Where are the leaders of the religious right during this white national tragedy? I have not heard any of them. Are they enablers? I expect these religious leaders to speak against obvious immorality. Were many of them also enablers during the civil rights era and the Civil War?

Has there also been outrage from TBM? I heard Hatch spoke out. However, about two weeks ago he called the most dishonest man in the middle of this...honest.

Out there, there is this strange moral compass.

CEOs are leaving. From what I have seen the Presidential Evangelical Council is still in place. What does that say?

They're all voting their pocketbook?

That wasa very good question, so I asked the google god:


https://www.bustle.com/p/the-christian-response-to-charlottesville-has-been-timid-heres-why-76620

Many of the religious right have been feeding the culture of hate for a long time. One of the most obvious hate campaign has been against the LGBT community.

They may be staying silent because they can not come out and directly support the hate, If they come out against the hate, they risk having their hate filled past thrown in their face by angry victims of their past.

I sort of feel they have been the instigators behind the rise of the hate culture, but they themselves do not get their hands dirty. They have been building the culture of hate, and they are now more than happy to let the minions take the heat while they stay quiet.

Don't get me started !

This is the pattern of religion. They are the bulwark for restraining any civil rights issue. They want the status quo to protect their views and interests until it becomes utterly socially and morally unacceptable. Then, a few "change from within" types in religion slowly drag the views forward. Then the religion takes credit for helping civil rights advance.

In a hundred years, religion will be teaching how they were on the side of gay rights and race equality because a few of them "reinterpreted" scripture and the religion adapted.

Some adapt faster than others, but by nature, religions look to past authority and traditions for guidance, not the future.

I hope the more moderate religions will continue to speak out and help change "what we've always believed" but it is clear that religion as a whole (of course there were a few notable exclusions) has not been the primary instigators of civil rights.

Reform Judaism voted to ordain gay rabbis over 30 years ago.

Actually religion played a big part in the abolitionist and civil rights movements.Many religions have spoken out about Charlottsville-even Mormons. To say religion doesnt do anything is simply wrong although many of the religious right are an exception. Try watching the news or studying history. Look up Quakers ,William Wilberforce, SCLC, Martin Luther King, the religious leaders who marched on Selma for a start.There were plenty of religious people marching in Charlottsville against the alt right.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2017 09:33PM by bona dea.

True. And I'd add, beyond the Quakers, the Anabaptist sects were on the forefront of abolitionism and peacemaking.

There is zero doubt that religion has been a force of endless evils, but to state all religions are equally guilty is historically inaccurate. Odds are some are simply ignorant of history, though I'd wager some make such sweeping statements because it fits with their hate-filled narrative.

But of course it's complicated. Christianity, Christian theology, was explicitly used on *both* sides of the question of slavery. Orthodox Judaism remains (from Reform J's perspective) regressive on women's rights, gays, and other issues. Those who want to say "religion is progressive" can also be accused of sloppy over-generalization.

I personally look forward to the day when none of us cares what the "religious right" thinks or doesn't think.

And honestly it hadn't crossed my mind until the OP asked the question. Their silence apparently served it's purpose.

I'm sorry to see that you guys broke your Google.

"While many American politicians and citizens criticize President Donald Trump for not specifically calling out white supremacists for the deadly violence in Charlottesville over the weekend, his evangelical advisers have been more vocal.

All but a handful of the two dozen evangelical leaders on the President’s advisory board posted in response to the “Unite the Right” rally that drew white nationalists and neo-Nazis to the historic Virginia city on Friday and Saturday, spurring counter-protests from interfaith groups."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2017/august/trump-evangelical-advisers-charlottesville-white-supremacis.html


"But among the many untold stories of the harrowing day is the account of hundreds of religious leaders like Harper who descended on Charlottesville to resist white supremacy. While images of prayerful resistance are often less eye-catching than bloody fists, spiritual protesters were still a crucial part of both the counter-protests and relief efforts. Many stood arm-in-arm while staring down white supremacists—and plan to do it again."
https://thinkprogress.org/clergy-in-charlottesville-e95752415c3e/



I think this is where you guys pivot and claim their responses don't meet your standards or were "tepid at best," so you can continue your narrative.

By the way, I know a couple of national atheist organizations have condemned the white supremacists, but to my knowledge, no atheist I personally know has done so. It makes me sad to learn all of these individuals are racists and Nazi sympathizers.

