The Guinness Book

Os Guinness has popped up on my screen here twice in the past week, so I suppose we should see what's going on with him.

I first encountered Guinness through his entertaining and insightful little book, The Gravedigger File. In that book Guinness shamelessly borrows the mirror-image, devil's eye view of C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters (if you're gonna steal, steal from the good stuff) for a breezy discussion of what he calls there "the subversion of the modern church."

I'd forgotten most of that book, but one thing that has stuck with me over the years since I read it was the Devil's maxim: "Remember 10-10-80."

How many times I have watched him listen to devastating reports in cold silence and then utter the words: "Remember 10-10-80." It is simply the shorthand for his own axiom: Win over 10 percent of the church to be a counter-elite on our side, reduce 80 percent of the church to a state of passive acceptance (either cowed or complacent), and we can disregard the active resistance of the remaining 10 percent (part of which is the lunatic fringe anyway).

This latter 10 percent is a particularly important category. It allows us a margin of error. It also takes into account all those exceptions to the trends we are manipulating successfully. If such exceptions were ever to amount to more than 10 percent, we would have to bring in the contingency plans. But for a long time we have been well within this limit.

That formula seems to me a useful rule of thumb that's applicable well beyond the particular case of religious vitality. (It might apply, to pick just one example, to the current question about whether America is "ready for" a black or female president.)

Anyway, Guinness' name popped up last week due to his involvement with the latest "Evangelical Manifesto," which apparently goes public next week. Sarah Posner discusses the document in her invaluable FundamentaList, linking to this whiny attempt to pre-empt it from Olaskyite Warren Smith.

Smith's knickers are in a bunch because the theologically conservative professors, theologians and pastors involved in producing this manifesto (to be called, apparently, "The Washington Declaration of Identity") didn't kiss the rings of the politically conservative activists, media moguls and other self-appointed bishops who claim to speak for and in lieu of all such theologians and pastors. Smith thus claims the authors of the document "shunned" people like Charles Colson, James Dobson, Tony Perkins and Beverly LaHaye. He suspects this is because of their political views and not because none of those people are actually involved in the leadership of the church (nor does it occur to him that those four might not have been consulted because, to put it mildly, they aren't actually all that bright).

"Why not let voices from the 'conservative' or so-called 'pro-family' wing of the evangelical movement have input?," Smith asks, arguing that their input would have broadened the document's appeal, making it "truly historic."

So, yes, Warren Smith is a concern troll. And he's not even very good at it.

What's really going on here is that this forthcoming document is an effort to reclaim the word "evangelical" as a religious term rather than as a political one. It is, in other words, a critique of partisan demagoguery masquerading as religion -- a critique of exactly the sort of thing that is practiced, professionally, by the very people Smith complains were "excluded" from writing up that critique.

For a foretaste of that critique, let's turn to the second time Os Guinness came across my screen this week. Will Hinton has been reading Guinness' latest book, The Case for Civility, and provides this excerpt:

I am angered by organizers of the Religious Right who play the victim card and appeal openly to Christian resentment. ...

But whether "victimization" then or a "war on Christians" now, such tactics of the Religious Right are foolish, ineffective, and downright anti-Christian. The problem is not that these people are theocrats, but that they are sub-Christian. They do not violate the separation of church and state so much as they violate Christian integrity. Factually, it is dead wrong for Christians to portray themselves as a minority, let alone as persecuted. Christians are as close to a majority community as any group in America ...

Psychologically, victim-playing is dangerous because it represents what Nietzsche called "the politics of the tarantula," a base appeal to resentment. But worst of all, it is spiritually hypocritical, for nothing so contradicts their claim to represent "Christian values" as their refusal to follow the teaching and example of Jesus of Nazareth by playing the victim card and finding an excuse not to love their enemies. Shame, shame, shame on such people; and woe, woe, woe to such tactics.

Ouch. It's one thing for such a critique to be published in a book and another thing altogether for it to be published as a document signed and endorsed by dozens of prominent theologians and church leaders.

If the leaders of the religious right seriously want to protect themselves from such a critique then they're going to need smarter concern trolls.

