Souther Baptist Convention votes to condemn the Alt Right, racism and White Supremacists

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Explorer, Jun 15, 2017.

  1. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,349
    Likes Received:
    933
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    This is encouraging.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/politics/southern-baptist-convention-alt-right/index.html

    The Souther Baptist Convention passed a resolution denouncing racism, including white supremacy, and the Alt Right which has been advancing those principles, as being against the teachings of Jesus Christ. They also condemned vice, a backhanded slap to those who have claimed that Trump is a representative of Chrisian ideas and ideals, although the original resolution which called out Trump specifically didn't pass.

    Although the SBC passed this resolution, it's been interesting to read on a few evangelical forums of people who will quit the Baptist Church for rejecting racism. This SBC denunciation of racism will make it impossible to push such ideologies in the Convention's members, meaning that there will be no cover for those who hope to use the SBC for camouflage for such purposes. I imagine if someone leaves the SBC due to racism being denounced, the SBC is okay with that.

    This also creates an interesting factor in future elections, because if the SBC can no longer be counted as part of the monolithic voting block of right-wing evangelical Christians, it diminishes the ability of politicians to pander to the groups as a whole.
     
    ElysianGuitars likes this.
  2. Mathemagician

    Mathemagician SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,136
    Likes Received:
    121
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2014
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    Without fact-checking your summary, assuming it's correct, that is a very encouraging change in a large section of the religious voting block in the US. Basically saying they won't encourage subversion of "equality" under a religious guise.

    Baby steps, as I don't see any mention about LGBT protections etc, but having group up around fundamentalists, overall that's a pretty positive message.

    Good for them.
     
  3. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    462
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    But what about the first baptists, the second baptists, the church of christers, the pentacostals, the snake handlers, the...

    Well, you get the idea.
     
  4. sezna

    sezna undermotivated

    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    78
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    only one of those is a real denomination, and I'm fairly certain they dont really appreciate these things either. This is an encouraging message from the south's largest(?) denomination addressing a hufe problem of the south as a priority.
     
  5. Insomnia

    Insomnia Needs more strings!

    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    32
    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Location:
    London
    The WBC loves the blacks but hates the gays.

    I don't see this as progressive.
     
  6. sezna

    sezna undermotivated

    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    78
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    what does this have to do with WBC? If you are implying they are baptist, that is just WBC's claim. They follow no baptist teachings and:
    ^sourced from wikipedia but it is not difficult to find evidence that the churches in the Southern Baptist Convention do not associate themselves with the WBC.
     
    FILTHnFEAR likes this.
  7. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    462
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    I'm being facetious, obviously playing a bit fast and loose with my baptist "denominations" because there is no higherachical structure to the various baptist sects (dozens? Hundreds?) as there is with the Catholic Church, for example, but my point still stands.

    And the Church of Christ is a denomination as are the Pentecostals, with the snake handlers being a sect/subdenomination of the Pentecostal denomination (there are still ~150 churches that practice this throughout the south and Appalachia on into Canada).

    Having said that, I agree that this is a good thing, it's just a baby step rather than the something much larger that is needed. But a baby step is better than no step at all.
     
  8. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,349
    Likes Received:
    933
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    Just in the interests of clarity, and especially for those who are apparently incapable of independent research, the SBC has around 50,000 churches and 15 million members in the US, making it the second largest Christian body in the US, after the Catholic Church.

    What's interesting about this to me is that the SBC had special motivation to do this due to it having split off from the main Baptist group due to wanting to justify slavery. That led to the SBC later apologizing for that stance, so central to its very establishment. The SBC therefore has more internal pressure on it to avoid any hint that racism is okay in any form.

    I've been watching the news for follow-up stories where members have left their SBC church because they disagree with the resolution, that racism is against the teachings of Jesus Christ, or that an SBC church left the denomination (always a possibility) in order to hold onto racism as a core value. If a church's members don't agree with leaving, who gets the church property, the racists leaving, or the members who want to remain with the SBC?
     
  9. Insomnia

    Insomnia Needs more strings!

    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    32
    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Location:
    London
    Irrelevant. The point I was making is that you can have people that aren't racist but are still deeply prejudiced.
     
  10. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,349
    Likes Received:
    933
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    Unfortunately for you, that's not the point you actually made.

    You specifically said that the specific example being discussed, the SBC rejecting the Alt-Right and its racism, isn't progress on the part of the SBC. Your evidence for that statement is the actions of an unaffiliated group, the WBC.