Am I playing this game right?

I'll admit that I wasn't categorizing each response by their political or cultural leanings.

My primary measuring stick is how much I agree with what they said and how they said it.

My personal opinion is that the issue is a bit more complicated than some are making it out to be. Violence is deplorable and should be condemned. Poor wording ahead, whitewashing history is not as awful as violence but it ought not be done as well. So now you know my measuring stick for the whole discussion

It's an anti-intellectual dangerous world when otherwise intelligent people start developing entire systems of thought and reaction based upon the silence of an individual.

Democracies and civil societies generally work to protect citizens from punishment for things they don't do. This is just another form of bullying. When a society embraces this behavior as normative, it hastens the end of personal freedom.

"North Korea's hardline regime is punishing those who did not cry at the death of dictator Kim Jong-il, according to reports.
Sentences of at least six months in labour camps are also apparently being given to those who didn't go to the organised mourning events, while anyone who criticised the new leader Kim Jong-un is also being punished.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085636/North-Koreans-face-labour-camps-upset-death-Kim-Jong-il.html#ixzz4q7hOIM3w

North Korea is not an apt example of the gradual erosion of personal freedom. Obviously.

The other problem with your argument is that there is a difference between people and media criticizing someone for his/her failure to stand up for principle and the state imposing a punishment for that failure. It is state action, not public discussion, that threatens personal freedom.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." As Burke intimated, "doing nothing" includes refusing to criticize dangerous political movements. (The right to engage in) public criticism, including of silence, is essential to a functional democracy.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By the way, I know a couple of national atheist
> organizations have condemned the white
> supremacists, but to my knowledge, no atheist I
> personally know has done so.

I have done so many times, including on here.
That doesn't count?

> It makes me sad to
> learn all of these individuals are racists and
> Nazi sympathizers.
>
> Am I playing this game right?

No, as usual you're not.

While I know you here online, I would hesitate to characterize our relationship as "personal." Thus the distinction.

But would you care to address the larger issue? Do you endorse condemning individuals and groups for offenses you imagine are demonstrated by their silence? Would you agree that any judgment created in the absence of specific input is at best unreliable and completely unfounded at worst?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2017 12:21PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2017 12:23PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While I know you here online, I would hesitate to
> characterize our relationship as "personal." Thus
> the distinction.

Thus the straw-man :)
I don't even know if you know any atheists given that definition of "personal." Or if you've talked to any of them about this subject. Sure seems like a set-up to denigrate atheists...

> But would you care to address the larger issue? Do
> you endorse condemning individuals and groups for
> offenses you imagine are demonstrated by their
> silence?

I "endorse" asking groups a simple question: Do you endorse/support this thing?
If they answer yes, and the thing is something like white supremacists, they merit "condemnation."
If they refuse to answer no, and make excuses, they merit "condemnation."
If they answer flat-out "no," they don't merit condemnation.

But, like I said above, I personally *don't care* what the "evangelical religious right" thinks about anything. I wish nobody else did, either. That was the opinion I expressed.

> Would you agree that any judgment created
> in the absence of specific input is at best
> unreliable and completely unfounded at worst?

No.
In the case of a national issue where specific groups have been outspoken in the past, and would be expected to issue a statement of some kind, silence can speak volumes.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't even know if you know any atheists given
> that definition of "personal." Or if you've
> talked to any of them about this subject. Sure
> seems like a set-up to denigrate atheists...
>

Pot -> Kettle
The OP did not suggest any specific conversations. My point. This entire topic is intended to be a set-up to denigrate Evangelicals.

>
> I "endorse" asking groups a simple question: Do
> you endorse/support this thing?

And this is where you're more reasonable than your counterparts here. You are the first to suggest actual interaction should be the foundation for learning where a group or individual stands on this topic.

>
> > Would you agree that any judgment created
> > in the absence of specific input is at best
> > unreliable and completely unfounded at worst?
>
> No.
> In the case of a national issue where specific
> groups have been outspoken in the past, and would
> be expected to issue a statement of some kind,
> silence can speak volumes.

Only for ideologues who wish to make a point. In the real world, the absence of evidence is just that. Any argument openly and admittedly made in ignorance is just that: An argument from ignorance. Under any other circumstances reasonable people would just dismiss it.

