underfed, but our president wants to spend billions on a wall he promised our country would never have to pay for.
…
American Christianity brought us to this point. It preached nationalism and sanctified American imperialism — promoting Manifest Destiny as ordained by God. The prosperity gospel baptized capitalistic greed, its preachers vilified the poor, and its theologians manipulated scripture to rationalize global colonialism. Salvation was no longer personified through Jesus, but was redesigned to be a political machine, fueled by its ability to control branches of government. This methodology was packaged as “Christianity,” and the gospel became a message of gaining social power and control rather than a call to follow Jesus’ life of selfless service and sacrifice.

I would take Mattson’s criticism a step further and address something else I’ve noticed about American Christians: Many of them lack a vital sense of self-awareness when it comes to addressing their flaws. Too many of them refuse to learn from their own history, especially since it’s easier to dismiss it with a wave of No True Scotsman — our slave-owning, land-stealing ancestors obviously weren’t True Christians™.

Instead, any attempt to open their eyes and look around — or even open up a history book — is met with unjustified accusations of persecution and intolerance.

Worth repeating:

Instead, any attempt to open their eyes and look around — or even open up a history book — is met with unjustified accusations of persecution and intolerance.

We've never seen that happen here, have we?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=307601

[2naSalit]

1. K&R

[Act_of_Reparation]

2. The people with the power and influence to ruin America are the ones ruining America?

Last edited Mon Feb 11, 2019, 10:16 AM - Edit history (1)

[trotsky]

3. But Boston Atheists kicked a Trump supporter out of their group!

That's the REAL intolerance, dontchaknow?

[sprinkleeninow]

4. Don't lump me, myself and I in with this American 'christianity'.

TIA.

[guillaumeb]

5. "White nationalism" is the issue. eom

[Lordquinton]

6. White supremacy has deep christian roots

look at the KKK and such.

[NeoGreen]

7. Is there any other kind?

I'm not really sure, but I've never heard of a Jewish, Islamic, Atheist, Buddhist, Jain or any other class of person(s) associated with White Supremacy/Nationalism.

Just one distinguishable class of person(s): christian.

[marylandblue]

8. There are a few neo-pagan white nationalists

Last edited Mon Feb 11, 2019, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wotansvolk

[guillaumeb]

10. Interesting that you would say this:

Richard Spencer, the white supremacist and movement figurehead who coined the term " alt-right," discussed his atheism last year in an interview with atheist blogger David McAfee. When he posted the interview on his own website, Spencer retitled it “The Alt Right and Secular Humanism,” leaving no doubt that he sees atheism and humanism as linked to his cause. Yet I don’t know of any prominent atheist, humanist, or secular organizations that took the opportunity to condemn Spencer.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3k7jx8/too-many-atheists-are-veering-dangerously-toward-the-alt-right

Edited to add:

In response to the demonstrations of white supremacists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Virginia, American Atheists president David Silverman and International Humanist and Ethical Union president Andrew Copson released the following joint statement:

https://www.atheists.org/2017/08/charlottesville/

[Lordquinton]

13. "Too Many Atheists Are Veering Dangerously Toward the Alt-Right"

Not supported by facts.

[guillaumeb]

15. What you mean is:

it does not agree with my pre-determined viewpoint, so I reject it. Confirmation bias?

[MineralMan]

16. No, it means that the claim is not supported with facts.

Just as that DUer said.

If you can find facts, please present them. Otherwise you have simply presented someone else's opinion, as usual.

Start digging for those facts, Guy. If you find them, drop them in the thread.

[guillaumeb]

17. Again, slightly reworded,

but the same demonstration of confirmation bias.

[MineralMan]

18. Why would it surprise you that more than one person asked you

for evidence? Why have you not presented such evidence? I think we all know the answer to that question. That you named only Richard Spencer in your excerpt is telling. Your attempt to tie atheism to a rabid white nationalist is about as weak as can be. Atheism has no doctrine, nor dogma. Individual atheists can have any ideas, including abhorrent ones. Atheists are not tied together by anything though.

But you knew that...

[guillaumeb]

19. Do you understand that the original post is based on a blog post?

And that it represents one person's opinion?

If you do not, that might explain your apparent confusion.

[MineralMan]

20. Do you not understand that I mentioned that very fact in

my first post in this subthread? It is your habit to post brief excerpts of other people's opinions, rather than posting your own opinions. You post them without remarks, in most cases. People take that as evidence that you agree with your excerpt.

