For those who think the Republican Party isn’t influenced enough by the religious right, you now have a better choice, the New Independent Christian Party. Like all successful political parties, this one is being officially launched at a press conference at the “Kingdom Empowerment Business Center” in Maryland.
There does not exist a reliable political party that purely represents the overall Christian agenda in America. We can neither ignore the overwhelming contrast to our Godly principles of the marriage equality and abortion rights agendas, which the Democrats strongly support, nor can we be oblivious to the arrogant, greedy, unsympathetic Pharisaic practices of the Republicans…
The November election is poised to leave the Christian base with an extremely bitter taste of misrepresentation and miscalculation of our position and priorities concerning many of the issues in the forefront of American lives today.
The misrepresentation of the biblical teachings and principles to which we profess as Christians, prevent us from continuing to support either the Democratic or the Republican Party candidates.
As the Party of No Compromise, the New Independent Christian Party intends to influence the outcome of American elections and uphold the Godly principles by which America was built and by which Christians believe, live and exist.
The perfect choice for those who prefer their theocracy bold and up front rather than covered in euphemisms like “family values.” This party is going absolutely nowhere, of course, but I think it does represent the problem facing the GOP as they try to appease the Christian right without also losing any chance of winning the support of everyone else.
44 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Ace of Sevens
October 4, 2012 at 11:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What’s the difference between this and the Constitution Party?
Gregory in Seattle
October 4, 2012 at 11:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Ace of Sevens – This is theocracy without the constitutional revisionism
Raging Bee
October 4, 2012 at 11:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This party is going absolutely nowhere, of course, but I think it does represent the problem facing the GOP as they try to appease the Christian right without also losing any chance of winning the support of everyone else.
Problem? What problem? These idiots have absolutely no intention of interfering with Republican victories anywhere. That’s why they waited till this late in the game to announce themselves — to make sure they never actually make a real difference for anyone. They’re just like the libertarians — good little rentboys who know their clients, and thus know when the roleplaying is supposed to stop.
UnknownEric
October 4, 2012 at 11:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The Kingdom Empowerment Business Center’s motto should be: “Because God doesn’t care about starvation in Africa, but he’s sure concerned about your little business!”
Michael Heath
October 4, 2012 at 11:20 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed writes:
heddle argues they’re either not or hardly influenced at all, and my pointing out they actually are makes me a bigot, but not Ed.
NICP:
They must peg tens of millions of American Christians as, ‘no true Christian’, to defend this assertion.
I think the most interesting question to ask them would be:
a) are they Christian Nation advocates who describe the Constitution like David Barton falsely promotes or,
b) honest reconstructionists who want to overthrow the Constitution and institute a theocracy or,
c) take the middle ground a la Mike Huckabee. That is, claim fealty to the Jesus-ordained Constitution but when it conflicts with their political-religious dogma, amend that sucker. Especially when the Constitution is protecting the groups they hate, e.g., Muslims, women, secularists, blacks (covertly of course, He really isn’t one of us), and gays immediately come to mind.
bmiller
October 4, 2012 at 11:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think heddle does have some point. When it comes to hot button social issues, the Republicans have traditionally been bigger talkers than doers. This is changing now, of course, but…
I would note that when it comes to the Bipartisan Agenda (expanding the American Empire and its profit-extracting opportunities and protecting rent-seeking financial gamblers, JESUS does not have much to do with the Republican agenda.
Just like protecting or representing their earstwhile constituants is n ot very important to the Democrats when it comes to this bipartisan agenda, either.
Taz
October 4, 2012 at 11:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So these people looked at religious parties in the Middle East and thought “we got to get us some of that”.
Michael Heath
October 4, 2012 at 11:27 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Based on their website which I just reviewed, this is going nowhere. No apparent money and no apparent grass roots base to counter no apparent money.
They also avoid dealing with how their current policy prescriptions are both unconstitutional and contradict the ‘just governance’ principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence. That suggests they’re either taking the Huckabee approach or are so uninformed they’re not even aware of the various constitutional positions taken by conservative Christians.
Alverant
October 4, 2012 at 11:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“the Godly principles by which America was built”
Naturally they don’t give any examples of those principles.
Vall
October 4, 2012 at 11:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“There does not exist a reliable political party that purely represents the overall Christian agenda in America.”
Which Christian agenda is this one? Catholic? Church of Christ? Westboro Baptist? I find it amusing when they pretend Christianity is one thing.
