Does America Need More Atheists?

An opinion piece on the October 3 website of the Washington Post caught my eye and captured my attention. It was by WaPo’s contributing columnist Kate Cohen and titled “America doesn’t need more God. It needs more atheists.” 

Kate Cohen is a mother, an atheist, and an author. Her book, We of Little Faith: Why I Stopped Pretending to Believe (and Maybe You Should To), which was also published on Oct. 3, states that being a mother led her to “come out” as an atheist.

Cohen was raised Jewish and married a Jew in a Jewish wedding—but she explains that she never really believed “in that jealous, capricious, and cruel Old Testament God” (p. 12). But she never identified herself as an atheist until she began rearing her children.

In her book, Kate tells how she vowed to teach her children “what I truly thought about everything,” and she “did not let them decide for themselves,” for she strongly believed that “passing on one’s preference for reason, evidence, and honesty…is the truly moral choice” (pp. 13, 14).

Kate was born and reared in Virginia. She graduated from Dartmouth University and married in 1997. She is now in her late 40s, but I was unable to find out how old her children are. They are probably young adults now and it would be interesting to know how they have turned out.*¹

There are positive aspects of Kate Cohen and her book that should be recognized. She is honest in identifying who she is rather than seeking (any longer) to keep her lack of religious faith closeted. And she encourages others to be honest also as intimated in her book’s subtitle.

Even though I have spent most of my life seeking to help people become God-believers, I think those who don’t believe in God should be able to identify themselves openly rather than pretending to be and to believe, what they are not and do not. Honesty, indeed, is the best policy.

Further, Cohen seeks to remove the stigma from those who identify as atheists. She writes, “Like atheism, homosexuality is a difference that can be hidden. Sociologists call it a Concealable Stigmatized Identity” (p. 221), but she claims that that stigma is disappearing more rapidly for LGBTQ people than for atheists.

But as a God-believer—and because I am a God-believer—I certainly think that people need to be respected/accepted regardless of their religious faith or lack thereof. After all, that is what freedom of religion means.

There are also highly questionable aspects of Cohen’s book. While there are some nuanced places, she gives the impression that all atheists are largely the same, and “good,” whereas all who believe in God/religion are also largely the same, and “bad.” (See, for example, p. 228).

In strongly encouraging people who do not believe in God to affirm their atheism, she writes,

If you need a reason to let people know that you don’t believe moral authority derives from a Supreme Being, then I offer you no less than making America a safer, smarter, more just, and more compassionate country.*²

It is because of that belief that the WaPo article was titled “America doesn’t need more God It Needs More Atheists.”

On the previous page, she asserts, “…peel back the layers of discrimination against LGBTQ people and you find religion.”

She further contends that “control over women’s bodies,” as well as “school-library book bans, and even the backlash against acknowledging the racist underpinnings of our nation are motivated by religion.”

To such charges, I can only say “Yes, but….” Yes, there are Christians who are exactly such as Kate mentioned. But, there are Christians who are against discrimination and control as much as she is. And regarding climate change, note what Pope Francis said about in his 10/4 “apostolic exhortation.”*³

Moreover, if truth were known, my guess is that there is a large percentage of atheists who support discrimination and control as well as the (mostly) conservative evangelical Christians she uses as her foil.

So, no, Ms. Cohen, America doesn’t need less God and more atheists. It needs more intellectually honest and intelligent atheists (or whatever) as well as intellectually honest and intelligent God-believers to work together to make our society more compassionate and more just for all.

_____

*¹ In her book, Cohen says that her children are “engaged, informed, and savvy citizens” (p. 227).

*² These words are in a paragraph that begins with her saying that “anti-atheist sentiment is not a matter of life and death in America. But transphobia is, sexual violence against women is, forced birth is, climate change is, and global pandemics are” (p. 230).

*³ I wrote about this in some detail in my Oct. 13 blog post (see here).

 

What Does the Rainbow Signify?

A rainbow is a fairly rare natural phenomenon that brings delight to anyone fortunate enough to see one. After the Great Flood, according to Genesis 9:13, God said to Noah and his sons, “I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth (NIV).”  

The Rainbow Flag

Presently, perhaps the primary use of the rainbow emblem is with regard to LGBTQ people. The rainbow flag was created in 1978 by artist Gilbert Baker. Upon Baker's death in 2017, a California state senator remarked that Baker (b. 1951 in Kansas) “helped define the modern LGBT movement.”

