white supremacy shaped American Christianity

[BRUTALITOPS]

There's more to life then getting high,been there done that,for a quarter century.

well i haven't had my quarter of a century of weed vaping yet so i'll get back to you in another 9 years.

[gfm7175]

Hello gfm7175,

I don't see any racism nor bigotry in the OP. Please explain.

Sure thing.

Bigotry and Racism are both specific forms of what is known in logic as the Compositional Error Fallacy. A Compositional Error Fallacy occurs whenever someone improperly extends a property of an item of a class across other items within the same class, or across the class itself. This can be visualized through an example of marbles inside of a bag. I pick one marble; it is white. I pick another marble; it is white. I pick a third marble, and a fourth, and they are both white as well. If I were to then conclude that all the marbles inside the bag are white, then I would be committing the compositional error fallacy, since I am improperly extending the color 'white' across all the other marbles inside the bag, which might instead be black, red, green, purple, etc...

Bigotry and racism are simply specific forms of this fallacy. Bigotry occurs whenever the above-mentioned fallacy involves 'people' as the 'class' being discussed. Racism occurs whenever the above-mentioned fallacy involves 'people' as the 'class' being discussed AND involves a genetic trait (such as skin color) as the 'property' being discussed.


In the OP, guno improperly extended the property 'white' across the class 'people' regarding the 'church' "bag".

The linked article itself is chocked full of racism. It attempts to paint Trump rally attendees as 'white', 'Christian', and 'blonde haired'. It also makes up a false claim that Jesus said we are all "equal". It speaks of "rhetoric of division" when it ITSELF is the rhetoric of division, as evidenced by the racism throughout the article. Then it doubles down on Trump rally attendees being 'white Christians'. Then, it falsely claims that "send her back!" is a racist/sexist chant. The people who claim that are actually being the racists and sexists, since racist/sexist models must be created in order to accuse someone of those models. Trump did not create those models; his accusers did. His accusers are the actual racists. Then the article adds in more racism by implying that the only Christians who do not support Trump are "Christians of color". Then it goes on to talk about 'white' Christian churches, and 'white' Christian groups, 'white' Christians struggling, 'white' clergy friends, and on and on and on throughout the rest of the article, including implying that only 'white' Christians have a "God problem".

That's what I mean when I ask 'why the racism?'...

[Trumpet]

I'm not interested in your racism nor your bigotry.

Why are you so racist and bigoted?

Do you even know what racism is?????

[Trumpet]

Sure thing.

Bigotry and Racism are both specific forms of what is known in logic as the Compositional Error Fallacy. A Compositional Error Fallacy occurs whenever someone improperly extends a property of an item of a class across other items within the same class, or across the class itself. This can be visualized through an example of marbles inside of a bag. I pick one marble; it is white. I pick another marble; it is white. I pick a third marble, and a fourth, and they are both white as well. If I were to then conclude that all the marbles inside the bag are white, then I would be committing the compositional error fallacy, since I am improperly extending the color 'white' across all the other marbles inside the bag, which might instead be black, red, green, purple, etc...

Bigotry and racism are simply specific forms of this fallacy. Bigotry occurs whenever the above-mentioned fallacy involves 'people' as the 'class' being discussed. Racism occurs whenever the above-mentioned fallacy involves 'people' as the 'class' being discussed AND involves a genetic trait (such as skin color) as the 'property' being discussed.


In the OP, guno improperly extended the property 'white' across the class 'people' regarding the 'church' "bag".

The linked article itself is chocked full of racism. It attempts to paint Trump rally attendees as 'white', 'Christian', and 'blonde haired'. It also makes up a false claim that Jesus said we are all "equal". It speaks of "rhetoric of division" when it ITSELF is the rhetoric of division, as evidenced by the racism throughout the article. Then it doubles down on Trump rally attendees being 'white Christians'. Then, it falsely claims that "send her back!" is a racist/sexist chant. The people who claim that are actually being the racists and sexists, since racist/sexist models must be created in order to accuse someone of those models. Trump did not create those models; his accusers did. His accusers are the actual racists. Then the article adds in more racism by implying that the only Christians who do not support Trump are "Christians of color". Then it goes on to talk about 'white' Christian churches, and 'white' Christian groups, 'white' Christians struggling, 'white' clergy friends, and on and on and on throughout the rest of the article, including implying that only 'white' Christians have a "God problem".