Ed Brayton
October 4, 2012 at 11:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think anyone who thinks the Christian right doesn’t have serious influence on the Republican party should just look at the huge number of bills passed around the country since 2010 to restrict a woman’s reproductive rights. Or at all of the anti-gay referendums they’ve used to drive people to the polls and got passed.
Ace of Sevens
October 4, 2012 at 11:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Ed: Those bills didn’t restrict reproductive rights nearly as much as a lot of Christians wanted.
reverendrodney
October 4, 2012 at 12:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kingdom Empowerment BUSINESS CENTER?
Whoa, C Street merges with Wall Street. This seems to be a commercial enterprise with extremist Christian politics as a front.
DaveL
October 4, 2012 at 12:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@10, That was my thought.
Fixed.
Vall
October 4, 2012 at 12:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@14 DaveL
Nice fix.
Also what Ed said. I think they have waaaay too much influence already.
glodson
October 4, 2012 at 12:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Is it bad that I hope this party has some success? I mean, they’ll be total crap, but it could split off some support for the GOP and all. It isn’t going to happen, this will just be a joke. But I do hope that this Religious Right fervor in the GOP ends up hurting the party, splintering it, and diminishing the effectiveness of appealing to religion in politics for the long term.
whheydt
October 4, 2012 at 1:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This group should be just the cup of tea (party) for some people.
After all, one topic of conversation has been over the chances of the Rs imploding if the lose the upcoming election. The major issue has been–to me–whether the religious right/Tea Party axis would grab the “Republican Party” title and eject/drive away the moderates that are left, of if the far right would leave and form their own party. This bunch looks like they’re pursuing the later approach…so I guess we’ll see if that works.
Either way, the Republican Party as we’ve known it is probably doomed to near permanent “third party” status.
slc1
October 4, 2012 at 1:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Ed Brayton @ #11
Apparently, there is a professor of physics at Christopher Newport Un. who doesn’t think so.
ArtK
October 4, 2012 at 2:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed @ 11
Since those bills don’t explicitly mention God or Jesus, that lets some people think that they have plausible deniability.
heddle
October 4, 2012 at 2:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath,
I’m hoping that that is just a misstatement and you haven’t just descending into outright lying. I not only never claimed that the Republican party is not influenced by the religious right, I myself have frequently criticized Christians involved in conservative politics and have all but labelled, here and on my now-dead blog, Christian reconstructionism and theonomy as heretical or close to it. I never criticized you and call you a bigoted because you argued that conservative Christians influence right-wing politics, but because you make sweeping generalizations about “conservative Christians.” Even a qualification without nuance, such as some or many Conservative Christians {mindlessly support Israel, deny basic human rights to gays, or whatever your Sarah Palin related peeve du jour is} would have rendered me silent, but you seem reluctant to make even that slightest of concessions.
d.c.wilson
October 4, 2012 at 3:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So, are they going to be working on things that Christians claim to be in favor of, like helping the poor and the sick, or is it going to be 24/7 of gays and abortion?
I know, dumbs question.
Michael Heath
October 4, 2012 at 3:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
heddle,
I remain comfortable noting the attributes in general of conservative Christians and that this is not a lie. I remain confident you continuously make either ‘no true Scotsman’ arguments when I note this or you dishonestly claim conservative Christians do not deserve the general attributes which we observe them making as Republican voters. So I see you claiming I’m a liar as only one more example of your projecting your own qualities onto somebody who hasn’t earned that label. Which leads to me the other charge, that I’m a bigot for noting the bigotry of conservative Christians . . .
Again, can a gay couple get married in your church? Can a gay married couple become members of your church? Can women even preach to men in your church? Can women teach Sunday School to adult males? Could a single gay man who is out of the closet become your church’s head pastor if he or God really forbid, she, excelled in all other areas; or is his or her being an unrepentant gay an automatic disqualifier? If yes to any of these, are you working to end this sort of dehumanizing behavior which treats women and gays as something less equal, worthy, and human, as supposedly heterosexual men? Or instead am I a bigot for noting such demonstrations of bigotry amongst conservative Christians in general?
bmiller
October 4, 2012 at 4:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I didn’t mean to imply that there is no influence. MNany of the right to life laws are fairly recent, hence my comment that this is changing.
Heddle cannot answer your questions because Christianity defines homosexuality as a sin…even if some liberals choose not to make such a big deal about it (why don’t fundies focus on adultry or divorce, which impact far more people than homosexuality?-Because there is less money-earning hysteria ()and the ick factor) involved for their donors if they focus on Teh Gay!)
