The Duplicity of WBC
In a recent news story on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/30/arlington.cemetery.protesters/index.html) my youngest sister Abigail made this comment regarding KKK members counter protesting their presence at Arlington National Cemetary: "People like them say it's white power...white supremacy. The Bible doesn't say anywhere that it's an abomination to be born of a certain gender or race."
From my perspective this is a study in deceit and duplicity.
First of all, my father taught us from infancy that the black race was cursed by god. This passage from Genesis 9 was his justification:
And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be hisservant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
This passage was used by my father to demonstrate that the black race was cursed of god and justifiably enslaved.
Much is made of the fact that my father was a civil rights attorney in the late 60's and 70's. Surely someone who worked for the equality of blacks can't be so bad. Again, from an insiders point of view, this argument doesn't wash. While my father did a tremendous amount of good in defense of equality for blacks, this was not evidence of his real attitude toward them. In addition to his Bible based prejudice, he made no bones about how he really felt toward them when he was around his family. It was not uncommon at all for my father, as well as his children, to refer to black clients in his office as "DN"s (dumb niggers), even in their presences. His southern upbringing surely informed his practiced disdain for the black race, but no doubt it was bolstered and entrenched by his interpretation of the bible as well.
Abby also references gender in her comment. As I've often mentioned, my father made it crystal clear that women were second class citizens in the eyes of god. Women were to keep silent, they were to cover their heads in church and they were to keep their hair uncut. Women were to be in subjection to their husbands and husbands were entitled to, no, required to use whatever means necessary to bring them back into subjection if they strayed. My father demonstrated his eager willingness to obey that commandment over the years by physically beating his wife and, at one point, coarsely chopping off her hair when he found her submission lacking. Eve had been deceived by a snake and was therefore lower in the eyes of god and my father.
Lest someone inject here that they are not practicing true Christianity, I would point out that the Old Testament is replete with admonishments about the status of women and Paul gleefully reinforces the idea throughout his letters to the early church.
Let's take a moment to consider Abigail's words a little closer. Note that she doesn't come right out and say that blacks and women aren't inferior to white men. She asserts that the Bible stops short of calling them an abomination. It's subtle if you aren't paying attention, but makes a powerful difference in understanding the real teachings of Fred Phelps and the WBC. Homosexuality is an abomination, god is REALLY pissed at them. But there is a kinder, gentler prejudice that they reserve for colored brethren and the fairer sex. Fred's god will accept them, at least in theory, so long as they don't get to uppity and know their place in the divine hierarchy.
One final thought that is only tangentially relevant in that the topic came up in the article. A counter protester was quoted as saying "It's the soldier that fought and died and gave them that right to free speech". Perhaps someone can correct me if my logic is flawed, but this argument has always bothered me as a justification for outrage at their protests of military funerals. If we're arguing that the right to free speech is intact because of the sacrifices of these soldiers, then are we not obliged to step aside and let such protests happen unchallenged? Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not arguing in favor of protests at ANY funeral. I'm simply suggesting that this particular argument is not well conceived and should be dropped from the arsenal of counter protesters. Protesting at funerals is wrong for many reasons. I'm not sure that this is one of them.
Yes, my family hates homosexuals. In spite of Abby's words, they also hold women and blacks in similar low esteem. If they are going to insult the world with their hateful theology, I believe they have a duty to minimize the deceit and let the world see the unvarnished truth of just how profound and insidious that hate is.
posted by Nate Phelps at
8:15 AM
30 Comments:
I like the penultimate paragraph. I never thought of it that way. It's sort of a catch 22, they protest the military for defending them, yet that protest is what the military is defending. Not the strongest of arguments I suppose.
Nathan:
As a true Born Again Christian, your dad has beyond taken Scripture out of context when it comes to women, and blacks. The Aposltle Paul defined the relationship between husband and wife in Ephesians 5 as a partnership. A union of two souls as one, who work together in life, to support and encourage each other, not a slave-despot relationship.
