Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
A Quiet Exodus: Why Blacks Are Leaving White Evangelical Churches
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-quiet-exodus-why-blacks-are-leaving-white-evangelical-churches/ar-BBK3gbA
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-quiet-exodus-why-blacks-are-leaving-white-evangelical-churches/ar-BBK3gbA
There is an unholy marriage between the conservative movement, evangelicals, and white nationalism.
The politics and the religion are now one and the same.
Not all evangelical Christians are like this but unfortunately many are. Jimmy Carter left the Southern Baptist church ( http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95311&page=1 ).
Decades ago this kind of thinking was associated with extremist neo-Nazi groups but fear of demographic change has brought it into the mainstream.
It is not surprising that even socially conservative African Americans might no longer feel welcome in such an environment.
Ironically, a over hundred years ago the Progressive movement was lead by white liberal evangelical Protestants -- many of whom were Republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2018 03:42AM by anybody.
The politics and the religion are now one and the same.
Not all evangelical Christians are like this but unfortunately many are. Jimmy Carter left the Southern Baptist church ( http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95311&page=1 ).
Decades ago this kind of thinking was associated with extremist neo-Nazi groups but fear of demographic change has brought it into the mainstream.
It is not surprising that even socially conservative African Americans might no longer feel welcome in such an environment.
Ironically, a over hundred years ago the Progressive movement was lead by white liberal evangelical Protestants -- many of whom were Republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2018 03:42AM by anybody.
anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ironically, a over hundred years ago the
> Progressive movement was lead by white liberal
> evangelical Protestants -- many of whom were
> Republicans.
Such shifts are not uncommon. Between 1880-1970, when Europe was dominated by catholics and lutherans (from the nazis all the way to more peaceful varieties), the socialists were at the vanguard of the struggle for secularism and anticlericalism.
Today, those same socialists parties are often accused of pandering too much to the sensibilities of the most conservative, theocratic factions of muslim and hindu communities. They will vote along with non-binding motions against FGM, for instance, but abstain from voting on legal measures against it. Or they ask for religions to be exempt from laws against gender discrimination and homophobia. Or they refuse to publish cartoons of Muhammad in their newspapers, which always call him "the Prophet Muhammad" with a capital P. And they vote against laws on the humane killing of animals and make sure that all the schoolchildren in their fiefdom get to eat nothing but inhumanely killed hallal meat. And so on.
The socialist leaders of the interbellum must be spinning in their graves.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ironically, a over hundred years ago the
> Progressive movement was lead by white liberal
> evangelical Protestants -- many of whom were
> Republicans.
Such shifts are not uncommon. Between 1880-1970, when Europe was dominated by catholics and lutherans (from the nazis all the way to more peaceful varieties), the socialists were at the vanguard of the struggle for secularism and anticlericalism.
Today, those same socialists parties are often accused of pandering too much to the sensibilities of the most conservative, theocratic factions of muslim and hindu communities. They will vote along with non-binding motions against FGM, for instance, but abstain from voting on legal measures against it. Or they ask for religions to be exempt from laws against gender discrimination and homophobia. Or they refuse to publish cartoons of Muhammad in their newspapers, which always call him "the Prophet Muhammad" with a capital P. And they vote against laws on the humane killing of animals and make sure that all the schoolchildren in their fiefdom get to eat nothing but inhumanely killed hallal meat. And so on.
The socialist leaders of the interbellum must be spinning in their graves.
Politics and religion are in fact ultimately one and the same.
People want to socialize with those who look like them. Only natural.
People want to socialize with those who look like them. Only natural.
xxMMMooo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People want to socialize with those who look like
> them. Only natural.
People also, and equally naturally, want to rape, murder and torture others sometimes. Natural is not always synonymous with good.
-------------------------------------------------------
> People want to socialize with those who look like
> them. Only natural.
People also, and equally naturally, want to rape, murder and torture others sometimes. Natural is not always synonymous with good.
That's true, especially if others are different from them in some way.
Yes because socializing and raping/murdering/torturing are exactly the same thing.
Yes, because "people [who] want to socialize with people who look like them" are disproportionately the groups that tolerate or even applaud the "raping/murdering/torturing" of outsiders.
The two phenomena are not identical but they are, empirically, very closely related. I hope you realize that, xxxMMMooo.
The two phenomena are not identical but they are, empirically, very closely related. I hope you realize that, xxxMMMooo.
'Yes, because "people [who] want to socialize with people who look like them" are disproportionately the groups that tolerate or even applaud the "raping/murdering/torturing" of outsiders.'
That's almost every human on the planet, especially those who attend ethnically based churches (the various Orthodox churches, COGIC, Hindus, etc.)
That's almost every human on the planet, especially those who attend ethnically based churches (the various Orthodox churches, COGIC, Hindus, etc.)
That is simply false. You are projecting your emotions onto others in an effort to reassure yourself that you are normal.
+1.0×10^9
You're the one comparing socializing with those that look like oneself with murder and torture.
I also don't see you disputing the predominance of ethnically based churches and other social institutions as contrary evidence.