(One final caveat: I suspect that, overall, this manifesto will be about as effective as all such "declarations," which is to say not very. We evangelicals are an unruly and disorganized bunch, and these attempts at consensus building by petition are about as close as we come to church polity. The idea is to write something reasonable, sound and persuasive, and then to get as many different "gatekeepers" as possible to endorse it in the hopes that readers will see a name they recognize in the list of signatories and thus regard the statement as worthy of their consideration. It doesn't work very well, but no one has yet come up with a better approach so we keep doing it. As a form of church governance, it's far less efficient, far less decisive, far less authoritative, and infinitely preferable to the Catholic magisterium.)

Comments

[Spalanzani]

"As a form of church governance, it's far less efficient, far less decisive, far less authoritative, and infinitely preferable to the Catholic magisterium."

Oooh, do I smell flame bait? And it's only Tuesday!

[hapax]

A thoughtful, inspiring post as always, but I must confess that this bit:

We evangelicals are an unruly and disorganized bunch

irresistibly reminded me of "Criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot", and I couldn't help but see Warren Smith musing, "My disguise must be able to strike terror into their hearts. I shall become... A CONCERN TROLL!"

[Robb]

...and infinitely preferable to the Catholic magisterium

And yet, most anti-Catholic Evangelical protestants fail to see how the actions of such "king makers" are just attempts to acheive the equivalent of Papal authority.

Grr. . . It's nice to know there are those, such as your self Fred, that are as passionate about this as I am, but reading Smith's paranoid, ignorant, short sighted rant makes me want to beat him (and those like him) with a copy of A Generous Orthodoxy.

Or perhaps, printing plates for A Generous Orthodoxy.

[Praline]

nothing so contradicts their claim to represent "Christian values" as their refusal to follow the teaching and example of Jesus of Nazareth by playing the victim card and finding an excuse not to love their enemies.

Bravo, sir! Bravo.

[Praline]

Italics, I repudiate thee.

[Praline]

(It might apply, to pick just one example, to the current question about whether America is "ready for" a black or female president.)

That's one of those lousy self-fulfilling questions, isn't it? It's much like people saying that of course they think gay people are entitled to equal rights, but really, it's better to keep the same-sex age of consent higher than the hetero one, because it's a momentous decision, because life is so hard for homosexuals... Which of course it is, as long as people take that attitude.

America's ready for a competent President who isn't interested in undermining the foundations of democracy. Race and sex do not affect those things. And if we wait for people who just have their doubts about it, not that they're prejudiced or anything, to get ready, we'll wait forever. Get on change, and they'll catch up.

[hapax]

it's better to keep the same-sex age of consent higher than the hetero one

Bwuh? Is this a UK thing?

[Praline]

Not any more, thank goodness. It used to be 16 if you were straight and 18 if you were gay, but that was changed in 2000, removing at least one national disgrace from the books. They had to overrule the Lords to do it, though. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#United_Kingdom_.28and_dependencies.29)

[McJulie]

And if we wait for people who just have their doubts about it, not that they're prejudiced or anything, to get ready, we'll wait forever. Get on change, and they'll catch up.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

In fact, it occurs to me now that some of these objections -- "is America ready for X?" -- which I have been hearing since at least the 80s, were an early kind of concern trollism. You know, it's supposed to imply that the speaker is fully ready, of course, but the speaker is merely "worried" that other people aren't. So you get to be racist/sexist/homophobic and go on pretending it's other people who are.

One final caveat: I suspect that, overall, this manifesto will be about as effective as all such "declarations," which is to say not very.

It has one effect, which I think is very important: it adds one more piece of evidence that evangelical Christians are not a united front of right wing Republicans.

[Praline]

Oops - I meant 'get on with change', not 'get on change'. Some of my typos misplace entire words.

[Tonio]

this forthcoming document is an effort to reclaim the word "evangelical" as a religious term rather than as a political one.

Would it be fair to blame the media? Associated Press defines evangelical as "a category of doctrinally conservative Christians (who) emphasize the need for a definite, adult commitment or conversion to faith in Christ... Evangelicals stress both doctrinal absolutes and vigorous efforts to win others to belief."

How did AP develop that definition? As I've learned from Fred here at Slacktivist, many evangelicals are neither doctrinally conservative nor politically conservative. AP's definition may better fit fundamentalists or Bible literalists. Would you agree?

Doctrinal absolutism is almost certainly the basis for the Religious Right, since it results in every issue being treated as a religious one. But how would one explain a politician like Mike Huckabee? After he bowed out of the race, I was surprised to learn of his moderate platform on economic issues.