Then, you defend the statement in the excerpt. One person, a well-known white nationalist, is an atheist. For you, apparently, that is typical of atheists.

We mentioned that, and asked for further evidence, which has not been forthcoming. Why? Because there is no such evidence. You know that, but persist in your folly.

[guillaumeb]

21. No, you actually did not. Here is your first post:

16. No, it means that the claim is not supported with facts.

Just as that DUer said.

If you can find facts, please present them. Otherwise you have simply presented someone else's opinion, as usual.

Start digging for those facts, Guy. If you find them, drop them in the thread.

You were referring to my response, not the original blog post that apparently is seen as "evidence" by some here.

I hope that this helps.

[Lordquinton]

23. I mean what I said

Not what you made up what I said.

[guillaumeb]

30. There is the literal meaning of the words,

and the underlying motivation and meaning.

[NeoGreen]

31. Until it is all dismissed as metaphor. (nt)

[guillaumeb]

32. Metaphor is a non-literal reading. eom

[NeoGreen]

45. Yep, so that the text dosen't mean what is actually written...

...allowing the reader to infer what ever meaning they so desire.

So that,

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Means,

"I've come to bring butterflies and tupperware, to this totes awsume party, dudes."

[guillaumeb]

47. The first statement is clearly metaphorical.

As opposed to the statement from Jesus to Peter, telling Peter to literally put up his sword.

[NeoGreen]

50. Cool story bro. (nt)

[guillaumeb]

51. Weak dismissal.

Understood.

[NeoGreen]

52. Sure, let's go with that and call it a day. (nt)

[MineralMan]

33. You are not qualified to speak about anyone's motivation and meaning

who is not you. You think you are qualified, but you are clearly not.

The minute you comment on what was not said, but you think was meant, you fail.

You know nobody's thoughts or motivations except your own.

[guillaumeb]

35. And do you feel qualified?

Because many of your comments here, your opinions I should say, leave that very impression.

[MineralMan]

39. My comments are my opinions.

It says so under every post. You are free to dismiss them at your pleasure. I am free to voice them. Everything I write her can be considered to be an opinion, unless I back it up with links to actual data.

However, I do not tie people words to unspoken motivations. I have no way to know what motivates you, for example. It is a complete mystery, really. I, and others, have tried to ask you about your beliefs, but you refuse to share them. So, we have only your words on which to base our opinions of what you say.

You have seen the results of that. You will continue to see the results of what you write here. That, I guarantee.

[Lordquinton]

36. What does that mean?

Please explain yourself for once in plain language, not intentionally vague phrasing.

[guillaumeb]

38. What did you not understand?

Many things are written with levels of meaning.

The creation story in Genesis can be read literally and metaphorically.

[Lordquinton]

40. So what are you saying?

Why did you say that about my post?

[marylandblue]

68. How many atheists turning right would be the optimum amount?

[Lordquinton]

72. The same amount as Christians turning right.

[marylandblue]

73. Well, I would pin that number as zero.

Since the author identified one prominent alt-right atheist trying to create a secular white nationalist movement, that's already one too many. He also identifies several cases where atheists repeated racist or misogynistic right-wing tropes, which he seems to think is a problem all by itself, even if those atheists are not part of the alt-right.

[Lordquinton]

74. One atheist joined a Christian movement

Therefore atheists have a problem.

I'm not trying to say that atheists are never right wing, I'm disputing the claim that atheists have a problem.

[marylandblue]

75. The article was clearly talking about more than that

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2019, 12:18 PM - Edit history (2)

It's not that Spenser joined a Christian movement. It's that he created the alt-right as a secular alternative to Christian-based white nationalism. The alt-right is working because it is picking up disaffected young white males who are either atheists or loosely connected to religion. He links to article discussing that in more detail.

He also complains about prominent members of the New Atheist movement picking up misogynistic, racist and Islamophobic right wing tropes. He blames the decline of New Atheism on this problem.

And lastly, he complains about atheists organizations who don't condemn misogynistic and racist rhetoric from other atheists.

Whether you agree or disagree with him, he is definitely talking about more than one person and IMHO provided a lot of interesting links about the issues he discusses.

[rurallib]

56. Atheism is a non-belief in one thing. To lump all atheists

as if they were all in something like a church is just plain wrong and quite misleading.