I also don't see you disputing the predominance of ethnically based churches and other social institutions as contrary evidence.
No, I did not compare ethnocentrism with murder/torture/rape.
What I said is that people who are ethnocentric are more likely to engage in, support, or tolerate abuse of people who are different from themselves.
Are you seriously disputing that?
What I said is that people who are ethnocentric are more likely to engage in, support, or tolerate abuse of people who are different from themselves.
Are you seriously disputing that?
Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The two phenomena are not identical but they are,
> empirically, very closely related. I hope you
> realize that, xxxMMMooo.
Glad you catch my drift this time ;)
-------------------------------------------------------
> The two phenomena are not identical but they are,
> empirically, very closely related. I hope you
> realize that, xxxMMMooo.
Glad you catch my drift this time ;)
Yes, VW, I agree with you that ethnocentric groups are less tolerant of outsiders.
But I must sincerely say that when I read your statement above, I did not immediately understand your point. What I mean is that your past generalizations about Islam made me think you were describing people who dislike Moslems and discriminate against them.
That was of course a misreading. You were saying that Moslems mistreat people who are not Moslems. That is of course, in certain times and places, true. But the opposite is also grue. People who dislike any particular religious group are more likely to sanction violence them. Pot and kettle, surely.
But I must sincerely say that when I read your statement above, I did not immediately understand your point. What I mean is that your past generalizations about Islam made me think you were describing people who dislike Moslems and discriminate against them.
That was of course a misreading. You were saying that Moslems mistreat people who are not Moslems. That is of course, in certain times and places, true. But the opposite is also grue. People who dislike any particular religious group are more likely to sanction violence them. Pot and kettle, surely.
xxMMMooo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Politics and religion are in fact ultimately one
> and the same.
>
> People want to socialize with those who look like
> them. Only natural.
They do???? Where do you live, Racistville.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Politics and religion are in fact ultimately one
> and the same.
>
> People want to socialize with those who look like
> them. Only natural.
They do???? Where do you live, Racistville.
Southern California, inland.
Most churches in my area are 70-85% Mexican/Mexican-American. You'll almost never see a black individual in any of them.
There are many small churches in the neighborhood that are 90%+ African-American, however.
Must be something wrong with all these people.
Most churches in my area are 70-85% Mexican/Mexican-American. You'll almost never see a black individual in any of them.
There are many small churches in the neighborhood that are 90%+ African-American, however.
Must be something wrong with all these people.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/06/its-mostly-white-people-who-prefer-to-live-in-segregated-neighborhoods/396887/
The "self-segregation" fallacy has been debunked many times:
And it isn’t so much that whites want to live among “people who are similar to them,” Krysan and her co-authors write, but rather that “anti-black feelings [are] driving whites’ residential preferences.”
Other studies, the authors note, have found that whites are not comfortable with more than 20 percent of their neighbors being black, while blacks prefer a 50-50 split and don’t particularly prefer either all-white or all-black neighborhoods. Importantly, black people’s aversion to all-white neighborhoods is rooted not in a desire to live exclusively among blacks, but rather derives from the fear of discrimination in all-white neighborhoods.
“It is misleading, I think, to use the word ‘voluntary choices’ given what underlies the preferences of African Americans in particular to not be the ‘pioneer’ or one of just a few blacks in a neighborhood/community,” emails Krysan. “A number of different studies (my own and others)… demonstrate that the desire for more diverse neighborhoods is driven importantly by concerns about discrimination in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly white. I would not call that a truly ‘voluntary’ choice, given that it is inextricably tied up with past and present circumstances of racial violence and discrimination towards blacks who move into neighborhoods that are all or very predominately white.”
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2018 12:17PM by anybody.
The "self-segregation" fallacy has been debunked many times:
And it isn’t so much that whites want to live among “people who are similar to them,” Krysan and her co-authors write, but rather that “anti-black feelings [are] driving whites’ residential preferences.”
Other studies, the authors note, have found that whites are not comfortable with more than 20 percent of their neighbors being black, while blacks prefer a 50-50 split and don’t particularly prefer either all-white or all-black neighborhoods. Importantly, black people’s aversion to all-white neighborhoods is rooted not in a desire to live exclusively among blacks, but rather derives from the fear of discrimination in all-white neighborhoods.
“It is misleading, I think, to use the word ‘voluntary choices’ given what underlies the preferences of African Americans in particular to not be the ‘pioneer’ or one of just a few blacks in a neighborhood/community,” emails Krysan. “A number of different studies (my own and others)… demonstrate that the desire for more diverse neighborhoods is driven importantly by concerns about discrimination in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly white. I would not call that a truly ‘voluntary’ choice, given that it is inextricably tied up with past and present circumstances of racial violence and discrimination towards blacks who move into neighborhoods that are all or very predominately white.”
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2018 12:17PM by anybody.
I would submit that inland southern California does not have a very large population of black people relative to Latinos. It would therefore be a surprise if the number of African-Americans attending churches there was comparable.
They aren't "self-segregating" themselves.
Racism is taught and is a learned behaviour.
Racism is taught and is a learned behaviour.