In June 2015, the White House was illuminated in the rainbow flag colors to commemorate the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states, following the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision.

The rainbow flag is now seen around the globe as a positive representation of the LGBTQ community.

The Rainbow Coalition

Earlier, the rainbow was used in a different manner. In April 1969, Fred Hampton of the Black Panther Party founded an antiracist, anticlass movement called the Rainbow Coalition.

That original Rainbow Coalition was a multicultural political organization that included the Black Panthers, Young Patriots (poor whites), and the Young Lords (Hispanics), and an alliance of major Chicago street gangs to help them end infighting and work for social change.

Hampton (b. 1948) was assassinated in December 1969—and that is the climax of Judas and the Black Messiah, the 2021 American biographical crime drama film about the betrayal of Hampton by an FBI informant.

Many years later, in Nov. 1983, Jesse Jackson launched his campaign for the 1984 presidential election, claiming to be fighting for the rights of a “Rainbow Coalition” of Americans—including Blacks, Whites, Latinos, Native Americans and Asian Americans; men and women; straight and LGBTQ.

The Rainbow Division

As many of you know, for ten years now my wife and I have been members of Rainbow Mennonite Church (RMC) in Kansas City, Kansas, (KCKS). Before we attended there for the first time in 2011, I sent an email to the pastor, asking, among other things, about the name.

We had heard that RMC was a church that welcomed and affirmed LGBTQ people, so we wondered if the church’s name was related to that stance. It turned out that there was no connection.

RMC is now located on Southwest Boulevard, but the church’s first location was on Rainbow Boulevard, a KCKS roadway that was renamed that in 1919 in honor of the 42^nd U.S. Infantry Division.

That 42^nd Division was formed 105 years ago, in August 1917, at the beginning of U.S. engagement in the First World War. It was created by combining military units from 26 states and D.C.

Douglas MacArthur said that such an organization stretches “over the whole country like a rainbow.” As a result, the 42^nd came to be known as the Rainbow Division.

Several of those who served in the 42^nd Division were from the small city of Rosedale (which was annexed by KCKS in 1922). Rosedale welcomed local veterans home from the war with rainbow colored bunting, and then Hudson Road, a major street in Rosedale, was renamed Rainbow Boulevard.

In 1957 a Mennonite church was organized in Rosedale. When it merged with another Mennonite congregation in 1964, the name was changed to Rainbow Boulevard Mennonite Church. Then when the church moved to its present location in 1969, “Boulevard” was dropped from its name.

Mennonites have mostly refused to serve in the military, and during WWI many conscientious objectors were harshly treated and some were jailed. Thus, it is somewhat ironic that our church’s name comes from the “Rainbow Division,” the 42^nd U.S. Infantry Division.

Nevertheless, we members at RMC are proud of our name and the larger meaning of what “rainbow” signifies.

And most of us believe that “The moral arc of the universe is long and bends toward justice.” Maybe that moral arc, which is shaped like a rainbow, is also colored like a rainbow and is, indeed, bending toward justice and equality for all the diverse people represented by the colors of the rainbow.

What about Book Banning?

Vital Conversations is a monthly discussion group for people in the Northland of Kansas City, and since February 2007 I have enjoyed being a regular part of that group. Last week the topic for discussion was the thorny issue of the banning of books in libraries and schools. 

What Books have been Banned?

Rather than discussing one book as usual, this time participants were asked to introduce and share comments about a banned book they had read.

There was quite a variety: “classics” such as Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) and George Orwell’s Animal Farm (1945) as well as more recent books such as And Tango Makes Three (by Justin Richardson, 2005) and All Boys are Not Blue (by George M Johnson, 2020).

Actually, I introduced two books: The Grapes of Wrath (1939), the classic novel by John Steinbeck (and the subject of my 5/10 blog post), and Me and Earl and the Dying Girl (by Jesse Andrews, 2012).

A May 5 article on Esquire.com is titled “The 10 Most-Banned Books in America.” Steinbeck’s 80+ years old book is not on the list, but Me and Earl . . . is.

Given the current culture wars raging in the U.S., it is not surprising that five of those ten books are directly related to LGBTQ issues and three are about aspects of racism.

Why are Some Books Banned?