Trust me, I grew up in that very environment, where the pastor of the church I once was a part of, preached the same thing, going so as to say that a "Husband needs to beat his wife at least once a week. Whether she deserves it or not." This "Pastor", who was also a pedophile, is now dead, so he can't spread his poison anymore.
Old Testament, not Christianity, rather Jewish. And the statement about Paul's letters,...do you always state your opinions as facts, or is that only allowed when speaking of Christianity? That habit is one thing the educated an uneducated have in common.
On the first point, the Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible.
On the second, do you contest my use of the word "gleefully", or that Paul dictated a lower status for women? The subjective nature of the term "gleefully", implies opinion. However, passages like "wives be in subjection to your husband" or "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" are specific enough for me to factually characterize Paul as misogynistic.
Nice riposte Nate. I guess you get No True Scotsman arguments thrown at you all of the time. ;)
The thing that tickles me is that your RTC's who use that passage from Genesis to justify the subjugation of Africans treat the sons of Noah as actual people. As if such a ridiculous scene was ever enacted. Ham, Canaan, Shem, Jepath, these are all eponymous names for ancient semetic tribes and stories like this one were parables, concise little histories of ancient political conflicts. It's not about Africans, it's about Canaanites, and why its ok to steal their land!
Until I've read this article, the thought never occurred to me that another reason to support your family's right to free speech is so that they can expose their true side to the rest of the world, even if they don't tell the truth 100% of the time. Until now I've only supported everybody's right, particularly that of your familiy's to free speech solely out of principle.
But I also support the right of others' to grieve for their loss of family and friends. So these two principles of mine really conflict with each other. I really don't see how funeral protests would advance anyone's agenda at all least of all the WBC's, unless of course if the motive is solely to generate further publicity for their cult.
If the WBC truly opposes the Homosexual agenda, then they should've protested against the politicians at all levels of governments who enact pro-gay and other anti-gay discrimination laws. Instead of protesting against those individuals who chose to serve their country. But then again, such protests would be considered political and are not IRS tax exempt.
But then again they of course will argue that they have this supposed "duty" to preach the gospel according to them, and that we're just "worshipping the dead". Seriously what are we (meaning the general public at large) suppose to do? This family cult is so anti-human nature.
re: WBC's protests at the funerals of dead soldiers. I believe that there are two main things at work:
1. Hypocrisy on the part of WBC. As I've pointed out before, several WBC members (though not Shirley Phelps-Roper) work for the Kansas Dept. of Corrections, which is a government job.
While those WBC members may not be fighting for the country in a physical sense, they are fighting for the U.S.A. in the sense that they are struggling to prevent crime and to reform criminals, even as U.S. soldiers are fighting to prevent terrorism.
On a recent blog, WBC wrote, "Our soldiers are not currently forced to join the army, as there is no compulsory service at the moment." That's true, and neither are WBC members forced to work for the government, and collect taxpayer-funded salaries which come from a wide swath of American society, including homosexuals and non-Christians.
2. Stereotyping and over-generalizing about vast groups of people. WBC seems to engage in this quite a bit; it's like their bread and butter. Yes, some U.S. soldiers commmit assaults and rapes, and do things like Abu Ghraib, but this is a small percentage of American troops.
I live in Asia and have met overseas U.S. Army personnel; I have encountered a couple of American soldiers who seemed like A-holes, but most of the ones I've met seemed pleasant and gave a good impression.
Bravo Nate. I read this very quote by Abby, and was shocked. How can anyone possibly be that brainwashed? Maybe it's a matter of putting on a public face for them, but I think the majority of people know that ol' Fred's civil rights days were anything but sincere. They're so forthright with the whole gay thing, you'd think they would loudly decry anyone the bible allowed them to.
When I was a Christian I went to a church that was considered biblical, conservative and also moderate (Calvary Chapel) but there was a distinctly negative attitude in this church toward women and minorities. It may have been more subtle (and less subtle coming from some people), but it was there.
