Tag Archives: religion

As I’ve written before, the misogyny and racism in which much of conservative evangelical Christianity has rooted itself is a poisonous tree that can bear no good fruit. Would you like more examples? I hope so, as that’s what you’re getting.

Joel Webbon opposes women’s right to vote and advocates for Christian dictatorship. He also agrees with Confederate apologist Jon Harris that while Confederate generals and slaveholders have gone to heaven, abolitionists burn in Hell, as does Martin Luther King. They “were not the good guys.”

Speaking as a Christian, it’s entirely possible many slaveholders are in Heaven. It’s a creepy thought but the basic tenet of my faith is that anyone can receive absolution for sin. That includes the worst sins. Of course that applies to abolitionists too. They were the good guys; even if they weren’t, that wouldn’t stop them from achieving salvation. Harris argues (and Webbon agrees) it’s because they rejected the inspiration of scripture; as religious historian Mark Noll has shown, many abolitionists were inspired by Scripture, they just interpreted it differently from slaveowners. Nor have I ever heard of Martin Luther King rejecting Scripture.

Call me crazy, it sounds like Webbon thinks King and abolitionists were bad simply because they challenged white supremacy. Given his outrage at having non-whites in his neighborhood, it’s hardly off-brand for him.

Webbon also participated in drafting a statement on Christian nationalism which as the Libertarian Christian Institute says favors ethnonationalism over the idea that Christianity forges a new kinship between all believers. Which has never been a popular idea with white supremacists.

Webbon also believes in banning freedom of worship for anything he considers a false religion—private worship at home is fine, but nothing public. While he talks about Islam, would he consider a church that supports women’s right to vote or preach, or a black church marching for civil rights to be Christian? Would they lose their rights too? History shows religious governments get picky about who gets to qualify. I wonder the same thing about would-be theocrat (and flat-Earther) Kandiss Taylor. The poisonous tree is poisonous to Christians too.

Certainly Trump’s court prophets are PO’d that Christian figures spoke up at the DNC, insisting that while Trump — the convicted felon, liar, sexual assailant, scam artist and breaker of most of the commandments — is godly, supporting Democrats is not. A member of the forced-birth group Students for Life says, for example, that ““Hey maybe the party that promotes abortion through all nine months until birth and all kinds of sexual degeneracy shouldn’t be quoting from the Bible that condemns both.” Apparently he’s fine with Trump’s sexual degeneracy (and lots of Christians disagree about his interpretation of the Bible). I’m sure they’re freaking out that Evangelicals for Harris is a thing.

And of course, many of the religious leaders shrieking about Democrats’ sexual immorality are no paragons. Busted in a sex-trafficking sting. Or using a deepfake to link Kamala Harris to Jeffrey Epstein, then getting busted yourself for child sexual abuse. Or how about a pastor hiring a hitman to kill his daughter’s boyfriend?

They’re also shrieking, always, about how persecuted they are. And when the prophesied persecutions don’t happen — gay marriage, remember, meant they’d be forced to marry gay couples — they keep shrieking. Kamala Harris is the next Nero/antichrist/Diocletian who will persecute them by not letting them run the country.

As Fred Clark says, they seem tormented by finding Demon Commie Kamala kind of sexy. He also offers some good inside-baseball analysis of Webbon’s brand of Calvinism.

Dusty Deevers is an Oklahoma pastor, state rep, complementarian (which 99 percent of the time equals Christian sexist), forced-birther who wants women who get abortions tried for murder, and a Christian theocrat who opposes no-fault divorce (bad news for abuse victims!) and thinks we need to regress earlier than the 1800s to get to a godly society. And his interpretation of the Bible says Americans should break the law if it’s contradictory to what he thinks God wants.

