Why is Christianity so Tied to Racial Prejudice
Fredrick Douglass, the famous black leader, hated Christianity. He had seen too many slave holders who wrapped themselves in piety while inflicting cruelty on their slaves. He recalled seeing a slave owner whip a disabled woman until she bled quoting scripture between each blow.
A new book claims that if one wanted to start a new white supremacy organization, the place to find new members would be the parking lot of a white church, Catholic or Protestant. That group hosts a higher percentage of racist sympathizers of all known groups.
The link reviews the largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. It originated as a religious group who used the Bible to justify slavery and later segregation. Today it is trying to walk back its past. While current leaders espouse the welcome mat for black people, the denomination's history is there for all to see. The link provides evidence of Catholic prejudice as well. One has to acknowledge that parts of Christianity also worked against racism, the Quakers being one.
The explanation as the why U.S. Christianity has such a regrettable history of racism is explained toward the very end of the link. We have to acknowledge we would find racism in nearly every large organization the existed in early U. S. history. Churches were no different than political parties and social organizations of the day.
Attitudes of Christianity reflected the attitudes of the culture of that time in history. What churches believed was what the culture at large believed. That the cultural values and beliefs that prevailed during the time of slavery found their way into religion only reinforces the idea the same thing was true when the Bible was written. It, too, reflected the culture of its time.
All this makes a mockery of the lecture secular people often get from Christians. The lecture tells us we need Christianity otherwise we have no "moral grounding." Believers get their moral grounding from the culture they were born into. So do secular people.
re. "wrapped themselves in piety". Interesting you should say that. Pietism is the operative word. Morphed from the original intent. How many times in the past have I mentioned pietism. The temptation to regard others of lesser value. "What I do, or how I do it is better." Not to be confused with being graciously pious.
ReplyDeletehelper--Yes, you have discussed piety at length. I came to understand more about my childhood religious community from your discussion of piety. There was a list on sins as long as your arm.
DeleteIn the link, it explains southerners (and some northerners too no doubt) were able to set aside, in the own minds, the terrible things they did to slaves by thinking about how they lived their own pious lives. Slave owners talked about how often each day they prayed, etc. On our site here we have heard about how many children a Catholic couple should have (lots of them). I suppose that is also a form of piety.
re. your childhood religious community, and list of sins; Not so much of the list of sins, but how much superior one felt about himself, for example; if his neighbor went to a dance Saturday night, had a beer, and drove a tractor on Sunday.
DeleteFredrick Douglass was a Christian and a Republican.
ReplyDeleteHe referred to the Christianity of Christ and the Christianity of America. As a follower of Christ, he did not hate Christians who defended slavery but he did try to reform them, i.e. love them as Christ would love a sinner but hate the sin. He spoke of the wickedness of slavery.
He was Black, White and Native American.
Abolitionists and Republicans, like Douglass and most enlightened people were at that time in America, were Christians.
Matt--According to a source I found, Douglass visited the Vatican. He was saddened to watch a parade of the Vatican clergy. "They are trained to defend dogmas and superstitions contrary to the progress and enlightenment of the age."
ReplyDeleteIf he were alive today and saw the Catholic anti birth control, anti divorce, anti gay marriage and anti abortion dogmas I think he would say the same thing.
I don't know your source for the quote or that it referred to "... a parade of the Vatican clergy." but I sourced the quote at https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/niallodowd/frederick-douglass-anti-catholic
DeleteThere, it says Douglass was referring to young seminarians, but you must go beyond the Irish Central article to the original book, "Renewing Black Intellectual History."
While Douglass was an abolitionist, a Methodist minister and a Republican, it seems he was a fairly strong religious bigot when it came to Catholics.
Contrary to your speculation about his viewpoints on your favorite laundry list, all of Christendom at the time of Douglass were united in being against abortion, against birth control, against homosexual marriage and, probably, against divorce. It wasn't until the early 20th century, at a Lambeth conference, that the door to birth control was unlocked and a sliver of approval granted by Protestants to its more liberal members.