The Christians that make the excuses that scriptures are being taken out of context, etc etc simply want to whitewash the clear bigotry that exists in and is sanctioned by the church. No one can tell me that men in the church don't think that women are "less than".
Christianity is a vile, bigoted religion.
To me as an European I am still baffled how a "educated" country such as USA still puts so much emphasis on the Bible. The whole bible is full of opposing views and you can almost always find a passage that fits your personal agenda, even so how is this relevant? If I choose to use passages from "The Lord of the ring" triology does not merit my point of view any more or less validity. But in US by relating your idea with some obscure passage in the Bible makes it legit?
Cannot remember who said it but "Just because a person is willing to die for his belief does not make him right!" fits well with my view of certain parts of the US.
At least it is nice to see that someone who is fed and raised with these ideas are strong enough to form their own opinion.
BTW Christianity is not a vile, bigoted religion according to me....... the interpretation is.
As I read many of the comments posted I can't help but think that many of them are just as hate-filled as the WBC statements and posters at funerals... just not as graphic in word and picture usage.
Of course we can look at particular cults or people who claim Christianity and call them hate-mongers and much more, but can't we do that for all faiths and beliefs for that matter? I know a few atheists who are racist but I don't call all atheists racist. I know that right now there are terrorists who claim Islam is the only true religion, but nobody truly believes that all Muslims are terrorists.
Why not stop looking at Christians, or those who claim to be, and look at the one that they claim to be their Savior. Here I will start you out with a story. Pharisees catch a woman who is caught in adultery (in their culture this offense is punishable by death) and throw her at the feet of Jesus to test him and see what he does. As she is probably sitting on the ground close to Jesus, he kneels down and starts writing in the dirt. The Pharisees (teachers of the law) ask Jesus what should be done because of this great offense and he tells them what should be done. Jesus tells the Pharisees that whichever one of them has never sinned, that he can be the one to throw the first stone. One by one they all end up leaving. Jesus then looks at the woman and asks her "where are all your accusers?" and she replies that they have all left. He then tells her that he too does not accuse her, and to go and sin no more.
For the anonymous European, I too am baffled by our "educated" country in the sense that we don't actually research anything anymore for ourselves, we just believe what a few influential people in our own personal lives tell us - whether they be parents, teachers, professors, and/or well spoken people with their own agendas; though I am also baffled by "educated" Europeans alike as well. If we are going to speak so "intelligently" about a topic, we should at least try to genuinely see the opposing sides defense.
Anon Europeam: what you say has a lot of validity. For example, google "Biblical contradictions"...there is a lot of material there.
Perhaps you know of the rock star Gene Simmons. Like him or hate him, he said something some years back which made a lot of sense:
"Please understand the following: the holy books of any religion (take your pick) are written primarily for FAITH, and NOT empirical scientific favt...so, believe in the "spirit" of religion, but do not necessarily look to it for empirical, scientific fact."
Mr. Simmons is an Israeli-born, naturalized U.S. citizen who was raised Jewish, and even studied to become a rabbi at one point. He has read the Bible (both the Torah and the Gospels), as well as the Quran and other important scriptures. However, he has indicated that he is now an agnostic.
Sorry, but just because Gene Simmons has name recognition, doesn't make him an expert on anything (except maybe on how to be and live like a rock star). He studied to be a rabbi... how long? He has read the Bible... many people have done that already. He was born in Israel... does this make him a poster child for the Jewish faith?
If I was to go and google "biblical-contradictions" I am sure that I would get a great number of claims that the Bible contradicts itself time and time again. I could also google and find websites that claim George Bush helped plan the 9 11 attacks, that smoking weed is good for you, and that Oprah is the anti-christ... whether or not you agree with one of the 3 examples or none - I bet you don't agree with all of them. A website doesn't equal truth. I studied business management in college but I would bet money that Chase Bank Corp. wouldn't let me run one of their regions in Texas. Why? because I am not that experienced yet. Sorry, but we can't use rock stars as clout unless we are talking about music.