That's what I mean when I ask 'why the racism?'...

You're off your rocker.

[Trumpet]

In the last three years, Donald Trump has replaced Charles Darwin as troublemaker-in-chief in many white American churches. Scholars have offered sound theories as to the cause of this sharp divide, especially around issues of race and gender.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/20/opini...ass/index.html

The white right wing church is a perverted form of Christianity, that is designed to indoctrinate the uncritical thinkers with right wing ideology.

[gfm7175]

Do you even know what racism is?????

Yes, I do. See my post #17 for an explanation of what it is.

[Jade Dragon]

In the last three years, Donald Trump has replaced Charles Darwin as troublemaker-in-chief in many white American churches. Scholars have offered sound theories as to the cause of this sharp divide, especially around issues of race and gender.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/20/opini...ass/index.html

Through a lot of Southern Christianity, it has influenced it for the worst. Southern Baptists seem to have a lot of hate to blast in antithesis to even half-assed Christianity.

[gfm7175]

You're off your rocker.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy. You are claiming that my post #17 is 'absurd' without providing any counterargument.

Care to actually address anything that I said there?

[PostmodernProphet]

Quote Originally Posted by Miss Margot Frank View Post
Must have boring life.

yup

not since the election, though.....

[PoliTalker]

Hello gfm7175,

Sure thing.

Bigotry and Racism are both specific forms of what is known in logic as the Compositional Error Fallacy. A Compositional Error Fallacy occurs whenever someone improperly extends a property of an item of a class across other items within the same class, or across the class itself. This can be visualized through an example of marbles inside of a bag. I pick one marble; it is white. I pick another marble; it is white. I pick a third marble, and a fourth, and they are both white as well. If I were to then conclude that all the marbles inside the bag are white, then I would be committing the compositional error fallacy, since I am improperly extending the color 'white' across all the other marbles inside the bag, which might instead be black, red, green, purple, etc...

Bigotry and racism are simply specific forms of this fallacy. Bigotry occurs whenever the above-mentioned fallacy involves 'people' as the 'class' being discussed. Racism occurs whenever the above-mentioned fallacy involves 'people' as the 'class' being discussed AND involves a genetic trait (such as skin color) as the 'property' being discussed.


In the OP, guno improperly extended the property 'white' across the class 'people' regarding the 'church' "bag".

The linked article itself is chocked full of racism. It attempts to paint Trump rally attendees as 'white', 'Christian', and 'blonde haired'. It also makes up a false claim that Jesus said we are all "equal". It speaks of "rhetoric of division" when it ITSELF is the rhetoric of division, as evidenced by the racism throughout the article. Then it doubles down on Trump rally attendees being 'white Christians'. Then, it falsely claims that "send her back!" is a racist/sexist chant. The people who claim that are actually being the racists and sexists, since racist/sexist models must be created in order to accuse someone of those models. Trump did not create those models; his accusers did. His accusers are the actual racists. Then the article adds in more racism by implying that the only Christians who do not support Trump are "Christians of color". Then it goes on to talk about 'white' Christian churches, and 'white' Christian groups, 'white' Christians struggling, 'white' clergy friends, and on and on and on throughout the rest of the article, including implying that only 'white' Christians have a "God problem".

That's what I mean when I ask 'why the racism?'...

Thanks for the detailed explanation, but it didn't move me. I disagree. None of the things you mentioned are racist. It sounds like an attempt to rationalize calling those who speak out about racism - the racists. Which is absurd. They are the ones who are speaking up about it.

White churches and white clergy exist. Talking about them is not racist. If most of the people showing up at a Trump rally are white, saying so is not racist.

Telling somebody of color to go back where they came from is racist. It is calling for a separation of the races, which is a racist theme. Stating so - is not racist. It is honest.

I stand by my position.

There is nothing racist about the OP.

Calling it that is just part of deny, deflect, attack.

[gfm7175]

Hello gfm7175,

Thanks for the detailed explanation, but it didn't move me. I disagree. None of the things you mentioned are racist.

Then we're on completely different pages as to what 'racism' even is... I'm not sure what you're thinking it is...

It sounds like an attempt to rationalize calling those who speak out about racism - the racists. Which is absurd. They are the ones who are speaking up about it.