Books are banned in general because of controversial ideas that are considered a danger to the general public—or a privileged segment of society. The Grapes of Wrath, for example, was banned in some places because of its implicit criticism of capitalism.

Other books are banned because of “moral” objections. My impression from reading Me and Earl . . . was that it normalizes and even glamorizes sexual promiscuity, excessive profanity, and the use of tobacco and alcohol by high school students.*

But a major problem now is disagreement over what is moral. Religious conservatives tend to consider all sexual activity by gays and lesbians to be immoral and even their existence, as well as that of transgender persons, to be an aberration that must not be afforded public acceptance.

And White supremacists, most of whom are perhaps only latently such, find references to systematic racism highly objectionable, if not immoral, and oppose students being taught or allowed to read books that have anything to do with “critical race theory.”

Without question, it is “conservatives” of whatever stripe who clamor most for the banning of books.

Should Any Book be Banned?

The prolific science fiction author Isaac Asimov (1920~92) is often quoted as saying, “Any book worth banning is a book worth reading.”

I agree with Asimov regarding books with controversial ideas being read by adults. But I couldn’t see any basis for thinking that Me and Earl . . . was worth reading—except perhaps to understand the nature of one of the most banned books in 2021 and the nature of some high schoolers now.

Perhaps some books just don’t belong in school libraries—any more than cigarette and beer vending machines don’t belong in school cafeterias.

Teenagers are legally “banned” from purchasing tobacco and alcohol. And they are “banned” from driving a car for most of their teen years. (In Missouri and many other states, a person can’t be fully licensed to drive until age 18.)

Thus, there are some generally accepted limitations on what teenagers can and can’t do, for their protection and for the good of society. Perhaps there are books that fit into the same category.

The problem, of course, is when books are banned because of prejudice against certain people who are demeaned because of their race or because of their sexual/gender orientation.

Given the absence of widespread agreement such as there is regarding laws regulating purchase/use of tobacco/alcohol as well as the age at which teenagers can legally drive, perhaps the best course of action is not to ban any books in schools/libraries.

Parents are responsible for teaching their own children what they think is good and appropriate, but they don’t have the right to regulate what other parents see as suitable or permissible for their children.**

_____

* I usually have high regard for articles published by The Guardian, but I was surprised (disappointed?) by a 2015 review of Me and Earl . . ., the last paragraph of which began, “Everyone should read this book.”

** Helpful treatment of this thorny topic is found in “Banned Books – Top 3 Pros and Cons,” updated in April 2022.

Does Equality Vitiate Religious Freedom?

The U.S. Democrats want equality. The Republicans oppose equality because they want to protect religious freedom. But does equality vitiate (= destroy or invalidate) religious freedom? Or does/should religious freedom vitiate equality? Those are questions now confronting the polarized U.S. Senate. 

From BreakPoint's website, 
which strongly opposes the Equality Act

The House-Passed Equality Act

On February 25, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Equality Act, a far-reaching measure that has been decades in the making and would prohibit public discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Prior to the House vote, on Feb. 19 Pres. Biden issued this official statement: “The Equality Act provides long overdue federal civil rights protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, locking in critical safeguards in our housing, education, public services, and lending systems.”

Leaders from groups like the ACLU and Human Rights Campaign argue that the Equality Act ensures that gay and transgender Americans are no longer fired, kicked out of their housing, or otherwise discriminated against due to their sexuality or gender identity.

The Equality Act of 2021 was passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 224-206. Every Democrat in the House voted for it, but only three Republicans did.

The Senate-Opposed Equality Act

As things stand now, the Equality Act is not likely to be passed by the U.S. Senate. That is because of the filibuster rule that requires 60 votes to pass most legislation. Far more than 40 of the 50 Republican Senators are opposed to the House-passed bill.

Perhaps the main reason for the Republican opposition is their unwillingness to approve anything favored by Democrats. But the primary reason given publicly for their opposition centers around “religious freedom” concerns.

If full equality of LGBTQ persons becomes the law of the land, religious leaders and/or institutions can no longer discriminate against, or denounce, such people.

Such discrimination or denouncement is based on religious beliefs that homosexual activity and gender transitioning are contrary to God’s will, the Bible, and/or traditional religious practices.

Does Equality Vitiate Religious Freedom?

I have been a long and persistent advocate for religious liberty. People should be free to hold religious beliefs and to engage in religious activities without interference by others, including—or especially—governmental interference.