Anon: OK, fair enough. Try instead reading "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens, who is an unabashed atheist. A paraphrased quote:
"The Mosaic myths can be safely discarded. There is no evidence of a 40-year wandering of nearly 2 million Jews in the deserts, nor of the plagues of Egypt, and so one. There was a Kingom of David (albeit a modest one), and there are signs that the Jews lived in Palestine thousands of years ago (as seen by the absence of pig bones in their trash heaps)."
I recall discussing with Nate my doubts and skepticism about Noah's Ark being a true story. He replied, "I have no doubt that it's mythology based on earlier mythology, or perhaps a profound flooding event which occurred locally." I concur...there are too many holes, both scientific and logical, in the tale.
Anonymous European: It is true that pro-slavery Americans used to use the Bible to justify keeping black slaves, as there are verses in both the OT and NT which seem to condone slavery.
In his "Letter to a Christian Nation", Sam Harris wrote:
"In response, Christians like yourself will point out that the abolitionists also drew considerable support from the Bible. Of course they did. People have been cherry-picking from the Bible fo millenia t justify their every impulse, moreal or otherwise."
"Just because some people used certain scriptures to repudiate others, however, does not mean that the Bible is a good source of moral instruction. Nor does it suggest that w need to referto a book to resolv moral questions of this sort."
"As soon as a person recognizes that slaves are human beings like him- or herself, with the same capacity for happiness and suffering, then he/she will realize that it is patently wron to own and treat them as farming equipment."
"It is remarkable easy for a person to come to ths epiphany, yet it had to be spread at the point of a bayonet throughout the Confederate South during the U.S. Civil War, which was home to some of the most pious Christians that this country has ever known."
Mr. Harris has a strong viewpoint.
(Please excuse the typos above: I type too quickly and the keyboard isn't very good.)
I first would like to say a word to Nate if he is reading these posts. What you have done in leaving such a family nothing less then courageous. What you and your siblings endured is not anything that I will ever comprehend. I can't imagine what it must be like to have to leave your family and for a father to disown a child. I only hope that if I had been in the same situation that I would make the same choice.
To Anon European,
In response to the post with the book "God is not Great". I would like to ask a question and I don't need an answer, just something to think about. Do you think that people make up their minds about Christianity and then go and find sources that support their belief? Now I know that the same question can be used for those who believe in Christianity but this is not the topic at hand.
Christopher Hitchens is an unabashed Atheist... I hope so, because if he was ashamed of being an Atheist he probably shouldn't be writing books on what he believes. I would hope that all Christians are unabashed about their faith also. Now, I haven't read his book and I probably won't, but I am going to assume that when he talks about "God" I am going to assume that he is talking about the God that Christians believe in. Whether or not Hitchens would like to believe it or not, the Bible is a historical document, and though their are some passages that are considered difficult to understand - this does not make it full of contradictions. People cherry pick passages to try to disprove the Bible too. If you wanted to question an apparent contradiction, here's one. Why is it called the Theory of Evolution if it is taught as fact? If you are going to call something a theory than you have to teach it as as theory. Now if it is taught as a fact then it would need to be proven, which it has not been done yet. Look at Darwinism "only the strongest survive". Where is the missing link? Actually, forget the "missing link", if only the strongest survive and we came from monkeys, shouldn't the monkeys have died off by now? If you are going to teach theories then it would only make sense to teach other theories as well, right? Why is Intelligent Design not taught as a theory... there are plenty of scientists who share this thought.
I say this last thought was caution because I mean nothing insulting to Nate. Talking to Nate about the Flood and Noah's Ark is just like using Gene Simmons name recognition on a topic of faith... I don't see the relevance of dropping his name in your argument. You say "there are too many holes, both scientific and logical, in the tale.", could you share some of them with me?