Like most of us, Douglass had his admirable qualities and his faults.
duh. he was probably a good Calvinist: naturally would not look kindly on the Catholic "thing". if he were alive today and still a good Calvinist he would not be gung ho for all the causes that folks like you now consider to be "progressive".
DeleteI stand corrected. the Methodists were not exactly Calvinists of the strict observance. ironically they have a trace of Catholicism in their veins. their founders, as I recall, were High Church Anglicans who broke with the Calvinists on some significant issues. it does not follow, of course, that Methodists were not anti-Catholic bigots. there were, in fact many such around at the time. and, obviously, there still are: witness Jon's foregoing remarks.
DeleteUnknown re Methodists anti Catholic bigotry
ReplyDeleteIs it bigotry to say Catholics are trained to believe in superstitions and dogma contrary to the enlightenment age? That is, if a criticism is true and fact based is the criticism bigotry? Today it is a fact the Catholic church is against gay marriage, abortion, birth control, women in the clergy, divorce and whatever else all in opposition to enlightenment thought. Is it bigotry to point that out?
yes it is bigotry to "point" that out. why? because it is a hateful, irrational slander. it claims, in effect, that Catholics and by extension, all Christians are fools, unworthy of either respect or consideration, deserving of marginalization. it is also an act of arrogance, arbitrarily claiming superior knowledge and certainty. besides, it is a display of ignorance, a dogmatic assertion on par with the hateful characterization attributed to the other party in a dispute.
DeleteUnknown "yes it is bigotry to 'point' that out."
DeleteI don't understand. If I say, "Democrats and in favor of more spending on social programs and Republicans are in favor of lower taxes" I am insulting both and have attitudes of bigotry.
no, because you are stating a fact, and stating it in an objective, fair manner. fairness is one thing, hateful rhetoric is another.
ReplyDeleteUnknown "hateful rhetoric is another."
DeleteSo, whenever I say the Catholic church is against abortion, birth control, divorce and gay marriage and I add these views are not contemporary ones I am insulting the Catholic Church? Oh I see. I need to put "respectfully" in front of "I say." I didn't do that when I stated the Dem and Republican views. Your over sensitivity meter is turned up too high.
no, if you simply point out the church's position on issue X, Y and Z you are not insulting anyone. but you go far beyond "neutrality", saying that Christians are superstitious idiots, etc. I realize, of course, that this view is so ingrained in your mind that you think that you are merely stating a fact, no slur intended. this attitude unfortunately reflects the deep intellectual and political differences now dividing our society, making all the appeals for "unity" so much wishful thinking, well meaning drivel. we are divided because we are divided.
ReplyDeleteUnknown -- "we are divided because we are divided."
ReplyDeleteThat's a better observation. I was thinking about your posts last night and why it is I do not like to put the word "respectfully" in front of stating views of the Catholic Church. For example, in a few months we anticipate birth of our sixth grandchild. Our son, the father, lives in the downtown of a huge metro area. I told him he needs to check our emergency rooms and make certain the one available to them is not a Catholic hospital. That is because if the mother has a life threatening problem a Catholic emergency room may put her life in danger instead of providing an abortion. Pro choice sites, even books, tell of horror stories allowed to the brink of death before the church allows an abortion. Among the good things in Catholicism are things that are the barbaric, cruel and evil. When I see these things have the potential to harm those close to me I cannot use the word "respect."
pro-choice sites? you think that those are an impeccable source of information? but you summarily dismiss any pro-life accounts of botched abortions, women being rushed to the ER and so forth. seems to me that you are trying to have it both ways. I am gratified to know that you were "thinking about " my posts.
ReplyDeleteUnknown -- "but you summarily dismiss any pro-life accounts of botched abortions, women being rushed to ER and so forth."