[Tonio]

You know, it's supposed to imply that the speaker is fully ready, of course, but the speaker is merely "worried" that other people aren't. So you get to be racist/sexist/homophobic and go on pretending it's other people who are.

I've heard many parents oppose homosexuality or interracial relationships for their children, on the grounds that disapproval of others will make life harder for the children. This reasoning sounds insincere at best.

[Peter Boysen]

While I love that at least somebody is trying to take the word back to a religious context, it does also make me sad that it will have little to no effect. As long as media outlets continue to make money on controversy, Evangelical will always be something that carries political context. And worst, I think, is that I'm skeptical of how much money is being made by offending the people who actually do sit on the incredibly conservative side, and concerned by how much money this controversy is being made by those of us to whom it does not apply. I, for example, would say I'm evangelical in the religious sense... all this business about that "Jesus Christ" fellow saving us and teaching us how to live differently and better and all that, but certainly I'm not evangelical in the political sense... And so when a media outlet says that Evangelicals are talking about this or that, it is something that catches my attention, because I subscribe to a definition of that word that they do not. And frankly, I suspect that applies to most of the people who frequent this site.

[Keith]

Praline: 'get on change' has a nice ring to it, like 'get on the bus.'

[Tonio]

As long as media outlets continue to make money on controversy, Evangelical will always be something that carries political context. And worst, I think, is that I'm skeptical of how much money is being made by offending the people who actually do sit on the incredibly conservative side, and concerned by how much money this controversy is being made by those of us to whom it does not apply.

I'm not sure of your meaning? Would you explain? Are you saying the media is making money by peddling a stereotype of evangelicals to non-evangelicals, or the other way around?

[Lee Ratner]

I've never understood Christians who try to portray Christians as a minority in the United States. Can somebody expalin the reasoning behind this for me? The only way you get a Christian minority is if you count all non-Evangelical Christians and Liberal Evangelicals as not being Christian.

[Tonio]

The only way you get a Christian minority is if you count all non-Evangelical Christians and Liberal Evangelicals as not being Christian.

Some Biblical literalists claim that one is not a Christian if one does not believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

[Hawker Hurricane]

This is a case of Political Christians wanting it both ways: they want to claim to be a persecuted minority AND the ruling majority, getting the benefits of both. At the same time, they want to claim religious immunity to oversight, and freedom to be politically activist.

Comments on Concern Trolling and Race reminds me of my own experience a few years ago. My oldest daughter began dating a black fellow student... and I bit my tongue often, for fear of sounding like a rascist ass. Yes, I was worried about the issue of a mixed couple... but to mention it would be bad.
My daughter went back to her original boyfriend when he returned from Iraq, they married two years ago, my grandson is now 7 months old, and I still wonder... how wrong was my reaction? Was I being racist for being concerned? Were my parents being rascist 20 years ago when they expressed their concern about my choice of spouse? Were my grandparents being rascist when they complained about mom and dad's marraige?

(My parents both married outside thier faith; Dad married a Protestant and Mom married a YANKEE. I married a Venezualan/American. My Daughter married a Soldier. I'm sensing a pattern.)

[Praline]

I've never understood Christians who try to portray Christians as a minority in the United States.

I've always suspected it was at least in part a political tactic. The middle of the twentieth century saw a lot of activism from actual minorities, who gained a lot of ground. During that period, being in a majority became, not an automatic stance of rightness, but a position of responsibility from which you could get accused of oppressiveness.

Claiming to be in a minority allows hard-line Christians to call themselves oppressed whenever they don't get their way. They've learned from history that a sense of oppression is very good for recruiting and motivating followers, as well as putting your opponents on the defensive. It doesn't stop them from pulling out the majority-line 'this is a Christian country' when they feel that would serve their turn better, but basically, I think, they're borrowing from earlier movements who claimed entitlement to equality, to prove they have entitlement to dominance.

[Praline]

Hawker Hurricane: sounds to me like your daughter was just following the good example her forebears have set her, and dating people that she liked, irrespective of background. You may have had more issues with Afro than Venezuelan, but she's just learned from what you do rather than what you say (or bite back). Congratulations. :-)

[Kristy]

I've never understood Christians who try to portray Christians as a minority in the United States. Can somebody explain the reasoning behind this for me?