And as noted, the OP's premise is false. There has been a significant public response from the Evangelical community condemning the white supremacists. Can you or anyone else locate an Evangelical leader who specifically endorsed the white supremacists?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2017 01:17PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And as noted, the OP's premise is false. There has
> been a significant public response from the
> Evangelical community condemning the white
> supremacists.

Indeed it is. The Southern Baptist convention, the single largest Protestant Evangelical Church in the nation, and the second largest religious group, voted overwhelmingly to condemn white supremacy.

The United Methodist Church, the largest body of said religion, issued a statement on Charlottesville just yesterday: http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/bishop-ough-issues-statement-on-charlottesville

And there are plenty others.

As an agnostic, I'm no apologist for Evangelicalism in particular or Christianity in general. In fact, I have some major issues with both. But tarring an entire group of people, particularly when the premise itself is bullshit, is exactly what the alt-right and their ilk do.

> Can you or anyone else locate an
> Evangelical leader who specifically endorsed the
> white supremacists?

I can't think of one. There may be some lunatic fringe group out there that does, but not of any of the major religious organizations.

Exactly. Some of the religion haters need to watch the news and study history.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2017 05:12PM by bona dea.

Well, let's see. . .

Trump's two business advisory councils disbanded after his second rant, expressing their collective view that they could not ethically associate with a leader who can't see the difference between armed, marching Nazis and their almost entirely peaceful opponents.

Meanwhile, as of yesterday Trump's "Evangelical Executive Advisory Board" has not suffered any defections. Who are these bastions of moral leadership? They include Michele Bachman; James Dobson; Jerry Falwell, Jr; Robert Jeffress; Jack Graham; Ralph Reed; Tony Suarez and a dozen or so whose names I don't recognize. Some of these paragons, including Falwell and Jeffress, have endorsed Trump's defense of the white nationalists. Others, like Suarez, have taken the courageous position that racism is bad but Trump's statements were "misunderstood." That's moral clarity for you.

I am sure that a lot of religious leaders have condemned Trump's racism. But the ones prominent enough that their endorsements were politically meaningful to the president have not done so. They have either remained silent or they have expressed support for his defense of the white extremists. The business leaders, like the unanimous chiefs of staff in the armed forces, have shown a lot more integrity than Trump's religious advisors.

They are the ones I meant when I said some right wing religious leaders havent spoken out,but those people are hardly representative of all Christians.Many have spoken and loudly. Considering the source, I am not surprised at the silence of those you mentioned.

Not for the first time, you and I are in agreement.

I am not sure, for instance, that the Catholic Church could reasonably be included in the "religious right." I am also sure a lot of other religious leaders have condemned Trump's appalling and atavistic views.

The religious leaders who are on board with him, at least to the extent of being on his board or helping massively with fundraising, are unusual in a couple of regards. First, they are political activists and not just religious leaders. Second, a lot of them have major business operations in the Bible Belt or other areas with a reactionary political base. Their interests are decidedly mixed: God, power, and money.

The problem is that many of Trump's faith-based bedfellows do line up, roughly, with the evangelical right. Evangelicals, as opposed to religion in general, should be ashamed of that association.

I wouldnt consider Catholics as a whole right wing. They are conservatively on a few issues but quite liberal on many others. They certainly support many hings that Trump is against.

Yes. Right on a few issues--abortion--but probably left on more of the others.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. Right on a few issues--abortion--but
> probably left on more of the others.


Eh ... kind of. I wouldn't consider Catholics the "religious right" in the strictest of terms because that generally means Protestant Evangelical Bible-thumpers. However, on social issues, Catholicism is pretty solidly right-wing, if not outright wackadoodle. On abortion, LGBTQ+ issues, nontraditional families (e.g, polyamory, polygamy, single mothers, open marriages, et al.), contraception, and the rest, they are hardcore. Even more so than their wacky Protestant pals in some cases. Now on poverty, war, immigration, etc., the Catholics do, at times, depart from the fundy crew in a good way.

Those nazi and kkk guys in Charlottesville - are they claiming to be atheists or quoting the bible? Are they a slice of the evangelical religious right?

Moral Outcry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where are the leaders of the religious right
> during this white national tragedy? I have not
> heard any of them.

Franklin Graham, Russell Moore (head of the Southern Baptist convention), Cardinal Daniel DiNardo (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), Traci Blackmon (United Church of Christ) and many others have roundly condemned the acts in Virginia and/or racism.