My biggest caveat is that Obama may be better for the “gay agenda” whatever that means, but he is horrible when it comes to issues of expanding war, the war on terror, etc. etc. etc. All issues which this blog covers very well.
heddle
October 4, 2012 at 4:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath,
I answered your question on the other thread–yes my church discriminates in all those areas you indicated. Or was it too difficult for you to extrapolate from the answer I gave, which I’ll repeat:
I support discrimination by religious entities on the basis of their doctrine. Gays do not have a right to get married in any specific church, or women preach in any specific church. Atheists do not have a right to be baptized in a specific church while simultaneously denying the existence of god. I understand that I don’t have a “right” to get married in a Roman Catholic church, a mosque, a synagogue, a Greek orthodox church, a wiccan temple, etc. Or even John Hagee’s Baptist church should he choose not to preside over my wedding because I deny a young earth and the doctrine of the Rapture.
The only universal is that we all have (or should have) regarding marriage is the right to get married by the state.
And I’ll also repeat, from that thread, my statement:
If you [Michael Heath] are willing to qualify your statement: it indeed appears that many conservative Christians believe that gays have or should have the right to get married and all other civil rights pertaining to education, health care, employment, military service, etc. — but they are still evil bastards because they believe that their church can discriminate based on doctrine in matters of whom they hire to preach, teach sunday school or marry — well then I would not have a basis to complain.
No, you are a bigot for making statements disparaging of an entire group of millions of individuals that are isomorphic to statements other bigots make, such as Gay men are wantonly promiscuous. And especially because you don’t even modify the statements when it is pointed out to you–in some cases trivially (e.g., all “Conservative Christians blindly support Israel”–an incredibly dumb and manifestly false claim) that you are wrong about a sizable fraction of the group. Instead you move the goalposts, or call me an outlier, or make it about my church’s doctrine.
teele
October 4, 2012 at 6:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
#24: “If you [Michael Heath] are willing to qualify your statement: it indeed appears that many conservative Christians believe that gays have or should have the right to get married and all other civil rights pertaining to education, health care, employment, military service, etc.”
Huh? Many? Can you find me ONE?
I do appreciate your point that people can only be married by the state, and that being married in a church is actually a simple rental transaction that may include a “blessing” of the marriage by one of the employees of the business renting the premises to the couple.
I also appreciate your point that many conservative Christians feel that their special status as tax-free social clubs entitles them to ignore any laws of the state they don’t like, most especially as they relate to treating other human beings with respect and dignity.
Michael Heath
October 4, 2012 at 7:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
heddle,
I didn’t see the short comment that your church discriminates against gays, their families, and women in the other thread. I saw that post but not that comment, partly because you launched into an answer entirely different than my question, which had nothing to do with the constitutionality of such discrimination. Still, that’s my reading comprehension failure.
So do you concede you’re a bigot because you belong to an organization that practices bigotry against gays and women? If not, how can you defend that you’re not a bigot in spite of:
a) belonging to such a group which not only has bigoted policies at very closest level groups interact, but,
b) is also part of the overall population of conservative Christians who are the sole obstacle to equal legal protections for gays and,
c) the sole group providing cultural pressure to encourage Americans to continue to discriminate against gays and get them back in the closet?
As I repeatedly noted before, one way I think to not be a bigot in spite of such membership is to fight for reform within, which I asked if you were doing. I don’t believe I received an answer on that point.
heddle
October 4, 2012 at 7:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
teele,
Here. I am one. I can find you many more. It’s not hard.
I don’t know what your “rental transaction” nonsense is, but I am on record as supporting the idea that only the state can sanction a marriage legally. And the religious wedding, while perhaps of supreme importance to the couple, is viewed as purely ceremonial by the state. The priest, pastor, shaman, rabbi or imam signs no legal document.
I am also on record as being in favor of ending all tax breaks for the church. In fact all tax breaks for all non-profits. And all tax deductions for charitable giving. You should not be forced to subsidize my church or my charities of choice. I should not be forced to subsidize your charities of choice. And the mortgage deduction too. If you live in an apartment you are subsidizing my house. It’s wrong in my opinion.