But what if one’s religious beliefs/practices infringe upon the civil rights of other people? Shouldn’t the civil rights of all take precedence over the religious rights of some?

The U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That was a good and important bill that has helped eliminate much—but, unfortunately, not all—harmful discrimination in this country.

But there were those who thought that that bill impinged upon their freedom of religion.

For example, ultra-conservative Bob Jones University in South Carolina, which thought that the Bible opposes the mixing of the races, as most Southerners thought from before the Civil War, continued to oppose racial equality until the year 2000.

In a radio broadcast on Easter Sunday in 1960, Bob Jones Sr., the school’s founder, explained: “If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty because He made racial separation in order to preserve the race through whom He could send the Messiah and through whom He could send the Bible.”

Jones had the right and the constitutional freedom to make such a statement. But the government had the right to champion the civil rights of all citizens, and eventually Bob Jones University had to enroll Black students and then even permit interracial dating.

Bob Jones Sr. and Bob Jones Jr. didn’t have to change their religious beliefs, but they did have to change their school’s practices because of its negative impact on other people.

Isn’t it the same now with regards to LBGTQ people? People should be free to hold whatever religious beliefs they wish. But in practice, civil rights, the right of full social equality, must be upheld for all people.

Equality doesn’t vitiate religious freedom. But the religious freedom of some must never be allowed to vitiate the civil right of equality for all.

_____

Here are some pertinent online articles that deal with the central issue of this post:

Equality Act stirs passions about the definition of religious liberty and RFRA’s role (Mark Wingfield, Baptist News Global, March 8)

LGBTQ rights bill ignites debate over religious liberty (David Crary, Religion News Service, March 8)

What’s in store for the Equality Act, and why do some religions want a revision? (Yonat Shimron, Religion News Service, Feb. 26)

Do No Harm Act (Human Rights Campaign, Feb. 25)

Holy Troublemakers

The Honorable John Lewis, the noted civil-rights leader who served in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1987 until his death earlier this year, tweeted in June 2018, “Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble.”

Rep. Lewis is not included in Daneen Akers’s 2019 book published under the title Holy Troublemakers & Unconventional Saints, but perhaps he will be included in the second volume already planned. 

Introducing Holy Troublemakers

Some of you may know of Mike Morrell. He was the sub-author of Richard Rohr’s book The Divine Dance: The Trinity and Your Transformation  (2016). Among the many hats Mike wears, he curates the Speakeasy network, which is a collective of bloggers, who among other things review books.

I have received and reviewed a few books for Speakeasy, and that is how I came to read Akers’s book about “holy troublemakers.” I didn’t know when I requested it that it is a book for young readers, but the stories of 36 “troublemakers” were of sufficient interest to this old man, although I didn’t need the 16-page Glossary at the end.

Akers’s attractive book tells the story of a wide variety of people, beginning with Alice Paul and ending with Wil Gafney. (After a bit I caught on that the people are introduced in alphabetical order by their first names, and later I found out that Rev. Gafney is a former student of Thinking Friend Michael Willett Newheart, a former student of mine.)

Some of the “holy troublemakers” and/or “unconventional saints” included are some of my favorite people about whom I have written about in this blog—people such as Francis of Assisi, Florence Nightingale, and Gustavo Gutiérrez.

The book also includes many people whom I learned about for the first time, such as Ani Zonneveld (a Malaysian Muslim), Irwin Keller (a Jewish rabbi), and Lisbeth Melendez Rivera (a Puerto Rican active now with Rainbow Catholics).

As described on the HolyTroublemakers.com website, “Holy Troublemakers and Unconventional Saints is an illustrated children’s storybook featuring the stories of people of diverse faiths who worked for more love and justice in their corner of the world, even when that meant rocking the religious boat.”

Introducing Akers

Many of the people introduced in this book grew up as conservative Christians, as did author Akers herself, who says on page two that she “grew up in a deeply loving family with five generations of roots in a conservative Christian denomination,” which I found out elsewhere was the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Akers quite apparently grew into embracing a broad ecumenical religious worldview and a warm, accepting attitude toward other people, especially those who suffer discrimination or societal mistreatment.

As we are informed on the website, Akers’s book “emphasizes the stories of women, LGBTQ people, people of color, Indigenous people, and others too often written out of religious narratives.”