Absolutely.

See, for a long time, precisely because Christians are a majority, they got to make the rules. So atheism was bad, non-Christian religions were bad (oh, the Jews were ok so long as they did our taxes, but that was about it), Christian holidays were celebrated by everyone, Creationism was taught in schools, laws were based on (traditional, conservative) Christian sensibilities, and everybody went to church on Sundays.

And to be fair, it had been like that, not just in America, but in most of the western world, for centuries. People were used to it. Christians had both power and privilege, and they took it for granted. Most (dare I say all?) Christians simply didn't notice that the rules were skewed in their favor, because that was The Way It's Always Been. It was normal.

And then things started changing. Women's rights. Gay rights. Religious tolerance. The Scopes Monkey Trial. Dirty pagans like me raising our ugly heads. Richard Dawkins. "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

And Christians realized that they no longer got to make all the rules. And that scared them.

Now, from the outside looking in, this was an evening of the playing field. It was removing an unfair advantage that one group had held for far too long, and treating Christianity as just one of many religions, none of which should be influencing or influenced by the state. (Well, that's the goal at least. Still working on that.)

From the inside, though, again - the Christians didn't see this as an unfair disadvantage, it was just the status quo. So the loss of power and privilege hit them as if it were active persecution, active oppression.

And of course, if you're oppressed or persecuted, you must be a minority. Everybody knows that.

And yes, the only way that they can get away with claiming this with a straight face is to discount all those Christians who don't really mind the changes or who maybe see the changes as a good thing (maybe even more in keeping with the teachings of Christianity) as Not Really Christian. Because if you're going along with the persecution of your own people, you must never have been one of us to start with.

This isn't limited to religious issues, btw. You can see the exact same dynamic at work, from start to finish, in the white supremacist movement (replace "Not Really Christian" with "race traitor") and in the homophobes who claim gays are asking for special rights, not equal rights. (Heterosexuals are a persecuted minority - all those who agree with those dirty homosexuals don't count.)

[Kristy]

I've never understood Christians who try to portray Christians as a minority in the United States. Can somebody explain the reasoning behind this for me?

Absolutely.

See, for a long time, precisely because Christians are a majority, they got to make the rules. So atheism was bad, non-Christian religions were bad (oh, the Jews were ok so long as they did our taxes, but that was about it), Christian holidays were celebrated by everyone, Creationism was taught in schools, laws were based on (traditional, conservative) Christian sensibilities, and everybody went to church on Sundays.

And to be fair, it had been like that, not just in America, but in most of the western world, for centuries. People were used to it. Christians had both power and privilege, and they took it for granted. Most (dare I say all?) Christians simply didn't notice that the rules were skewed in their favor, because that was The Way It's Always Been. It was normal.

And then things started changing. Women's rights. Gay rights. Religious tolerance. The Scopes Monkey Trial. Dirty pagans like me raising our ugly heads. Richard Dawkins. "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

And Christians realized that they no longer got to make all the rules. And that scared them.

Now, from the outside looking in, this was an evening of the playing field. It was removing an unfair advantage that one group had held for far too long, and treating Christianity as just one of many religions, none of which should be influencing or influenced by the state. (Well, that's the goal at least. Still working on that.)

From the inside, though, again - the Christians didn't see this as an unfair disadvantage, it was just the status quo. So the loss of power and privilege hit them as if it were active persecution, active oppression.

And of course, if you're oppressed or persecuted, you must be a minority. Everybody knows that.

And yes, the only way that they can get away with claiming this with a straight face is to discount all those Christians who don't really mind the changes or who maybe see the changes as a good thing (maybe even more in keeping with the teachings of Christianity) as Not Really Christian. Because if you're going along with the persecution of your own people, you must never have been one of us to start with.

This isn't limited to religious issues, btw. You can see the exact same dynamic at work, from start to finish, in the white supremacist movement (replace "Not Really Christian" with "race traitor") and in the homophobes who claim gays are asking for special rights, not equal rights. (Heterosexuals are a persecuted minority - all those who agree with those dirty homosexuals don't count.)

[Kristy]

(blarg, my posting skills are teh suck. Sorry about the double-post, guys, my computer was having a Moment.)

Hawker - you can't always control the thoughts that go through your mind or the concerns you have. There are people who will give mixed-race couples a hard time, and a parent is always going to worry about anything that could affect their child's happiness.