I’m sorry–what existing laws of the state do we ignore? Not what law would you like to have in place so that our current practices would then become illegal–what existing laws are we entitled to ignore? If you tell me what laws we are breaking I promise to notify our lawyer immediately.
heddle
October 4, 2012 at 7:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath,
You of course have no idea what I am arguing for within the church, and it is none of your business. I’m rather tired of your loathsome practice of demanding “unless you do something to my, Michael Heath’s, satisfaction, like start a national origination, and relegate to the back burner what you consider your primary mission (the gospel) and place what I, Michael Heath thinks are the universe’s most important issues front and center, then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.”
I stated that I support and will continue to support the concept that private voluntary associations, including a church or skepticon, can set the rules of membership and operation. Will our church ever choose a woman pastor? No. Will skepticon ever make me an officer? No. Are the church’s rules bigoted? Superficially, yes. Under the hood it is more nuanced, because some (many) are sincere when they say: we don’t have women pastors because we think women can’t do it, or we hate women, but because like it or not the bible restricts the office to men.
Now–there is a argument to be made–a weakness in my position–that the church’s tax breaks means the church is not private. I don’t have a response to that. I am operating on the “shoogly nail” basis that virtually all organizations get benefits of public money, even if only in the sense that their donors deduct their donations. There are no truly private organizations–so I ascribe that status to organizations that are as close as reasonably possible to private.
Pierce R. Butler
October 4, 2012 at 7:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Above all, please don’t confuse these people with the Old Independent Christian Party, whose website sayeth:
.
Me, I wanna see what the Third Independent Christian Party says!
dingojack
October 4, 2012 at 11:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Heddle – as I understand it, if you want your church to able to be a ‘private voluntary associations’ that can ‘can set the rules of [it's own] membership and operation’ the procedure is rather simple, you make entry either ‘invitation only’ or you charge a membership fee. Once your church does this then it’s a private association, while there is an expectation that the public can enter freely (gratis et libre), it’s not.
I believe that’s kind of how it works, can anyone, who is better informed, enlighten me?
Dingo
heddle
October 5, 2012 at 7:28 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
DJ,
I certainly do not know, and don’t know if the fact that membership is by invitation only (although attendance is not) makes a difference.
And of course our church discriminates more against other groups than it does against women and gays. Atheists and members of other religions are not permitted to join at all. And a “coming out of the closet” and proclaiming atheism or adherence to another religion would initiate a lengthy process that, assuming intransigence, would terminate in excommunication.
As mentioned, and independent of whether some/many/most of us in the church think it is a civil right gays should have, gays cannot get married in our church. And neither can atheists, members of other religions or, almost as comprehensively, divorced Christians.
The discrimination against women filling certain roles falls into the category of The new testament says this– how can we ignore it? It can be fought– on the basis a) it was related to the 1st century culture of the east was not meant as a permanent injunction– much like the head covering requirement and b) it areas that are ambiguous it is better to err on the side of liberality than conservatism. Crudely stated, in any ambiguous situation, I would rather god ask me “why did you allow x” rather than “why didn’t you allow x?”
Purely as an academic question, the issue of women deacons (as opposed to elder–we are talking about the office (deacon) that Stephen the first Christian martyr held) is more fascinating. in 1 Tim 3 there is a passage that says, paraphrasing that deacons must be:
The husband of one wife, above reproach etc. etc. and women, likewise must be … (it does not mention they must be the wife of one husband)
the historic problem is that the word “women” can also be translated as wives. In the first case (women) the passage is describing the qualifications for women as deacons, in the second case (wives) it appears to be arguing on the qualifications of the wife of a man who is to be a deacon.
The second interpretation is very suspect on two grounds. First the qualifications for elder, a higher office, does not mention anything about the elder’s wife. If the bible is placing “be extra good” requirements on the wife of a deacon you would expect the same or tougher restrictions on the wife of a elder/pastor. The second problem is that a woman (Phoebe) is called a deacon (or servant of the church–same word) by that woman-hater Paul in Rom 16:1. Hard to get around that.
Note that the requirement on male deacons was “husband of one wife” but there was no symmetric requirement on women deacons. The reason, of course, is that it was legal at the time for a man to have multiple wives, but not the other way around.
Christianity solved three big, even potentially deadly social problems for women. It effective outlawed divorce– a practice that left women without income. It said that men, even powerful men, should not have multiple wives. And it elevated to its primary (but not only) social concern (indeed, the very reason for having deacons, see Acts 6) the care of widows who often were destitute with no means of support.
eric
October 5, 2012 at 9:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
!!!
You believe that outlawing divorce solved a deadly social problem for women?