I’m sure that like Mike Johnson he will not admit that his is not a “Biblical” worldview, it’s an “interpretation of the Bible” worldview. Unless he’s claiming the same inerrancy as Holy Scripture itself (I don’t believe it’s inerrant myself but it seems he does) then whatever he claims God wants is just an opinion, no more binding of valid than any other Christian. It’s the self-righteousness of believing otherwise that makes the First Amendment necessary.

But there’s a particular quote that jumped out at me from one of the links above: “Deevers asserted that forcing non-Christians to live in country governed exclusively according to the Christian nationalist interpretation of the Bible is an example of Christian “grace,” as such a system of government leads to “the best life for anyone and everyone whether they believe in [God] or not. They’re getting a measure of grace from being in proximity to the true Christianity,” Deevers declared. “Whenever Christians are voted into office, it’s not just good for Christians, it’s good for the wicked as well.”

Note the contrast there between “Christians” and “the wicked.” It’s the same old mantra the religious right has been chanting since the Reagan years, that they really are holier than thou (or me). The Moral Majority, as Jerry Falwell’s political group used to call themselves. They’re allied with God, we’re allied with Satan.

If that were true, the Catholic church wouldn’t have operated for decades as a pedophile-enabling conspiracy. The Southern Baptist Convention wouldn’t have covered up rape and abuse. White evangelism wouldn’t be a cesspool of racism and pretending not to see color. We wouldn’t have so many church leaders exposed as groomers. The Duggars wouldn’t have protected their TV career by covering up their son Josh sexually assaulting his sisters. Etcetera, etcetera.

There’s an old saying that Christians aren’t better or more saintly than other people, they’re just forgiven. Which is a healthy attitude, a humble attitude. Unfortunately it clashes with the conviction many Christians have that their Biblical worldview can’t possibly be wrong, ergo they’re entitled to rule. And people who are not Christian are not worthy to lead. And eventually everyone who does not conform to Deevers (or whoever’s )specific “Biblical worldview” will be pronounced not Christian. Because that’s how it always happens.

I’ve written before about how I now see conservative Christian theology as the fruit of a poisonous tree: misogyny taints it root and branch and no good fruit can grow from something so toxic. The same is true of white evangelical racism which has been around a long time.

Baptist pastor John MacArthur, for instance, recently declared Martin Luther King was not a Christian. Not coincidentally MacArthur believes in the curse of Ham, that black people are doomed to inferior status and slavery by God. I’m sure he insists that his view is totally Biblical but all I can hear is a racist interpreting the Bible to suit his views. His treatment of women abused by their spouses isn’t what I’d call moral, either. But it’s not atypical. It’s the same belief that men should dominate women that fuels their claims embryos are people. Or that rape is the women’s fault — Pastor Bobby Leonard says if he were on a rape jury and the victim wore shorts, he’d vote to acquit because boys will be boys. He later said he was wrong — points for that though I don’t believe his apology is sincere. Oh, Marjorie Taylor Greene’s quite judgy about women’s clothes too.

It’s also tainted by the belief Vaclav Havel wrote about in Power of the Powerless, that when a government claims it wields power by right, because it has truth on its side, it cannot tolerate dissent. Havel was speaking of communism but it’s also true of theocracy. I’m not surprised Justice Tom Parker, who delivered the Frozen Embryos Are People believes Christians should run everything. Nor that he claims this is what God wants, even though many religious people disagree.

And of course, some people’s theology is shitty because the tree is poisoned by the shitty things they do. If Southern Baptist leader Johnny Hunt, as alleged, raped a woman, it’s hardly surprising the SBC was so happy covering up for pastoral predators. Fish rots from the head. A rapist or child molester in power is bad but covering it up warps everyone around them (and denies the victims justice, and allows for more predation). Unsurprisingly Hunt claims even if he did it (he’s dismissed it as “awkward fondling”) it’s nobody’s business.

There’s plenty of misogyny and racism in the secular world too but I think there’s something more toxic when you claim punching down at women and POC (and gays, trans people etc.) is what God wants. And when the people who claim to be moral leaders are guilty of what they preach against, they deserve to be shamed.