What you can control is what you say and do. Kudos for supporting your daughter and not becoming part of the negative reaction you wanted to shield her from!

Or, in other words, racist words and racist actions make you a racist. Racist (or race-influenced) thoughts do not. Heck, half the things I think I don't even mean - I'm just trying the thoughts on for size, as it were. I'd hate to think that people could judge me on the basis of the crazy thoughts that I think but don't voice!

[josh]

Psychologically, victim-playing is dangerous because it represents what Nietzsche called "the politics of the tarantula," a base appeal to resentment. But worst of all, it is spiritually hypocritical, for nothing so contradicts their claim to represent "Christian values" as their refusal to follow the teaching and example of Jesus of Nazareth by playing the victim card and finding an excuse not to love their enemies.

I completely agree.

[practicallyevil]

My parents both married outside thier faith; Dad married a Protestant and Mom married a YANKEE. I married a Venezualan/American. My Daughter married a Soldier. I'm sensing a pattern.

I found it! They all got married. Wait, no...

[damnedyankee]

I've always thought that the particular breed of American Christian that cries "oppression!" when faced with a diverse, secular society should spend some quality time in Rwanda, Bosnia, or the former Kurdistan.

[Tonio]

Or, in other words, racist words and racist actions make you a racist. Racist (or race-influenced) thoughts do not.

It's actually the reverse. A racist is someone who has racist thoughts or intentions. This isn't always a conscious phenomenon - many people are horrified to discover latent racism in their own unconscious and then work to overcome it. Actions and words can certainly be racist, but it's wrong to assume that the intention behind these is always racist. Often actions and words that seem racist in intention are merely the product of benign misunderstanding. Conversely, people can have racist intentions behind words and actions that are not racist.

[Praline]

So the loss of power and privilege hit them as if it were active persecution, active oppression. And of course, if you're oppressed or persecuted, you must be a minority. Everybody knows that.

Good point, Kirsty. I personally suspect some more cynical, strategic motives at the upper levels as well, as I said above, but for many, many Christians, I'm sure is right. A quotation from Naomi Wolf's Fire With Fire springs to mind:

Feminists refer to sexist culture as 'reflecting the figure of man at twice its natural size', in Virginia Woolf's phrase, and women often see political parity as something that should be welcome to men, refocusing them on a friendly and realistic human scale, closer to that of women. But when women criticize men's holding of power, we rarely concede that, given the same conditioning, any woman would be convinced that twice her natural size would not feel like an adjustment for clarity, but an unjust diminution of scale.

And I suspect another element comes into play as well: many Christians are suffering, not from religious oppression, but from economic oppression. Bush has ploughed the American economy into the ground, but even before then, there were high levels of poverty, limited job security, recession in the nineties, and generally speaking, a lot of people getting screwed over and disadvantaged. Possibly many Christians are right to feel that the deck is stacked against him, but wrong in assuming that the issue is religious rather than political - largely because the politicians who appeal to their religious beliefs are also trying to persuade them to vote against their own economic interests.

Their sense of disadvantage is accurate, but the people who most address it are using Christianity as a screen for their baser motives - because if you're trying to maintain a massive rich-poor divide so you can stay on the rich side, lip-service to religion is a whole lot more cost-effective than economic justice when you're trying to get votes.

[Praline]

Oops, missed a line from Wolf. It should read:

Feminists refer to sexist culture as 'reflecting the figure of man at twice its natural size', in Virginia Woolf's phrase, and women often see political parity as something that should be welcome to men, refocusing them on a friendly and realistic human scale, closer to that of women. But when women criticize men's holding of power, we rarely concede that, given the same conditioning, any woman would be convinced that twice her natural size is an appropriate reflection. Any tampering with that reflection would not feel like an adjustment for clarity, but an unjust diminution of scale.

[Jeff]

I'd hate to think that people could judge me on the basis of the crazy thoughts that I think but don't voice!

Warning: bad German ahead!

Die Gedunken Sind Frei!

At least, that's what Pete Seeger taught me.

=======================

It would be nice if the 10% (or more) of the "counter-elite" preachers, rabbis, et cetera, spoke out, to their congregation, if not to the world, in favor of this declaration, and of those like Wright who speak truth to power.