Actually I find your whole thesis ridiculous. Multiple societies solved the problems you mention (to a greater or lesser extent) prior to the birth of Christ. Christianity was about as necessary for these social solutions as buddhism or greek polytheism. In terms of AD western history, you are simply making a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
heddle
October 5, 2012 at 9:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
eric,
Are you out of your friggin mind? I am not even talking about “western history” (really, wtf?) but the eastern world. And did I say that Christianity invented these solutions? I was clearly referring to the status quo in first century Israel. There divorce (initiated by the husband, of course–it was entirely a man’s world) was easy and there was no alimony. So !!! yes (duh) it was a good thing for women, who typically had only their husband as a means of support. Especially when coupled with Jesus’ clear teaching on the sanctity of marriage, that a husband and wife should cleave together and become one flesh, and the the husband’s love for his wife should emulate Christ’s love for the church.
Please try to respond more intelligently. I find your whole response ridiculous.
eric
October 5, 2012 at 1:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Okay Heddle, let me see if I’ve your position correct: you say that by preventing women from divorce, Christianity in the early AD middle east solved a deadly social problem for women. Is that correct?
You really want to defend that? As Jesus’ solution? I mean, if Jesus was God, you’d think maybe he would’ve been smart enough to think of alimony and/or child support, rather than not allowing divorce. The ‘no divorce’ solution is sort of like preventing women from speaking to solve the deadly social problem of their husbands hitting them for backtalk.
heddle
October 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
eric,
Yes. For Christian women. In first century Palestine.
Moving the goalposts, are we? And of course you are completely neglecting the parallel commands on how husbands are to treat their wives and pretending that what Jesus taught was “Good news bad news. You can’t divorce your wife but, *wink* *nod* you can kick the shit out of her.”
timgueguen
October 5, 2012 at 5:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
These guys will likely do as well as the Canadian Christian Heritage Party. In other words be pretty much ignored by eeryone but a tiny percentage of voters.
Michael Heath
October 5, 2012 at 7:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
heddle,
Fair enough it’s none of my business what reforms you are fighting for in your church. But let’s put this on a fair playing field.
You think my consigning certain bigoted attributes to tens of millions of [politically] conservative Christians as they act out in the public square, a population who represents about 72% of the Republican party and is the sole dominant voting block within that party, is bigotry on my part. I disagree, I instead think I’m instead fighting bigotry by revealing it and condemning it. You instead think my approach sloppily defames people beyond mere outliers who are undeserving of my criticism and contempt. My response is that even if they don’t express such bigotry to you personally, they belong to bigoted groups and therefore if they’re not fighting for reform, they’re effectively bigots due to their support of bigoted organizations. Where we also empirically understand that people are more bigoted in the voting booth than they express to pollsters; about 3 -5% against a black presidential candidate, and a couple of points in each of the past gay marriage elections in the various states.
When it comes to you personally, you are member of a theologically conservative Christian church which discriminates against adult females along with unrepentant GLBTs and their families. The adults in both groups are considered by your religion to be fundamentally flawed relative to adult heterosexual males and therefore undeserving of equal rights (again, only those GLBTS unrepentant about their sexual identity).
Your denomination is also part of the larger subset of Christians who are the sole large population which promotes that we continue to both discriminate against gays when it comes to civil rights, but also effectively advocates we get them back in the closet. Without conservative Christians, political and/or theological, the opposition to continued discrimination and cultural condemnation largely dissipates with the exception of a few powerless small groups which eventually follow on cultural mores anyway (e.g., black protestants). Do you think such discrimination within the churches is wrong?
You claim I’m a bigot for arguing against the source of bigotry, not merely certain religions but the psychological development inherent in these religions, while you maintain close ties to not only a bigoted form of theologically conservative Christianity. So I think it’s entirely fair of me to request how you justify your claim I’m practicing bigotry against conservative Christians supposed bigotry when you belong to an organization which is openly practicing bigotry against the very groups I attempt to defend. From my perception you could be following the Sean Hannity / Rush Limbaugh / Glenn Beck racist argument. Which is to be racist and claim their opponents are the bigots when you criticize them for their racism. I’m not sure you are yet because you have yet to express your position on whether we should privately discriminate against adult females, and GLBTs and their families; precisely because I think it’s possible for individuals to belong to such groups as your church and not be bigots; though I also conclude that percentage is very low.