Two-thirds of the people introduced in Akers’s book are women, and just over half are people of color. Moreover, even though she is a white Christian, Akers includes Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists in her book—and also a chapter on Valarie Kaur, a remarkable Sikh woman.

At least ten of the 36 troublemakers/saints are LGBTQ people, and six or more others are allies. Akers informed me that there are so many profiles of LGBTQ holy troublemakers and unconventional saints in the book because that's “a demographic that's too often been excluded from religious narratives.”

Recommending Akers’s Book

This book may have too much emphasis on LGBTQ people for it to be broadly recommended. On the other hand, maybe for that very reason, it needs to be recommended for a wide reading public. After all,

LGBTQ LIVES MATTER

In particular, I especially recommend this book to two types of families: to those who have family members or close friends who are LGBTQ—and to families who harbor negative feelings toward LGBTQ people.

The book is a bit pricey, but it is a beautifully done and valuable book. It could certainly be a good investment for parents to purchase and to read/discuss with their children over 36 days. 

Still Fed Up with Fundamentalism’s View of Three Other Issues

Abortion. Homosexuality. Capital punishment. These are the three highly controversial issues dealt with in the ninth chapter of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism, which is currently being (slightly) revised and updated. And, yes, I am fed up with the predominant conservative evangelical views on all three of these highly contentious issues. 

What about Abortion?

As I write in the ninth chapter of Fed Up . . ., back in 1986 I felt too intimidated to attend a political rally in Kansas City because of the protesters who had gathered outside the venue, yelling “Baby killer! Baby killer!” as the candidate who had come to speak was noted for her acceptance of abortion in some cases.

Obviously, these were anti-abortion (aka “pro-life”) people protesting the “pro-choice” (aka pro-abortion) position of Harriet Woods, the senatorial candidate and the sitting Lieutenant Governor—the first woman ever elected to statewide office in Missouri.

Following the long tradition of the Catholic Church, in recent decades most conservative evangelical Christians have adopted the view that human life begins at conception, so all abortions are the same as murder, for they kill human beings. That view was the basis for the raucous protests against Woods (1927~2007).

However, neither science nor the Bible unambiguously specifies when human life begins. Thus, most of us non-fundamentalist Christians hold that abortion, especially when done in the first trimester, should be legal, safe, and rare.

What about LBGTQ Equality?

The LGBTQ issue is the second explosive matter that partly explains the overwhelming support of DJT by conservative evangelicals from before his election in 2016 to the present. Although it is hard to know what DJT actually believes on any issue, it is clear that Clinton was/is not only “pro-choice” but also advocates LBGTQ equality.

Most conservative evangelical Christians “cherry-pick” Bible verses to strongly oppose equality for practicing homosexual persons or the right of gays/lesbians to marry.

Although the right to marry has been granted by the Supreme Court (in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision of 2015), many evangelicals continue to oppose same-sex marriage just as they still oppose abortion despite the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973.

I am fed up with the negative, judgmental, “holier-than-thou” attitude of most conservative evangelicals on this issue as well. Not only do they condemn even “monogamous” homosexual activity, they covertly support discrimination against and harassment of LGBTQ persons.

And now, legislation which seeks to protect gays/lesbians from mistreatment is seen by some evangelicals as curtailing their (the evangelicals’ own) religious freedom! Surely, though, religious freedom, which I continue to advocate strongly, can never be condoned if that “freedom” results in harming other people.

What about Capital Punishment?

It cannot be denied that the Old Testament not only condones capital punishment, it even commands it.

It is not surprising, therefore, that fundamentalists and most conservative evangelicals who view the Old and New Testaments as equally inspired and equally the inerrant Word of God, which is to be literally interpreted and followed, are also people who generally favor the use of capital punishment.

It seems disingenuous, though, to base the legitimacy, or the necessity, of capital punishment in contemporary society because of the teachings of the Bible but then completely disregard the many commands—such as for cursing parents (Ex. 21:17), profaning the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14), or committing adultery (Lev. 20:10)—for the use of capital punishment in the Old Testament.

Most of us Christians who are not, or no longer, fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals recognize the clear call for capital punishment for various crimes/”sins” in the Old Testament. However, based on the teachings of Jesus, we believe that Christians should oppose, rather than affirm, capital punishment.

Biblical, but not Christian

This article is somewhat related to the one I posted on 9/20/17, which has garnered more than 1,050 pageviews, and to the fifth chapter of my Fed Up with Fundamentalism, about which I plan to post an article on 6/25/19. But because of the importance of the subject, please think with me about this matter now.