[Kristy]

Tonio - ok, I do see your point. The problem is, if someone's thoughts or intentions are racist but their actions and words are benign, calling them on it comes scarily close to thoughtcrime. (To muddy the waters a little, it's like the difference between white supremacists and white separatists. Neither one wants to live around black people, but the supremacists wave guns around and talk about the upcoming race wars, while the separatists just form little communities off the beaten track, far away from the people they don't like, and mind their own business. I may think the separatists are a little silly, but as long as they're not actively hurting other people or intending to, I don't have much of a problem with them.)

Part of where I'm coming from on this stems from a project I did in college about white supremacist groups. I had to do quite a bit of research on this, and I don't know if any of you have had a chance to peruse the websites of these folk, but some of them are pretty darn nasty. And the ideas they present are like mind-viruses. Even as you reject them, the words and ideas seep into your brain. (It didn't help that I was doing this research under bad lighting, in a room slightly too cold for comfort, with no sleep and no food... perfect brainwashing conditions, lol!) The next month or so was like hell. I'd be talking to a black co-worker for instance, and my brain would start throwing out all these horrible slurs (and if you think the n-word is the worst one out there, think again) and just truly awful things. Naturally I wouldn't say any of these things, but I couldn't stop thinking them. Even today I'll sometimes catch myself thinking things which, if I said them outloud, would make me racist - I can reject them as soon as I think them, but I can't stop my mind from tossing stuff out at me from time to time. (At this point I think my id is doing it on purpose, just to watch the looks on my ego and superego's faces. Stupid id and its stupid sense of humor...) So I have to think that the choice to act or not act on racist thoughts makes a difference in whether or not someone is a racist.

Praline: interesting point. Also, take into account that people who have more and better education tend (in general; there are exceptions) to be more tolerant, on religious and social issues, than those who go to bad schools and don't pursue higher education. They also tend to make more money. The circle of cause and effect goes round and round on that, but regardless, there is a general correlation. So I can see why someone who's poor, undereducated, and conservative/sheltered in their beliefs might see a conspiracy amongst those elitist liberals to keep them down. Which, as you say, is almost certainly cynically encouraged by higher-ups who play off their fear and desperation.

[Kristy]

Praline: or, to go with a Simone de Beauvoir quote (immortalized in Doonesbury), "There are two kinds of people, human beings and women. And when women start acting like human beings, people accuse them of trying to be men."

[J]

...spoke out, to their congregation, if not to the world, in favor of this declaration, and of those like Wright who speak truth to power.

Nope. Not taking one bite. Not even going to take a sniff. Why do my otherwise perfectly nice fellow-traveler liberals always do this and defend crazy religious people just because they aren't the usual type of crazy religious people?

Hmm, let me back up 'cause that needs a little background. Put it this way: If Rev. Wright were white and if he substituted "gays" for "America" for the thing he was calling on god to damn, we would be going ballistic. And we would be especially--and rightfully--sneering at any apologetic that started off, "Well, you have to understand the white, right-wing church tradition..."

All of which seems to flow out of the same spring of bad water as otherwise sane-and-secular people who get up and defend crazy Muslim practices. If Christians were practicing genital cutting or child marriage or stoning of adultresses, we would go ape shit. But when Muslims do it, then a certain segment of otherwise secular people deputize themselves to go around saying, "Well, you have to understand that that's not a TRUE Islamic practice..." Or, more rarely but more perversely they just defend it on its face as being another culture, beautiful in it's own way, and so we shouldn't criticize it ('cause that would be Imperialist, y'know?).

[Tonio]

The problem is, if someone's thoughts or intentions are racist but their actions and words are benign, calling them on it comes scarily close to thoughtcrime.

Fair point. I see part of life as always analyzing and assumptions about everything and discarding the ones that don't match up with observed reality. One should always be prepared to be mistaken. When a person has a racist mindset, the person is not only unwilling to question his own assumptions, but is also actively denies the racism of the assumptions. That's what I mean by racist thoughts and intentions - holding onto them is an active process and not a passive process. The type of passing thoughts that you describe would not fit my definition, because they're passive and you reject them almost immediately. Plus, everyone is exposed to a certain degree of racism while growing up, so often we have unwanted vunlerabilities to such mind-viruses. I learned much about my own assumptions when, during college, I found out that my parents would have thrown me out of the house if I had brought home an African-American girlfriend.