I actually think it’s frequently more courageous to belong to a flawed group and seek reform from within. I tried to do my part within the Republican party from about the time Newt Gingrich rose to power to 2008 where I new moderates’ efforts were futile, I then concluded it was better for the country that we quit. So my question was fueled with some hope you weren’t one of these bigots in spite of belong to bigoted institution. So I’ll reduce my request on whether and what you’re doing to fight for reform and merely ask; do you agree churches should deny women, GLBTs and their families rights equal to others?
heddle
October 6, 2012 at 6:14 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Hatha,
Incredible. You have asked a flawed begging-the-question sort of formulation of the most infantile “have you stopped beating your wife” variety.
I answered, twice already, that I believe it is within the rights of a church to restrict its priesthood based on its doctrine.
So I do not, for example, believe my church is denying my right to be an elder because it is a Baptist church and I cannot affirm that I believe that “believer’s baptism” is the only biblical mode of baptism (true story.) Rather I say: this is a Baptist church, believer’s baptism is central to what it means to be a baptist, it is not surprising that my reluctance to affirm that doctrine would prevent me from being an elder. So yes, I am being discriminated against. But it is not bigotry. I understood their doctrine when I joined. I am not about to yell that they are denying my right as a (possible) paedobaptist to be an elder of their church that required me to read and understood a clear doctrinal statement before I voluntarily joined. I have no right to be an elder.
Bigotry is what you are so good at. You attribute negative qualities, sight unseen, to an entire group of people. In your eyes, as a conservative Christian, I am automatically a child-abuser, anti-gay (even though I support 100% full civil rights for gays), a moron for supporting Israel for no reason, my pope is Sara Palin and my role model is Sean Hannity (whom I’ve never watched in my entire life)… etc, etc.
Your picture could be next to the word bigot in the dictionary.
heddle
October 6, 2012 at 7:14 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath,
I completely mangled your name in the previous post. That was not intentional.
Michael Heath
October 6, 2012 at 8:28 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
heddle writes:
And I’ve answered at least twice lately; I never even raised civil rights as a topic, let alone claimed otherwise. So you continue to avoid the question, which is whether you personally are OK with churches discriminating against adult females, GBLT unrepentant in regards to their sexual identity, and the latter’s families. Not these churches’ right to do so which I’ve always argued they have the right to do and which I also support them doing, but instead whether you support their actual practice of bigotry.
heddle writes:
Of course it’s not bigotry. I am perfectly aware of the difference between discrimination and bigotry. I can only surmise here that your using a defense mechanism to avoid confronting the fact you are practicing bigotry at your church. That’s given your pointing out that discrimination doesn’t equate to bigotry, an obvious point, in order to avoid confronting the fact you practice your religion with a group which discriminates in other ways that is obviously bigotry, in fact they practice not only a perfect example of bigotry, but one of the worst kinds – systemic and continual. And you now appear to be fine and dandy with that.
heddle writes
Great strawman! I.e., I never claimed there weren’t outliers or a minority, I’ve only claimed certain traits are attributes of politically conservative Christians, which comprise about 72% of the Republican party.
I also never claimed you watched Sean Hannity and were therefore directly influenced by him or the other two bigots. I instead previously claimed you could be using the same argument that he, Limbaugh, and Beck use which I then described.
I pointed this out to encourage you to buck-up and not sink to such rhetorically remedial and defective arguments. What I blockquote immediately above actually validates that you are using those three racists’ exact type of argument. I.e., you belong and support a church which systemically and continually demonstrates bigotry towards adult females along with GLBTs and their families. And it’s not like the bigotry is ad hoc, it’s instead continual precisely because it’s systemically institutionalized; no family headed by a married gay couple can join precisely because the parents are gay. Therefore I’m a bigot when I point this out (that’s their same argument only regarding racism).
What you’ve accomplished here is put me through a process which has me now concluding that not only are politically conservative Christians predominately bigots, a fact I already knew from the research of experts, election results, and surveys, but I now realize that people who belong to churches who systemically mandate bigotry can only be bigots, unless of course they’re fighting for reform which it appears from your third paragraph you are not doing. That’s some weapons-grade projection there, accusing me of bigotry for pointing out systemic and continual demonstrations of bigotry and condemning it while you in fact actively engage in bigotry given your membership in a church which practices it.