[guillaumeb]

58. I do not put atheists or theists in one simple category.

As my 2 contradictory links show.

[Voltaire2]

63. Nazi said what?

Please provide polling data that demonstrates the right wing proclivities if atheists.

I’ll wait.

[guillaumeb]

9. Are white supremacist attitudes limited to Christians?

We both know the answer.

[Lordquinton]

12. Yes, it is a Christian based system

Of course you are carefully reframing it to "Not everyone who is a white supremacist is christian, therefore it has nothing to do with it" but if you don't know that it's rots and scaffolding are intractably intertwined with christian thinking, then you should probably do some research.

Unless you already know that and are desperately trying to muddy the waters enough to make it seem like you gained some footing.

[NeoGreen]

14. It takes a special kind of Cogniative Dissonance to argue against...

...someone who steps up and says (in a metaphorical sense), this sand dune looks to be Tan, or maybe even light brownish mustard in color:


only to drop down and dig until they find that contravening grain of sand, or 2:


They don't realize that the 'exception' they are touting helps prove the general rule.

I stand by my original (admittantly sweeping and apriori generalizing) statement: As a class of persons, white supremacists are christian.

In retort to the case of the neo-pagan white supremacists discussed above, if I were to really bother and waste my time that is, would be to ask, where did these 'Wotansvolk' (i.e. white nationalist, neo-völkisch pagans) get the idea of white supremacy?

More son's of ham derivative BS?

Hmmmm...where did that come from?

And just what is a 'Wotansvolk'?

although Lane said one could be a deist, a pantheist, or an atheist and still be Wotansvolk.

WTFrak does that mean? It's all metaphor again?

[Lordquinton]

22. We're also running into another classic deflection

We're talking about white supremacy, and suddenly it gets reframed to white supremacists. Just like when a discussion about Christianity is taking place and it gets reframed to Christians.

The whole neopagan bit is a strong undertone, but it's still rooted in the same origins as the rest of it. When you peel back the layers you don't find anything about Scandinavian theology, you find the same Christian roots.

Of course we're also dealing with a person who saw a poll that showed a small amount of atheists believed in some sort of divine spirit and immediately jumped to "some atheists believe in God" instead of using the powers of deductive reasoning to realize that that's just a stupid thing to say.

[NeoGreen]

26. I do get somewhat annoyed when...

...a 'pearl clutcher' internalizes a criticism of an idea.

<Gasp> "I'm offended by that..."



So what?






When it comes to ideas, they can be, should be, and will be challenged.

[Lordquinton]

34. I think it's much simpler than constantly being offended

Their position is undefendable, so they turn it into a personal attack against themselves so they can control the perception of the debate, rather than try to win it on merit.

It's funny when paired with their own arguments that are the same as the ones they make up to be offended by. There is a white supremacist that happens to be an atheist, therefore atheism has a problem.

[guillaumeb]

37. Apply #33 to your remarks.

You are not qualified to determine what motivates others.

[Lordquinton]

41. White supremacy is a Christian based system

Full stop.

I am not talking about individual motivation for being a supremacist, I'm talking about the system.

[guillaumeb]

42. White supremacy in a majority white, majority Christian country,

uses Christian language and imagery to justify supremacy. But given that Jesus was not white, and given that race was not really a concept in 5800 BCE, or in 33CE, white supremacy did not exist.

Christianity is not inherently a system of white supremacy, nor was it designed to be.

[Lordquinton]

54. Clearly you are ignorant on the subject

You should find some sources. I suggest starting with an early pre Roger and me Michael Moore documentary called Blood in the Face (which refers to blushing, showing you have blood, not violence) as a starting point.

[guillaumeb]

57. Clearly........something.

Feel free to find a link between Semitic Jesus and white supremacists.

Perhaps in the undocumented years Jesus visited Europe and forged ties with Aryans?

[Lordquinton]

67. And instead of honestly engaging in the discussion you again just try to reframe

But while we're on the subject, perhaps you can supply the missing evidence that Jesus actually existed.

[MineralMan]

43. Please do not refer to my posts in chiding another poster.

That post #33 was directed specifically to you, not to anyone else. Use your own words, Guy, not mine, if you can come up with any.

[guillaumeb]

44. More insult and condescension. As expected. Why do you feel this need to insult others?

So are you saying you use different standards for theists versus non-theists?