“The Bible says . . . “

As a young pastor, every sermon I preached was based on a Bible passage, and most sermons cited several other verses from various parts of the Bible. After all, back then Billy Graham, the most famous preacher in the world, repeatedly proclaimed, “the Bible says . . .“ in all of his powerful sermons.

Later, perhaps much too much later, I realized that the Bible says a lot of things—and that everything the Bible says is not Christian.

The word “Christian” as I am using it here means that which is in harmony with the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. The word “Christian” can, of course, refer to that—or those—associated with the religion known as Christianity. The better use, though, is with direct reference to the Christ from whom the religion sprang.

What Verses are Normative?

Many years ago, Kaneko Keiichi-sensei was a younger colleague of mine at Seinan Gakuin University in Japan. More than once I remember him asserting that it is not how many Bible verses one cites but which verses one cites that is of crucial importance.

At first, I didn’t grasp the import of Kaneko-sensei’s words, but I later came to appreciate the significance of his assertion. It is possible to quote a lot of Bible verses that are contrary to how Jesus lived and what he taught.

So, again, things can be biblical but not Christian.

As is often noted in this connection, “biblical” support for slavery in the 19^th century and the “biblical” support for rejecting women in ministry in the 20^th century are good examples for how the Bible has been (mis)used to maintain cultural norms.

Currently, the “hottest” issue is about acceptance/affirmation of LGBTQ people as equals within the church. The United Methodist Church last month approved the “biblical” position on that matter.

Unquestionably, Bible verses can be marshaled in support of slavery, against women in ministry as well as against acceptance of gay, lesbian, and transsexual persons. Those arguments can be touted as biblical. But are they Christian?

It depends on which verses one considers normative.

Reading the Bible Christianly

Last month Sojourners magazine printed “Not Everything ‘Biblical’ is Christlike,” a fine article by Stephen Mattson, one of my youngish Facebook friends. I highly recommend that relatively short piece.

In light of the recent controversy in the United Methodist Church, earlier last month a retired UM pastor in Georgia wrote an article titled “Be Careful Using the Bible.”  

And then, the first chapter of Chuck Queen’s 2013 book Being a Progressive Christian is quite good. He begins Chapter 1 with the assertion, “What the Bible says is not necessarily what God says.”

Or, it could be asserted that the Bible may be the “Word of God” but not all of the words in the Bible are the words of God. This is important to realize, for as Queen says, “The direct identification of God’s voice with what the Bible says has been used to justify all sorts of destructive biases and oppressive practices.”

I have written this article not to discourage reading the Bible. Rather, I am encouraging Christians to read the Bible “Christianly”—and to realize that many things can, indeed, be biblical but not Christian.

What about the “Deplorables”?

Eleven days ago Hillary Clinton made a remark that her political opponents, and some in the media, thought was rather deplorable. As most of you know, she referred to half of Donald Trump’s supporters as being a “basket of deplorables.” (Click here for the video and NYTimes article about that.)

To review, Hillary said, "To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobia, you name it." 

HRC on Sept. 9

Two mistakes

From the outset, let me suggest that that Hillary made at least two mistakes in what she said: nouning an adjective and labeling some people as irredeemable.

It is generally not good to turn an adjective into a noun used to label people. I remember Dr. Wayne Oates, my pastoral counseling professor in seminary, talking about this. While I don’t remember his exact words, I remember his important point.

Dr. Oates emphasized the importance of remembering that we always relate to persons. Thus, for example, pastors don’t visit/care for the sick and the bereaved. Rather, they minister to sick and bereaved people.

With this sort of thing in mind, people shouldn’t be called deplorables. There are only some people who believe/say/do deplorable things. Deplorable may be a legitimate adjective describing some people’s attitudes or actions. It is not a legitimate noun to use in place of person.

Calling people deplorables is, perhaps, an example of “hating” the sinner, not just the sin—never a good thing to do.

In her remarks, Hillary also referred to those in the “basket of deplorables” as “irredeemable.” While it may be true that the social stance of most of those in said basket may not be redeemed, still, to call any person, or group of people, irredeemable is highly questionable.

