Earlier today, I was on the Wartburg Watch site, reading the comments for a post on the fallout from Joshgate 2.0:
The Wartburg Watch takes a critical look at the trends in evangelical and fundamentalist Protestantism, particularly in the Southern Baptist world. Nonetheless, many of the commenters were complaining about how Josh Duggar was being unfairly demonized for having an Ashley Madison account, when there are liberals out there doing the same thing, without anyone complaining about it. While I’m sure there are people all across the political spectrum cheating on their significant others, there’s a very good reason why Josh Duggar in particular is being raked across the proverbial coals.
Another day, another Duggar scandal:
As you probably recall, Josh Duggar also admitted to molesting his sisters and a family friend about four months, making this his second sex scandal in less than six month, which could be a record; even Jimmy Swaggart waited a couple of years before re-visiting prostitutes’ row.
Do you remember an incident that occurred some months ago in which Justin Harris, a “Christian” state representative from Arkansas, gave his adopted daughters to a sex offender who ended up abusing one of the girls? Well, he’s back and he’s getting an award!
Last Sunday, while addressing Rock Hill Missionary Baptist Church, a black church in rural South Carolina, GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee asserted, “I hear people say we’ve got racial problems. We don’t have a skin problem in this country, we have a sin problem in this country.” In a 1997 speech commemorating the desegregation of Little Rock’s Central High, Huckabee expanded on this “sin not skin” notion by saying:
Government can do some things, but only God can change people’s hearts. Government can put us in the same classrooms, but government can’t make classmates go home and be friends when school is out.
Government can make sure the doors of every public building are open to everyone. Government can ensure that we share schools and streets and lunch counters and buses and elevators and theaters, but let us never forget that only God can give us the power to love each other and respect each other and to share life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I imagine that these statements went over quite well, given that they were uttered in the Bible Belt, where people of all races love god-talk, but they’re quite silly, given that 1. Christianity and racism have aided and abetted each other throughout the centuries 2. prejudice surrounding skin color most certainly is the problem, not “sin.”
Guest post from Myristic Mystic:
I don’t know how many times I’ve heard some “conservative” say, “hate the sin but love the sinner,” though over the last few years that seems to be less common, for some reason (perhaps it was judged to be a double-edged sword by the right wing think tanks). This is the kind of abstract statement that is highly problematic, because it can prompt unstable minds to do terrible things. And who concluded that one can love and hate at the same time, in the same context? This suggests a poor understanding of human psychology (if not a deliberate attempt to prompt atrocious behavior).
I know I’m super late with a post on Caitlyn Jenner, but it wasn’t until today that I came up with the idea for this post. As almost everyone knows, the former Olympian known as Bruce Jenner is now Caitlyn Jenner, forcing the transgender issue out in a way that it has never been before. As one would expect, the way the public has responded to Jenner is divided on cultural lines, with progressives saying, “You go girl!” while conservatives insist, “She’s a MAN, baby!” (I won’t get into the reaction of TERFs — trans-exclusionary feminists — which is a whole other kettle of fish) Since you already knew that, I want to examine the reaction to Jenner from an economic perspective.
The phrase “If only public teachers/coaches/scout leader/whoever could marry!” is often bandied about by conservotrads to mock the notion that the clerical abuse crisis is caused by celibacy, noting that non-Catholic individuals who are presumably free to marry are also guilty of sexual abuse. While it is true that child molesters can be of any marital status, religion, or profession, the “If only X could marry!” view ignores the reasons why the reputation of the Catholic church has been so damaged by the clerical sex abuse scandal.