That explains much.

[MineralMan]

46. Please stop.

Post #33 was directed to you, and referred to a previous post of yours. It was meant for you, not for anyone else. If you can't think of the words to use in your own postings, it's not acceptable to simply refer someone to a post made by someone else.

Your habit of simply referencing other posts by number is annoying to me. It requires me to go look for that post to see what it is you think you're trying to say. All too often, the post referred to isn't even your words. I realize that it's easier to attempt a diversion than to actually think of something to write, but I wish you would not use my posts as though I am speaking for you. I am never speaking for you, Guy, and if you co-opt my words, you can count on me to object, as I am in this thread.

[guillaumeb]

48. And the constant insults?

Are you blaming that on me using reply numbers also?

Given that you often reply to posts not directed to you, as you did ironically enough in this sub-thread, your comment is puzzling.

[MineralMan]

49. Any DUer can reply to whatever posts he or she pleases.

That's the nature of this place.

That said, I am quite finished with this subthread.

[Mariana]

69. Poor, poor persecuted Gil.

Yes, people who disagree with you get to post here, too. They get to reply to any posts in any thread they wish, too. How unspeakably awful that must be for you.

[guillaumeb]

71. Copying "t".

Almost word for word. Almost, in harmony.

[trotsky]

24. You do no one any favors by trying to rewrite history and ignore reality.

https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2018/03/08/hard-truths-about-white-supremacy-america

"We need to interrogate the relationship of White supremacy and Christian identity. What this investigation will help us see is that the theology of Christian supremacy gave birth to the ideology of White supremacy, and that White supremacy grew from a dangerous ideology to an accepted position inherited by Whites. The systems and structures of White supremacy have been intimately joined with Christian supremacy, such that undoing White supremacy will also require relinquishing the ideologies and theologies of Christian supremacy." -- Jeannine Hill Fletcher

[NeoGreen]

25. Yep, I thought so...

I was on the mark when i asked:

...where did these 'Wotansvolk' (i.e. white nationalist, neo-völkisch pagans) get the idea of white supremacy?

More son's of ham derivative BS?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=307868

[trotsky]

29. Absolutely.

It's disgusting seeing people like guillaumeb trying to pretend that religion has no role. They cannot be allowed to rewrite history.

[MineralMan]

59. But wait, there's this one atheist who is a racist.

No doubt there are more...just wait...I'll find some...wait just a little longer...they're there, I know...I'll get back to you.

[trotsky]

60. Don't forget Boston Atheists kicking out the obnoxious Trump supporter!

The ULTIMATE in atheistic intolerance!

[MineralMan]

64. But, wait...DU does that, too...

Hmm...

[trotsky]

65. It's only intolerant when atheists do it.

Duh.

[MineralMan]

66. Damn! I always forget that...

[Voltaire2]

62. Lulzd

[demigoddess]

11. yes, when I was a kid, what went on in churches stayed in churches.

now it is all over the news. Of course, now there are the abuse cases, many churches have that problem. How can they tell other people what to do when they abuse children so frequently. We have even had some cases nearby.

[Panich52]

27. Recent Ch et istian theocratic ruling by SCOTUS is proof

Condemned prisoner forced to have Christian counsel instead of one of his choice
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/scotus-disregards-establishment-clause-to-expedite-prisoner-death-1439948355738

[walkingman]

28. I really believe that parts of the country would be a Theocracy if possible.

[atreides1]

53. A Dictatorial Theocracy

Ruled by whites, practicing a religion they made up to fit their viewpoint, with people of color and women given no status in society!

[rurallib]

55. The whole country would be a theocracy in short order if they could arrange it

They have done anything and everything they can to arrange it - and they come up with new tricks every day.
Theocrats believe the end justifies the means - that is imposing their Gawd's rules on all of society no matter how it is done.

Here in Iowa Republicans are trying to totally change how justices are picked because they are still pissed off about the homosexual marriage decision ten+ years ago. If they can get away with it you can bet they will be imposing their Gawd on all of us as much as they can.

[Act_of_Reparation]

61. Parts of the country *are* a theocracy.

At least in practice.

[Mariana]

70. Of course they would.

There's no question about it. The majority of Christian voters cast their ballots for Trump. Many of them did so because they believed he would use the power of the Executive Branch to enforce their religious views upon others, and they want him to do exactly that.