Anon: just for the record, the posts citing Hitchens and Harris were by me, and not Anon European; my name is Brian (too many Anons here:)
re: the Theory of Evolution. You misunderstand the term "theory" as it is used in scientific discourse; theories are based on facts derived from other facts, and can in principle be tested. For example, one can speak of the theory of gravity, or the theory of electricity, without casting doubts on either gravity or electricity as factual things.
re: problems with Noah's Ark...oy vey, let's see: it supposedly happened about 5,000 years ago, when engineering was very rudimentary; how would such a mega-floodworthy craft have been constructed? Also, there are millions of species of insects and many thousands of kinds of beetles alone...how would they have been accomodated on the ark? Moreover, how could one human family have been able to feed and care for all those animals, without being eaten themselves, if the craft was afloat for weeks? Also, did all the people and animals we see now descend from that one family (Noah's) and the pairs of animals, insects, plants etc. which were taken aboard the ark? Just a few things...
Here's something else: many fundamentalist Christians who are creationists believe that the world is only about 7,000 years old. That is about a millenium after the Sumerians invented glue, of about the time that dogs started to become ddomesticated. It is also equivalent to believing that the distance to New York from L.A. is only about the length of the average football or soccer field (Note: I've been paraphrasing a mixture of the writing of Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins in the above).
re: Hitchens' book: "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" is an attack on all aspects of religion, though he never comes across as bitter or personally insulting to people of faith. He does refer to the late Japanese emperor Hirohito as a "ridiculously overrated mammal" though, which I have to agree with, no offense to his (Hirohito's) son Akihito however.
(I forgot to mention in my fourth paragraph: written Chinese history goes back 10,000 years, or 3 millenia before many Christians allege the world was created in a mere 7 days. The conundrums with strict Biblical literalism are huge).
I kind of thought that you were a different person but I saw a small similarity (or so I thought) and so I ran with it. Absolutely right, too many Anonymous's... my name is Steven.
Thank you for clarifying the book on Hitchens and which "god" he is talking about. I have to admit that after I posted my last thoughts last night I had a little regret because in asking for your thoughts on the flood deters from the original intention of this blogspot. I will say this though, the Christian who believes in the accuracy of the flood and the ark also believes in a God who created the atom, DNA, and all living things... the ark wouldn't be too difficult a feat to instruct Noah how to build it. If God sent the animals to him then I am sure God could command them to not to eat Noah. Insects don't need their own rooms or compartments (our society creates "designer pets" by playing with test tubes in the lab which would cause me to believe that maybe these "thousands of beetle types" weren't around just yet, maybe they all cross-bred afterwards)... I haven't done my research on ancient Chinese writings so this will give me something to look into.
I hope these facts are your own findings and not just from Hitchens book. I only say this because with a title such as "God is not great" he doesn't strike me as the most objective person. If he isn't objective then maybe he has an agenda. Here is an example of untrue facts being stated as true. The Da Vanci Code. The book starts out stating that there are 666 panes of glass on the Louvre... not true. It is my own belief that books such as Da Vinci Code, God is not great, The God Delusion, and others are agenda driven.
All I ask is that we don't get our faith or theology (thoughts on God) by an author who is trying to sell a book. Books like these are like car wrecks on the side of the road... unfortunately we love shock value.
Here is an interesting little side note: Even Atheists have a theology, they believe God doesn't exist. If one can make the claim that there truly is no God then this person is all-knowing. Religious people claim that there is a being that is all-knowing, God.
Steven: thanks for the reply. I myself am a Christian, but I take much of the Bible (esp. the OT) as allegorical. The comments I have made above are a mixture of my own views, as well as some opinions put forth by Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris.
You might try the book by Alistair McGrath called "the Dawkins Delusion: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine". Dr.McGrath is a scientist-cum-theologian who argues that scientific discoveries do not have to preclude religious faith (however, in fairness, one should read Dawkins' The God Delusion as well, to appreciate McGrath's counter-arguments).
Brian: I have appreciated this conversation.