Try stepping out of the bubble every now and then. You might hear more.

It rather depends on what you are calling the Evangelical Religious Right. It seems a term that contracts and expands -- like a bellows.

What has been called the Religious Right as a political force has included Catholics -- and they have spoken out forcefully from many corners against the racism currently on display. They were also the unhappy recipients of that hate not that long ago in American history -- good to remember.

"The abhorrent acts of hatred on display in Charlottesville are an attack on the unity of our nation and therefore summon us all to fervent prayer and peaceful action,” Cardinal Daniel DiNardo said in a statement Aug. 11."


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/calls-for-prayer-amid-abhorrent-violence-in-charlottesville-17464/


Jews -- whether orthodox or reformed -- have been among the most vocal.

"The white nationalist, neo-Nazi, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic demonstration last week in Charlottesville was a sin against God; the violence and murder that followed were inexcusable. We believe that every law-abiding American citizen of good faith joins us in condemning this exhibition of hatred, violence and murder."

Read more: http://forward.com/scribe/380310/orthodox-rabbis-speak-out-against-charlottesville-riots/

The Anti-Defamation League was right there, of course.

"We have a history in this country of presidents standing up to bigotry and hate. Today, for the second time in four days, President Trump did the opposite.

"President Trump went beyond the pale today in equating racist white supremacists in Charlottesville with counter protesters who were there to stand up against hate."


The Episcopalians -- this is a church that crosses the boundaries and includes some Evangelicals and also many mainline congregations --

"Episcopal bishops and faith leaders across the country have spoken out and named the dangerous racist ideology behind Saturday’s violence. In an article published by the Huffington Post, the Rt Revd Jake Owensby, Bishop of Western Louisiana, addressed the issue head-on:


"For Christians, such ideas are appalling. We are all God’s children. In Christ we are all sisters and brothers. Every human being possesses infinite dignity, and it is our right, duty and privilege to respect each person we meet as God’s beloved. Everyone is equal before God. Everyone should be equal under the laws of the land."


https://www.episcopalcafe.com/episcopal-faith-leaders-speak-out-after-charlottesville/

I could go on and on, and will if pressed. I think religions in general have been true leaders at this time, oddly enough, including the Mormons -- bless their little hearts. Certainly there are congregations holding back -- IN THE SOUTH THERE ARE CONGREGATIONS WHERE THE PREACHER IS KLAN -- so yeah. There's that, too.

But meanwhile, the political, cultural earth is shifting under our feet. Everywhere I go on the Net, I am confronted with religions speaking out articulately, intelligently for a better, more just world.

I have a friend I haven't gotten on with for a long time because while she seems a good soul, she got caught up in the whole Evangelical Religious Right thing for a while. She acted as though every word out of my mouth was an attack on her faith. (She is not Mormon.) Suddenly, we find ourselves back on the same side as her church does also care about poor, about immigrants, about the downtrodden.

And you might want to view the video in this -- it is about 100 Evangelical leaders speaking out against Trump's immigration policy.

"We evangelicals hold our Scriptures near and dear. The Gospels make it clear that God loves everyone. Jesus proclaimed a message of compassion and welcomes anyone who chooses to follow him. The Apostle Paul wrote that “all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved” and that “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” According to Ephesians, Jesus’s death and resurrection tore down dividing walls of hostility between ethnicities and races. In other words, everyone is on equal footing before God."

http://www.news-leader.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/07/25/we-white-evangelicals-must-speak-out-against-racism/498879001/

You are right that the definition of "religious right" is fluid; and your generalization of "religious right" in this context is pretty close to mine, which is why I mentioned the Bible Belt.

One area where I'd disagree with you is over the statements of the Mormon Church, where I am more cynical than you. What I mean is that the church is, as always, doing exactly what is in its interests. On the one hand, the church has opposed restrictions on immigration not due to principle but because that's one of the few groups in the US that is still proving fruitful for Mormon missionaries. It was that fact that motivated the apparently "liberal" respect for illegals that we have seen in recent years.

On the other hand, given its history the LDS church wants desperately to differentiate itself from the racist right. That motive is reinforced by the rise of the "wife with a purpose" cult, with its explicit ethno-centrism, and the Denver Snuffer cult, with its implicit following among the white nationalists of the IMW. I reckon the church is deeply disturbed by those movements since they could become a major internal threat to the hierarchy.

