Re: Black Christian Pastors:
- “you are my enemy”
- “It’s time to take our nation back.”
- You can’t compare gay civil-rights struggles to black struggles
It suddenly occurred to me: “protecting beliefs” has no boundaries. If you think that marriage is only between male & female because your religious beliefs, that’s fine. If you also believe that the institution of marriage is established by your god; the U.S. is a Christian country; and that, therefore, laws should be Christian-based, it makes sense that you might think that in fighting the progression of same-sex marriage, you are “protecting your faith.”
But your faith is personal. And to extend it to the entire country is dominionist and, frankly, self-absorbed.
Those such as Pastor Roland Caldwell declare as “enemies of God” and therefore “my enemies” all those who believe their faith is about living the life of Christ, not trying to structure a nation to conform to their own beliefs. Their enemies are the same people who believe in fairness and equality for all tax-paying citizens of this same nation. To those self-righteous who arrogantly claim to know the mind of God with authority to name who His enemies are, I say you’ve overstepped or stepped over the living-by-example and grace-as-light foundation of the person whose name you have soiled, whose light you have tainted, whose Grace you have horrifically misrepresented.
Arrogating the -ism
When you talk about how gay struggles can’t be compared to black struggles, it’s hard to know when you have drifted from the context of slavery to the concept of racism. You use them interchangeably.
The primary element in racism is the -ism part: the segregationist & elitist beliefs and laws. It’s in the struggle against -ism where the true comparison lies. Race is the pretext. Blacks weren’t the only slaves in the world — slavery is not a “black” thing. “Black” was a characteristic of the enslaved, not the vital node in the concept of ‘slavery’. Rac-ism was the necessary attitude for the U.S. brand.
Here, you are guilty of an -ism: I’ve heard it called Christianism, Dominionism, Heteroism, Conservatism, Tribalism. These -isms are as elitist and segregationist as white-supremacy racism. These -isms produce civil-rights issues while at the same time using rights to put down others’ rights.
I think that, if you require one to match every single point between your rights -ism and another’s rights -ism in order for it to be a valid comparison, you display deliberate obfuscation and arrogance. Black or gay is the pretext for the -ism against which one struggles.
You insist on the same comparison restrictions in the struggle for civil rights.
Does the struggle for civil rights for homosexual citizens rise to the degree as it occurred for the black struggle in this country? No. But degree does not automatically surrender the notion of “struggle for civil rights” to the African race. Saying that comparing the gay-rights movement to black struggles is “intellectually empty, dishonest” or “ignorant and myopic” is appropriation and arrogance — and, frankly, racist. Arrogance: attributing unto yourselves something (exclusivity in civil-rights struggle) you do not actually possess.
“Ignorant and myopic” because the gay, small struggles might obscure the death and fighting your way out of slavery? You’re concerned that the truth of your hardships is being obscured as though the hardships slaves and ex-slaves suffered are the only ones that qualify as civil-rights struggle?
On the flip side of that, you use the degree — the depth and breadth of hardship — to obscure “struggle” in any other way. You appropriate struggle; you deny “struggle” to anyone else. You deliberately minimize and look down on the civil-rights struggles of others. In doing so, you are the oppressors.
So, another element of hypocrisy: being elitist while denying anyone else the very foundation upon which you rest your claim to virtue, oh ye formerly oppressed. Another tainting of “the light.” Another way to divide along tribal lines than to find the truths that unite. Perpetuate racism from your side of the fence. Solidify it with the same Christianity that blessed slavery in the first place.
If you point to the salient and un-hidable trait of skin color, then you focus on the surface of the occasion for the -ism. In that way, your arguments are shallow — skin deep, as it were — as though skin color were the only legitimate excuse for oppressing anyone or that being able to “hide” a trait makes the oppression not as oppressive.
“Intellectually empty, dishonest” made me laugh out loud at the sheer elitist, blind hubris. (Another element of kettle-pot hypocrisy.) It is “intellectually dishonest” to overgeneralize an entire category (civil rights struggle against an elitist, Christian oppressor) as pertaining only to your race’s history. In fact, it is reductive and lacking in critical evaluation. In that way, your presumption is “intellectually empty.” And pathetic.
The struggle for equality, to get out from under the self-important elitists — their judgments, their laws, their cruelty — you don’t own that ground. That virtue is not yours to appropriate and hold high so that others cannot be part. You have become the elitist in your struggle-appropriating, Christian dominionism.
Um, whose country?
“It’s time to take our nation back.” Wait a minute. Your ancestors arrived here as slaves and my ancestors fought & died to emancipate them from Christian Ordination and Southern Tradition. If you want to play that childish game: It was my nation before it was your nation. One of my ancestors was one of the two founders of the Quaker Church in North America in the early 1600s. Look it up: «The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) was the first corporate body in Britain and North America to fully condemn slavery as both ethically and religiously wrong in all circumstances. » And my ancestors were Northerners for whom I have Civil War sign-up cards and death notices.
“It’s time to take our nation back.” Talk about “intellectually empty” and “myopic.” My ancestors fought and died for the notion of equal freedom for all, and I continue to vote in the same direction. And you would deny it? You would obscure that participation, that involvement, that consciousness?
You didn’t “struggle” by yourselves. To me, your attitude is childish and again, arrogant: attributing your success (?) unto yourselves. My reaction is: screw you. But, still again, it is the conservative “take back our nation” talking point that you include in your appropriation of civil-rights struggles against -ism. Plus Christian tribal elitism. Plus racism — you judge by your race. Plus divisiveness. Plus non-Graceful belligerence.
The “unity” you propose is homogenization with your values and perspective as the core. There would be no struggle if only everyone conformed to your tenets. Right. Even other Christians are your enemies. History has shown that it is no slippery religious slope for Christianity to devolve to its inquisitional, “Taliban” days.
Your use of “intellectual” paired with “honesty” shows how little you understand of either term. And “empty”? You’ve replaced intellectual substance with your pride and hubris … basically hot air.