Either quit groups who continually practice bigotry or fight to reform these groups from practicing bigotry. Perhaps then you’ll have the moral authority and clarity of thinking to fairly judge me for supposedly going too far in my condemnation of bigotry when it actually happens. But currently I don’t find your argument compelling for the very simple reason I’m actively engaged in discouraging bigotry while you practice it in a way that’s been the most successful method at preventing GBLTs and their families from both having their rights equally protected and stopping the cultural persecution your group inflicts on them, the only large influential group that justifies societal attempts to ostracize GBLTs.
Michael Heath
October 6, 2012 at 8:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This sentence has a clerical error, where I strike-out the wrong phrase and replace it with the intended words in italics:
heddle
October 6, 2012 at 9:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath,
I think we must be using different definitions of discrimination and bigotry.
I am using discrimination to mean that one discriminates on the basis of characteristics or requirements or positions. I believe there are benign forms of discrimination–that’s rather obvious, and malignant forms.
I am using bigotry to mean going assigning negative characteristics to an entire group rather than individuals, viz. Black people are lazy. Gays are promiscuous. Conservative Christians are child abusers.
Malignant discrimination is that discrimination enacted on the basis of bigotry. That is my working definition.
Whether I personally think the bible teaches that women cannot be elders or homosexual activity is a sin (and therefore embracing homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle is embracing sin as an acceptable lifestyle) is irrelevant. Regardless, I fully support the right of any church that finds any activity as sinful or otherwise contrary to its dogma to discriminate in the staffing of its clergy (but not its non-clerical staff) on that basis. Furthermore, if it is done on that basis, and all that the church finds as sinful is treated similarly, then I find this a benign and reasonable form of discrimination and not at all bigotry. Even if I disagree with what they happen to find as sinful. So even if I think the bible is ambiguous as to whether or not women can be pastors, I can see how a reasonable person might conclude that from 1 Tim 3, and I fully support my church’s right to discriminate on that basis. If the issue becomes too important to me, I’ll find another church. Of course–you have a serious problem of narcissism in assuming that the issues that are of primary concern to you should, quite naturally, I guess since you are Michael Heath, be of primary importance to everyone. I support LGBTs’ right to marriage, but honestly– I rarely think about it and have no inclination toward activism on that (or any other) issue.
If the church treats a man’s inability to control his household as a sin, or gluttony as a sin, and homosexual activity as a sin –yet permits someone who (unrepentantly) engages in one to be an elder and not another–then that church has gone beyond benign discrimination and has crossed over into bigotry.
I don’t know how to be any more honest and clear about this, but I’m guessing you’ll ask me yet again as if I haven’t answered. Please don’t.
Michael Heath
October 7, 2012 at 8:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
heddle writes:
The negative descriptions you use here are not general atributes of the groups you reference. So of course such stereotypes are unfair to the point of being a classic example of bigotry in action. But it’s not bigoted to accurately point out a repugnant attribute of a population, even if some outliers or even a minority of individuals exist who do not exhibit such behavior.
We do and in fact must find attributes of a population if we’re to understand our reality and work to improve it. Where I also don’t find even a small minority of non-bigots existing within conservative Christianity, theologically or politically. I do speculate there must be at least some non-bigots amongst this group though I’ve yet to find any (or perhaps recall any). I do concede many of these conservative Christians are not conscious they’re practicing bigotry, but their bigotry is still effective when it comes their behavior ultimately harming GBLTs and their families in spite of those people’s obliviousness that their association is the #1 reason why gays are vilified and discrminated against in the U.S..
Noting that theologically conservative Christians are bigots precisely because they willingly join and defend their denominations’ dogma which discriminates against GBLTs is the first step in fighting to end such bigotry. Of course most of these people would be both offended and reject the assertion they’re bigots. The fact they avoid such thoughts isn’t a mark in their favor given the suffering it causes millions of other people, including about 6% of their children and the people who actually love their children in spite of their being GBLT. But can these oblivious Christians defend their rejection their bigots merely because they avoid the topic? It’s not about consciousness or unconsciousness, but instead the fact their very association promotes bigotry which harms GBLTs, including within their own families and respective churches.
And there’s two different types of bigotry we can observe demonstrated by certain populations. The informal type which is a behavioral attribute, and the formal aspect – that which is explicitly proscribed behavior, like marrying a gay Christian couple.
A good example of the informal is politically conservative Christians being the only large group providing the money and nearly all the votes to advocate the U.S. not only continue to deny gays their equal rights, but force them back into the closet. (“Nearly all” because we’ve seen a mere handful of times when black Christians effectively joined this fight against gays to the point they made a difference in the outcome, e.g., CA Prop. 8).