So I think the LDS leadership, with its right-wing bias, would impulsively reject both illegal immigration and the anti-confederacy (and anti-states-rights) politics of today. The reason the Q15 are acting "progressively" in these two particular, though important, areas is that they want to safeguard the church and preserve their own power. To that extent, they are as self-interested as the Bible-Belt religious corporatists.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/18/donald-trump-evangelicals-charlottesville?CMP=share_btn_fb

Clearly the Evangicial leadership community speaks with a forked tounge.

Actions speak louder than words.

Deeds not words are the point of judgement.

Evangelicals are STILL the broadest supporting community for the least moral American Politician of all time.

HH =)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/18/donald-trump-evangelicals-charlottesville?CMP=share_btn_fb


Yup... The righteous evangelicals sure do put thier money where thier values are. (Snark should be obvious but some clearly need it pointed out... so here it is)

=). HH

Now, YOU are playing the game right.

Thanks for the stats - that does tell the story.

Happy_Heretic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Evangelicals are STILL the broadest supporting
> community for the least moral American Politician
> of all time.
>
> HH =)


The atheists appear to be the only ones who contend Evangelicals somehow thought they were electing a pope. You really should get out more, and maybe actually talk to these lowly Evangelical creatures. They were largely seeking a politician who would advance an agenda friendly to their own. And to a great degree, that's what they got.

I was never a great Trump cheerleader, but I'll likely live the rest of my life smiling every time I hear a reference to "Justice Gorsuch."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-voters-charlottesville-virginia-car-attack/


>least moral American Politician
> of all time.

Ahhh, you display the wonderful myopia and amnesia of the ideologue. Give me a call when Trump weaponizes the IRS against his enemies or is found wiretapping journalists and their families. And can we talk about the tens of thousands of dollars more I've paid for my health insurance since we enacted "the affordable health care act?"

Oh, and stained blue dress, shall we?

First I said Evangelical Religious Right, not all religions. Many religious leaders have been loud and clear about their stand on this situation. Many of them said what you would expect from a person of values and morality.

The Religious Right has not been as loud from what I can see. Maybe I should have done a more massive massive google search to find their response. I didn't think I needed to. You would hope them to be at the forefront of this moral issue. However, when I just keyed in Falwell on Google which I see as a big leader of this movement, this is what I received.

"Finally a leader in the White House. Jobs returning, North Korea backing down, bold truthful statement about Charlottesville tragedy. So proud of Donald Trump," Falwell Jr. tweeted.

I am sorry I should have done a better search. This does say a lot doesn't it?

Again I ask, is the Falwell (religious right) philosophy a part of the type of enabling that occurred during the Civil War and and Civil Rights Era? Is it enabling now?

I also Googled Dr James Dobson and Charlottesville and saw no response.

Yes, I know you were talking about the right, but some posters seemed to be including every religion.

It is also helpful to explore what "religious right" means in this context, which I think has been a useful dialogue.

But most of us agree with you.

Moral Outcry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also Googled Dr James Dobson and Charlottesville
> and saw no response.


In an interview three days ago, Dr. Dobson said, quote, "This practice is as equally inhumane as the views of the racist bigots who disgraced our country in Charlottesville this past weekend."

Thank you for that information. I was unaware of that very strong statement, equating Charlottesville bigots and eugenics.

I hope he goes further and resigns from Trump's advisory board. That would seem reasonable given the extreme but well-founded views you referred us to.

A.R. Bernard made the leap. He should be proud, so too those in his organization.

That means about 5% of the evangelical advisory board have resigned in protest. That's still vastly less than the businessmen and hence underscores the failure of his peers to do what is right.

Congratulations to him, again.

Moral Outcry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The Religious Right has not been as loud from what
> I can see. Maybe I should have done a more
> massive massive google search to find their
> response. I didn't think I needed to.

No offense, but I don't know how one could have missed it. Unless you were very selective on your "news" sources.

(I can't believe I'm actually having to make these statements, because as a freedom-minded person, I can't stand the religious right. Not as much as Mormonism, of course, because that is the gold standard of douchery. And as a member of a minority group, believe me, there is no love lost with the alt-right. Those jackbooted fools need to go away.)