ReplyDeleteThat is basically correct. I dismiss them because they are bull$hit. There has been only one professionally conducted study about the safety of abortion versus giving birth. I've mentioned it here several times. It is "The Turnaway Study." A sample of 1000 women at almost exactly the same point in their pregnancy were studied. The women were divided into two groups, ones who had abortions just before the time of allowed abortions had expired and ones who were refused an abortion because they were just past the allowed time. The most sophisticated statistical measurements were applied. Women who had abortions had better health than those who gave birth. Three of the woman died of complications from the pregnancy. No women who had abortions died.
You and other religious people who oppose abortion will scoff, of course. You can bet an small army of anti abortion people have tried to poke holes in the study but no one has yet come up with any important flaw. Yes, you pointed out one academic who said the sample should have been larger. This was the largest sample of any study ever. Pro life people should do their own study following professional rules about sampling the testing results. Rest assured, they will not do this because they know their game of claims about abortions being dangerous would be in the trash forever. Better to be making a false claim than proving it false.
P.S. I return to why I do not use the word "respect" for those who hold on to the false statements, "Abortion is dangerous." When false statements are repeated while known to be false there is no reason to treat either the statement nor those who repeat it with "respect." The more logical is disrespect.
Deleteas I said, your druthers notwithstanding, you can't have it both ways. I have no reason to doubt the empirical evidence: abortion is not universally and certainly "safe". abortion clinics are largely unregulated (thanks to dogmatism of the sort that you have just now paraded before us). abortionists operate largely on the margins of the medical community. abortion has become a thriving , financially incentivised industry, arguably a kind of assembly line operation. BTW, knowing that you have no respect for those that disagree with, goodbye for now.
ReplyDeleteUnknown--One day those who rail against abortion will have to admit the dishonesty is not from those providing abortions but from those against abortion. If you have data, or anyone else reading this, has professionally collected data showing abortion is more dangerous than giving birth please provide it. In the millions of pieces of writing and propaganda churned out by religion apposed to abortion there is not one spec of statistical data showing abortion is more dangerous than births. The opposite is what statistic show.
DeleteI COULD respect those who write and campaign against abortion. It would need to be earned however. I do respect those men and women who decide they do not want abortion in their own personal choices. But when they began making choices for others the respect falls to zero.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteAn account of racial prejudice in Christianity or the lives of Black Catholic priests matter!
From “A Sign of Contradiction, Fr. August Thompson, 1926-2019” by Gregory K. Hillis.(1)
“Fr. Thompson talked about his unwillingness to go uninvited to the homes of dying white Catholics for ‘fear that person would commit an act of hatred on his or her deathbed’ and so put their soul in peril because of their racist reaction to his presence.”
A “Sign of Contradiction” defined.(2)
(1) https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/sign-contradiction
(2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_contradiction
Ardy B Thanks for those references, both of which I read. There is so much darkness in Christianity, especially in the huge Catholic church. This history of mistreating black people is an example.
ReplyDeleteAnother is the argument I've been having with Unknown. The Catholic Church keeps repeating outright lies about the safety of abortion. It would be refreshing if it would say directly, "More women die from childbirth than die from abortion." They will not say this, instead continue to lie.
Jon, why do you persist in harping on this point? it's like having the cat drag a dead mouse into the kitchen. as usual you throw around the "liar" taunt. so, then, let's have you backup your claim. what study(s) indicate that the church is lying? when were these studies done (19th century, early 20th, late 20th, 21st?) where were they done (Chad perhaps?). what was the size of the sample? over what time were the data collected? who and what conducted the studies (Planned Parenthood perhaps?) and, of course, as is your tired old dodge, you completely discount the third party involved in an abortion. contra empirical, contra rational, contra common sense. in sum, my "respect" for your ideological fanaticism is getting a tad frayed.
ReplyDeleteUnknown--I've already provided that information, published in refereed journals in 2020. It is the only objective data published thus far comparing the dangers of abortion and birth. Birth is more dangerous than abortion. For the church, or anyone else, to claim otherwise is not being truthful.
DeleteWhy do I continue to harp on this? Because anti abortion promoters, including the Catholic Church, continue to make false statements. If you continue to make false statements you fall into the same category. I'd suggest you stop.