Two baskets

A few days after Hillary’s infelicitous remarks, Franklin Graham posted this on Facebook: “I’m not ‘Deplorable’ to God, even if Hillary Clinton thinks so” (see this Christian Post article). He emphasized that “all sin is deplorable” to God but that because of Jesus “our deplorable sins” can be forgiven and we can have a “right standing” [pun intended?] before God.

Fair enough. But that statement misses the point. Hillary said that only half of Trump supporters were in the basket of deplorables. She wasn’t indicating that that is where Franklin is—unless that is the bunch with whom he self-identifies.

In a similar vein, a former missionary colleague of mine posted this on his Facebook page: “DEPLORABLE. A lot of white, male, traditional value holding, peace loving Christians are in this basket. Not ‘phobic’ and not haters.”

Why, though, would my friend and the peace loving Christians he refers to not consider themselves among the other half of Trump’s supporters? Even if half are in the basket of deplorables, that does not mean the other half are the same or that they are guilty of the same injurious attitudes.

Hillary talked about two baskets—and the legitimate concerns of those in one of those two.

Two attitudes

Whether as many as half or not, there does seem to be a sizeable percentage of Trump’s supporters whose attitudes and words do appear to be incontrovertibly racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and/or Islamophobic. Trump himself has also said plenty that can be properly described by those adjectives.

There are those who seem to fear/”hate”/denigrate people of color, women, LGBT persons, foreigners, or Muslims. Those attitudes often lead, unhappily, to deplorable words and actions.

Happily, though, there are “admirables” who exemplify an attitude of love, understanding, and acceptance of those who are “different.” 

I've Had My Fill of Phil

Last week I saw “Duck Dynasty” for the first time, watching the first segment of its fifth season. Maybe you saw it, too. Even if you didn’t, a lot of other people did. There were 8.5 million viewers for that opening show of the new season.

But surprisingly, the number of viewers was down considerably from the 11.8 million who watched the fourth season premiere, making it then the most-watched nonfiction cable series in history.

As you may have guessed, I decided to watch and write about “Duck Dynasty” because of the controversy stirred up last month by the patriarch of the family, Phil Robertson (b. 1946). His interview with journalist Drew Magary was published in this month’s issue of GQ magazine (which I don’t read any more than I watch DD).

Robertson’s comments were made public the middle of last month, and they have been talked about—and both severely criticized and lavishly praised—ever since.

Phil’s remarks were mainly hurtful to LGBT persons, although what he said about African-Americans was rather insensitive also. Concerning the latter, he said that the blacks he knew growing up in Louisiana were happy and not mistreated.

Many older African-Americans from the South vehemently disagreed with his perception.

It was his comments about gays that drew the most attention, though—including widespread support for his speaking out about this prevalent “sin” (his word) in American society. It may not amount to much, but in case you haven’t heard, tomorrow, Jan. 21, has been designated “Chick-Phil-A Day.”

People across the country are being urged to “stand for free speech” and “sit for good food” by wearing Duck Commander or camouflage gear and by eating at a Chick-fil-A restaurant.

As most of you probably remember, Chick-fil-A was much in the news in the summer of 2012 after CEO Dan Cathy made a series of statements condemning gay marriage. Gay rights advocates called for a boycott of Chick-fil-A.

In response, supporters planned and executed a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on Aug. 1. The latter won the day, for the company’s sales for the year went up by 14%, to $4.6 billion.

In his interview last month, Robertson gave “homosexual behavior” as his first example of what is sinful in this country. He supported his negative views of gays by citing one Bible passage, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Those verses include “homosexuals” in the list of people “who won’t inherit the kingdom of God.”

However, the Greek word used in that passage was never rendered as “homosexuals” in a Bible translation until 1946. And no competent Greek scholar will say with confidence what the Apostle Paul really meant by that rather obscure word.

As I point out in my book “Fed Up with Fundamentalism,” in his translation of the Bible, Martin Luther rendered that Greek word into German as the English equivalent of “child abusers.” My guess is that is much nearer the original meaning than a term that includes many people who are in a consensual and loving same-sex relationship.

Yes, I’ve had my fill of Phil. Robertson may well be a very popular TV star and a successful businessman as the founder of Duck Commander. (Who would have thought you could become a millionaire making duck calls?) But what he says about the situation of African-Americans in the Jim Crow south is not trustworthy.

And he certainly is no expert when it comes to the proper interpretation of the Bible or to giving “the” Christian interpretation regarding sexual orientation.