An example of formal bigotry is theologically conservative Christians’ churches denying GBLTs and their families membership, marriage, and other equal rights within the church. This formal bigotry also provides politically conservative Christians the moral rationalization their actively promoting bigotry against GBLTs in the public square is a good fight. So the formal bigotry by church dogma provides an amplifying feedback which increases the bigotry of politically conservative Christians fighting this fight in the public square.
heddle writes:
I agree that’s a type of bigotry, but so is virulent bigotry. A type of virulent bigotry which permeates the culture. For example, gays are bullied and ostracized where society is lax to sufficiently respond because it’s enabled by a powerful political-religious group comprised almost solely of conservative Christians and the denominational dogma which has them justifying this type of bigotry. Kids learn these behaviors from their parents, authority figures, or peers where this bad behavior is also enabled by authoritarian figures predominately vilifying ‘the other’. It’s not just about kids being cruel, but the inability to pass federal laws which assigns being gay to a protected class. Primarily in order to better insure they’re not discriminated against in the job market; where the opposition to passage of such is a law is not merely predominately conservative Christians, but almost solely conservative Christians – theological and political.
Another form of virulent bigotry which provides almost no wiggle room for conservative Christians to proclaim oneself, ‘not a bigot’, is belonging to a group which formally discriminates against a group in a way that clearly demonstrates bigotry. And when we consider the assumptions, premises, and conclusions argued by conservative Christians whose denominations formally discriminate against GBLTs and their families, the observation is clear; this is a case of bigotry, a classic example of it actually though not as overt an example as a group that predominately defines itself by its bigotry, such as the KKK’s inherent racism.
Clearly Christianity, conservative or otherwise, doesn’t exist in order to persecute gays or women like the KKK exists to hate on blacks and Jews, but bigotry is a formal attribute of conservative Christianity given its formal positions on how their church treats gays and their families. The excuse that this biblical moral standard they’re using requires the type of discrimination which is bigotry is not a compelling defense, it merely reveals that moral standard to be defective to the point it promotes bigotry.
heddle writes:
OK, but I’m not sure what this has to do with our argument. I’ve repeatedly noted my support for the right of association and the exercise of religion. My point was never whether they have a right or not, but whether such practices are objectionable, in this case if it’s the practice of bigotry.
heddle writes:
I hope you’ll trust my claim here that I didn’t read your entire post prior to responding to what I quote here. I raise this because I note above how weak I find this argument. In fact I think if you seriously ponder it you’ll find it’s an indefensible position to take. I’ll use a more extreme to point this out.
An extreme example is conservative Christian churches who claim that homosexuals who are attracted to the same sex are in a sinful state because of that attraction and must therefore either change (a demand which is dying out) or more recently, consider this their cross to carry in life, where God according to their authority figures commands them to not act out those impulses. Some kids who realize they’re gay in this type of environment commit suicide because they see no way to accomodate the demands this community is bearing down on him. To me this young gay kid is an obvious victim of this church’s bigotry.
The point is this, claiming one’s moral standard demands discrimination which results in bigotry doesn’t make the bigotry go away; it merely reveals some people practice bigotry because they’re using a defective moral standard. They often have every right to practice this standard like our context here, but such a right doesn’t make the bigotry go away. And more importantly, the act of bigotry whether through overt acts or one’s associations with formally bigoted groups doesn’t end with the actor, it effects others around him or her.
Michael Heath
October 8, 2012 at 7:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Another example of bigotry besides the condemned gay teenager an example I think also illustrates the weakness of your argument that it’s not bigotry if the moral standard deployed demands discrimination, the dogma attempts to justify it, and you personally don’t prioritize it:
Southern Baptist churches which were once* white-only.
Was these churches’ discrimination against black people, justified by their interpretation of the Bible, bigotry? Of course, for the exact same reasons their bigotry now is against GBLTs and their familes. Whether we confront such bigotry or avoid it, it doesn’t matter, bigotry exists when people practice it, avoiding or justifying it doesn’t eradicate it.
And this is an example why I think it’s so courageous for some to not walk away but instead work for reform. They’ve confronted the fact they’re effective bigots by allowing such behavior and worked to eradicate it. Those Southern Baptists are to be commended.
*That sort of formal and even most information discrimination has mostly died out starting in the 1970s. However we still encounter some outlier churches who still effectively ostracize blacks like we saw several weeks ago with the whites-only church whose elders attempted to stop a black couple who’d attended there in the past from marrying in that church.