I just have one more thought to share and that is, to view the majority of the Bible as allegorical or to pick and choose events depicted as "actually happened" or not, is to try to redefine what it says. The Bible represents many different literary genres (poetical, historical, etc...)we can't clump most of it together because we find some of it difficult to believe. I personally believe in miracles and the miraculous.
I hope the best for you and for all who read/wrote on this blogspot
I love you. I drive by the compound, I mean church, on a regular basis and all I can say is that I love you.
"Here is an example of untrue facts being stated as true. The Da Vanci Code. The book starts out stating that there are 666 panes of glass on the Louvre... not true. It is my own belief that books such as Da Vinci Code, God is not great, The God Delusion, and others are agenda driven."
Steven,
The Da Vinci Code is a _novel_. It is unabashedly _fiction_. The author's agenda is entertainment.
The nice thing about fiction is that you can call anything you want a "fact". The important thing is to serve the story.
My point is, do not try to discredit non-fiction books (The God Delusion, God Is Not Great) by quoting factual errors in a work of fiction. At least, not if you want your argument taken seriously.
Oh, and BTW: Atheism is NOT a belief, it is a LACK of belief.
From a completely different Anonymous.
Man, I'm extremeley proud of you for leaving such an abusive and no doubt insane household. I'm not sure how you saw the light but I am damn glad you did, and can only wish your brothers and sisters will one day also see it.
-Nature bless.
If I was you the chip on my shoulder and distrust of people's claims to have access knowledge of God--his preferences, his character etc-- would be the size of Gibralter.
In having a very watered down version of what you went through in my own past (on the religious side, I was severely abused as a small child), I would encourage you to consider reviewing an issue with humanity, namely "Certainty about unprovable matters" often combined with "denial about what is a provable matter". These seem to run rampant with religious and non-religious alike. We find security in having answers, and ignore that on complex issues our emotional drive to being correct often bears more weight than probability.
Still sound like religion and-non religion? Pride and it's uncle insecurity live in us all, changing the flavor of it's manifestation generally suits only our psychological preference. Having said all that take care to not be as convinced you are right about the issue of God and religion as your father is. One day you may find an unexpected 3rd option you hadn't considered.
I could be TOTALLY wrong.
Peace.
I am truly amazed everyday of the cafeteria christians that pick and choose just what part of the bible to use on any particular day for their bigotry and bias while ignoring the more distasteful to them. Yesterday it was mixed marriages and before that it was shell fish and today it is gay marriage. Thankfully this culture of exclusion is slowly dieing out. Maybe in a few hundred years their beliefs in talking donkeys and sky gods will be seen by all as the complete sham that it is. We can only hope.
It takes courage to leave everything and everyone you know behind. It takes courage to speak against your family. It takes courage to speak about what your life was like growing up. I lived with my grandmother for a period of time and she was a firm believer in "spare the rod, spoil the child". I was never beaten, but was abused mentally and emotionally which, to this day, I still have issues with.
I applaud your courage, you determination, and your spirit. You can count one book sold.
re: the idea that we have freedom of speech because of people in the military. well, that is just such a stupid idea. maybe there WERE wars where our independence as a country and as a democracy were at stake because some in the war might have sought to over power and take us over into their system. but such kind of wars have not been fought in a very long time. certainly not the iraq or afghanistan wars. those were about oil interests and misplaced revenge for a terrorist attack, or maybe something entirely other than that. but at no time during those wars was our freedom of speech in any danger. we have freedom of speech because of the constitution. our constitution is in more danger from the religious right than it ever was from anyone we have gone to war with in a very long time. so claims that soldiers fight for our rights are bogus. their willingness to serve the country in a difficult job means we should respect them, yes, but nothing in recent years' wars have put the constitution in any danger.
Ugh. Do we HAVE to get in an argument about evolution Every Single Time Fundamentalists and Atheists talk online? It is so amazingly tedious, and it's generally got nothing to do with the subject at hand. I mean, what does evolution have to do with whether the founder of the WBC is a misogynist and a racist?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home