If they simply speak out about it, then that is not racist. If they have to create a racist model in order to "speak out about it" (when what they are speaking out about isn't actually racism to begin with), then THEY are being the racists since THEY are the ones who are creating the racist model.

White churches and white clergy exist. Talking about them is not racist.

Yes, they do. It is not always racist, but if a racist model is created while speaking about them, then that is racist.

If most of the people showing up at a Trump rally are white, saying so is not racist.

Same as above. But that wasn't what the article was saying. The article was attempting to paint Trump supporters as 'white', as if it is only white people who support him. THAT is racist.

Telling somebody of color to go back where they came from is racist.

No, it's not. It is simply telling somebody to go back to where they came from. The people attacking Trump for saying that are building a racist model [a model where the only possible reason why Trump would say that is due to her skin color]. THEY are the racists, not Trump. THEY are the ones who built that model, not Trump.

It is calling for a separation of the races, which is a racist theme. Stating so - is not racist. It is honest.

And here you are building a racist model and then projecting that model onto the President as if it was his own model... It is YOURS, not his.

I stand by my position.

There is nothing racist about the OP.

Calling it that is just part of deny, deflect, attack.

Okay, then you are choosing to reject logic.

[PoliTalker]

Hello gfm7175,

Then we're on completely different pages as to what 'racism' even is... [true.]I'm not sure what you're thinking it is...

I recognize the traditional version of racism where whites put down people of color. I do not recognize this new wave conservative version where those who call out the racism are somehow the racists. That seems completely backwards. It's like, whatever one party calls another party, then the second party just calls the first party the same thing without basis. Then the basis is 'created,' but it is false. Now, I am calling out that falsehood. That's where we are.

If they simply speak out about it, then that is not racist. If they have to create a racist model in order to "speak out about it" (when what they are speaking out about isn't actually racism to begin with), then THEY are being the racists since THEY are the ones who are creating the racist model.

Yeah, that's the leap I am not making. It hinges on denying that original racism. The form has changed, it has become a bit indirect, but we are not fooled. We know hatred and rejection of others when we see it.

Yes, they do. It is not always racist, but if a racist model is created while speaking about them, then that is racist.

That is such a stretch it reminds me of Rosemary Woods.

Same as above. But that wasn't what the article was saying. The article was attempting to paint Trump supporters as 'white', as if it is only white people who support him. THAT is racist.

Except the article never said that.

No, it's not. It is simply telling somebody to go back to where they came from. The people attacking Trump for saying that are building a racist model [a model where the only possible reason why Trump would say that is due to her skin color]. THEY are the racists, not Trump. THEY are the ones who built that model, not Trump.

This ignores the mistake of telling an American to go back where they came from. Hello. They are Americans. They come from America now. They are where they belong. Telling them to go back to a place they originated before becoming Americans ignores the fact that they are Americans. That ignorance is the racism. It is as if the statement refuses to recognize selected American citizens, pretending they are something else, something less, something unwanted. It's hate-driven and it is race-driven. It's racism. It wouldn't be done to a white boy from Kansas.

And here you are building a racist model and then projecting that model onto the President as if it was his own model... It is YOURS, not his.

The President is the one calling for the separation between his whiteness and her blackness, calling for there to be national boundaries separating them. It's hurtful, and it is racism.

Okay, then you are choosing to reject logic.

My position is completely logical. We simply base our logic on the different perceptions. I feel like I am simply recognizing the facts, but you have a predetermined conclusion that you are molding 'alternative facts' to lead you to. I think that without the predetermined conclusion nobody would naturally arrive at the alternative facts required for your explanation.

[MAGA MAN]

"serve the Pope or die"

That's news to this life-long Catholic, lol.

[countryboy]

As you all know, very few American 'Christians' worship anything but money. Land- grabbing, ethnic cleansing and slavery made for good returns for the scumbags who couldn't manage elsewhere, which is why those who could borrow the fare went. Good thing some decent people seem to have got there too - almost an argument for a good God!

Lol

[saltydancin]

That's news to this life-long Catholic, lol.

Maybe it's only exercised by that right hand lynching enforcement division of the church to complement the left hand Mafia tactics since Christiananality pedophilia business national religion comes as a holy trinity evidenced by the 21st century second coming of Christiananality Islamophobia pedophilia long life survival of the fittest fascists.....