When Harry Met Sally is a charming rom-com about Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan staying friends for years before finally realizing they’re in love. It’s probably best known for the memorable fake orgasm scene. Harry (Crystal) assures Sally (Ryan) that the women he sleeps with are sexually satisfied — he’s heard them give orgasmic moans. She proves him wrong by giving out a spectacular fake-orgasmic moan that stuns everyone in the restaurant.

This is meant to be embarrassing for Harry. What goes unsaid is that lots of women had a disappointing time sleeping with him. Becauseas Lili Loofbourow puts it “we live in a culture that sees female pain as normal and male pleasure as a right … Women have spent decades politely ignoring their own discomfort and pain to give men maximal pleasure.”

Kissing cousin to the idea women don’t like sex is the idea it doesn’t matter whether they like sex. According to DC McAllister and Dennis Prager, among others, women should just lie on their back and think of England. If their husband wants sex, where do they get off thinking they should be “in the mood”? No wonder some women don’t enjoy sex if that’s what it’s like for them. As Roy Edroso points out, if the husband’s too tired to give her what she wants, McAllister’s view is too bad, so sad — you can’t expect him to put you first!

And from that it’s a short jump to arguing that women shouldn’t enjoy sex or at least not when it’s free of the risk of pregnancy. Part of the Heritage Foundation’s theocratic plan for 2025 is “returning the consequentiality to sex. … restoring sex to its true purpose, & ending recreational sex & senseless use of birth control pills.” Because in the eyes of the right, only nymphomaniac sluts use birth control. Which is to say any claims you may have heard that conservatives don’t want to outlaw birth control are lies (forced-birthers lie a lot). And despite their claims that it’s about birth control being abortion (it isn’t) if they’re opposed to recreational sex that’s not the issue: any birth control  method would be wrong. The Catholic group Human Life Internationl, for example, argues that consensual recreational sex is rape (it isn’t).

In short, the issue isn’t the lives of fetuses. If recreational sex is bad, then any method of preventing conception is bad. “Save the babies” used to be the excuse but they aren’t hiding their true views as much any more.

For the record I doubt most of them have problems with men having recreational sex and no consequentiality. It will always be women who wear the scarlet letter; the man who cheats or doesn’t gift his virginity to his bridge — hey, boys will be boys! It’s not a double standard, men are just different (spoiler: it’s totally a double standard).

As Fred Clark says, a lot of right-wingers are horrified that under liberalism and freedom of religion “the state is neutral toward questions of “the good,” leaving that up to its citizens to work out for themselves.” Yes, how horrible that would be — individuals deciding for themselves what constitutes a good moral life, how they relate to God (or don’t), deciding on their own worldview. Sooooo much better if someone like the Heritage Foundation gets to impose their view of the good life. If anyone else tries, of course, well that’s what heresy trials and concentration camps are for.

As Clark has pointed out, the liberal bogeyman doesn’t “prevent you from seeking and finding your own answer to that question. Nor does it interfere with you embracing, living, promoting, or sharing that answer. You are free to pursue that answer in your own life and you are free to persuade your fellow citizens of the truth, beauty, or goodness of that answer.”” But that’s not enough. People might have an answer the Heritage Foundation and many others on the right don’t like. You know, one where women are equal citizens and not means to an end.

Of course, as Clark says, “ven on the very slim chance the government somehow initially got the answer mostly “right,” the establishment of that “right” answer would change it, alter it, and deform it. This bastardized, twisted version of that “right” answer would become the official answer, and any other answer — including the “right” one in its untwisted form — would be precluded.” And if we get the theocracy so many on the right seem to yearn for, all alternatives will be precluded, as brutally as necessary.

Damn, for a post that started with a light rom-com, things got grim fast. For more examples of odious misogynist arguments and why they’re bullshit, check out my Undead Sexist Cliches, available as a Amazon paperback, an ebook and from several other retailers. Cover by Kemp Ward.