[Tonio]

That sentence should read, "...but is also actively denying the racism of the assumptions."

[J]

T-minus 10 seconds and counting until Jesurgislac comes in here and throws a fit, 10, 9, 8, 7 . . .

[hapax]

J: Put it this way: If Rev. Wright were white and if he substituted "gays" for "America" for the thing he was calling on god to damn, we would be going ballistic. And we would be especially--and rightfully--sneering at any apologetic that started off, "Well, you have to understand the white, right-wing church tradition..."

*sigh*

It isn't about race, J. It's about theology -- liberation theology, to be precise. Look it up.

Or don't bother. If you can't automatically sense the distinction between saying "God will damn America because of the way those in power (whites) treat those without power (blacks)" and "God will damn gays because of the way that they (the gays, without power) are treated by others (white right wing conservatives, with power)", I'm sure that any formulation like "God's consistent preference for the poor and oppressed" will seem like gibberish to you.

Or else the distasteful ravings of us "crazy religious people."

[J]

And the AIDS and 9/11 mythmongering? What does that represent a liberation from? Liberation from reality, sense and logic, maybe.

[Praline]

J, don't needle Jesurgislac. She's been subjected to a lot of criticism over the last few days, and is, as far as we can tell, quietly thinking about it somewhere. She's taken enough for the moment; just let her be.

[Praline]

(Typepad seems to have put this post in preview and eaten it in the main screen, but it said...)

J, don't needle Jesurgislac. She's been subjected to a lot of criticism over the last few days, and is, as far as we can tell, quietly thinking about it somewhere. She's taken enough for the moment; just let her be.

[Kristy]

hapax - although, to play devil's advocate, saying that God will damn an entire country for the actions of some of its citizens - especially when a large portion of the country is actively trying to make up for past sins - is a pretty hateful thing to say. Not AS hateful, to be sure, as some of the things said about God and gays, but still a mean-spirited sentiment.

[J]

And the AIDS and 9/11 mythmongering? What does that represent a liberation from? Liberation from reality, sense and logic, maybe.

[Praline]

Typepad eats my comments!

[Donalbain]

Comparing "God Damn America" with "God Damn Gays" is Apples vs Oranges MXCLLLVI!

"America" is a political system it is a system of governance, it is a set of laws and a set of policies. "Gays" is a group of people, flesh and blood people. If he had said "God damn AmericANS" that would be make the comparison more apt.

[Chris]

@J:

Genital mutilation is not an Islamic practice.

As for the rest, I stand by hapax.

[Chris]

@J:

Genital mutilation is not an Islamic practice.

Hapax said the rest.

[Kristy]

hapax: I get liberation theology, but... to play devil's advocate for a moment, you have to admit that claiming God will damn an entire country for the actions of some of its citizens - especially when a large portion of the country is actively trying to make up for past sins - is pretty hateful. Not AS hateful, to be sure, as some of the things that have been said about God and gays, but still fairly mean-spirited.

[Kristy]

testing... testing... is the system going to accept any of my posts, or just continue eating them? (Watch, this is the one that'll go through. I bet you a dollar.)

[Robb]

@J
I agree with hapax on this - you're using "crazy" as a pejorative in a very broad sense, and you're using a poor metaphor. I don't particularly like what Wright has said either, but (huge qualifier here) I'm not black - I don't have a cultural history of oppression & racism to deal with, nor do most white people in the U.S. (at least, not for the past 100 years or so, and even then, it was only certain groups of white folk that were actively discriminated to the same degree that the various "colored" folk have been). Yes, racism takes many forms, but Wright was speaking to the specific African American shared experience, and even more specifically, the feelings generated by that experience, and even more specifically than that, how to connect one's faith in God with that sense of injustice & the need for action.

Despite the lunacy of some of his claims (AIDS as weapon of the U.S. govt?!?!), there is a legitimacy of that mindset that cannot be denied - African Americans have been oppressed in a way that the Bible speaks directly to (or at least, some folks see it that way), and that is the main point of what he's saying. He is a pastor, not a politician, and despite saying some very political things, that's secondary to his goals.

*****

T-minus 10 seconds and counting until Jesurgislac comes in here and throws a fit

*snicker*

Your timing was off, but I'm surprised we haven't heard from her yet...

[J]

Ah! Typepad ate mine too...then spat them out again.