    That's just poor thinking on your part, as well as possible dishonesty in your denial of shifting away from the group being discussed, and further examples of your inability to use evidence and reason to form well-supported conclusions.
     
  11. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    462
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    What I find interesting here is that the SBC is not a governing body for baptists churches as is the Vatican for Catholic churches. Instead, each baptists church is run by it's pastor and, to a somewhat lesser extent, its board members, and is free to interpret the bible as they see fit rather than in common with other baptist churches. This means that no baptist church is obligated to follow along with the SBC's denouncement of racism. Hopefully they all do follow along, but they are not required to do so (this is what I was referring to earlier when I referred to the first and second baptists - what the individual churches are doing about this).

    But given this, I doubt there will be many issues such as you mention above as a racist baptist church can either 1) remain a racist baptist church even while calling themselves an SBC affiliated church as a result of their freedom to interpret scriptures at the individual church level (though there may be some limits on this freedom in order to be affiliated with a larger group such as the SBC), or 2) sever ties with the SBC and remain a racists baptist church without ties to the SBC.

    And that is merely on the topic of racism. I haven't yet seen the SBC address women's rights, LGBT rights, etc. Nor have I seen other fundamentalist denominations (such as the Church of Christ or any of the Pentecostal denominations) address these issues. That is why I say that this is a step in the right direction, but it's only a step - the journey still lies ahead.
     
  12. Insomnia

    Insomnia Needs more strings!

    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    32
    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Location:
    London
    No, the point that I was making, and the point that I know I was making, is that you can still have groups that are fine with 'x' minority, but are still very against 'y' minority. The fact that the WBC are Baptist maybe an unfortunate coincidence, but I could've used an example of, say, Richard Spencer. He says he's okay with homosexuality, yet he's still an ethnonationalist. Being 'progressive' in one area doesn't mean you are an accepting group of people. Also, nice little personal attack slipped in at the end. That's just poor manners on your part :)
     
  13. sezna

    sezna undermotivated

    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    78
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    What I was saying is that calling the WBC Baptist, in the sense of the same "Baptist" as the SBC, is not entirely honest. Yes, they share the same name, but the WBC is not associated with the SBC or the churches it is comprised of in any way. I understand your point of "progress in one area does not excuse other areas" (I believe that is your point?) but, in using the WBC as an example, you cited an entirely different group's shortcomings as an issue of the SBC.

    And lastly, I disagree with your view. I think it is pessimistic and nonconstructive to dismiss progress because other things are still flawed. I think that progress should be celebrated and used to motivate further change.

    And as far as I'm aware, Richard Spencer is not Baptist at all?
     
  14. Insomnia

    Insomnia Needs more strings!

    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    32
    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Location:
    London
    I'm not giving examples of Baptists being progressive, I'm giving examples of people/organisations that are progressive in some areas and very conservative in others, just to show them how the SBC condemning racism doesn't make the SBC a progressive group. That's it. I'm not calling Richard Spencer or WBC part of SBC, I'm drawing parallels between the two just to make a point. I don't know how more clearly to put it.
     
  15. sezna

    sezna undermotivated

    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    78
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    I understand now, sorry. Are you saying that this news isn't worth viewing as positive, though? That was the initial impression I got.
     
  16. Insomnia

    Insomnia Needs more strings!

    Messages:
    312
    Likes Received:
    32
    Joined:
    May 24, 2015
    Location:
    London
    I guess it's positive, yeah, but I'm really not going to cozying up to baptists because of this. I'm not going to think of them as nice people, as accepting people, or as progressive people just because of this. Just that some Baptists condemned racism, only after a LOT of media pressure and pressure coming from their group leaders/pastors. The article states that the vote failed multiple times, until the very final vote.
     
  17. sezna

    sezna undermotivated

    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    78
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
    That's fair. Backing away from the article and to my own personal experience, I gotta say that most churches around here are completely separated from the SBC teaching-wise. I live in an area where almost all churches are gay-affirming, or at least they outnumber those that don't. That's just anecdotal, but I think that judging all people who go to a baptist church based on this convention can also be unfair.
     
    Insomnia likes this.
  18. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,349
    Likes Received:
    933
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    I have repeatedly provided examples, using the evidence of your posts *and* pointing out when you deliberately ignore evidence which undermines your arguments, even when such evidence is spoonfed to you.

    If you believe that my statement at the end is not factual, but is instead an unsupported personal attack, you can always press the report button, as personal attacks are against the rules.

    If the mods don't find that you deliberately and repeatedly ignore all evidence against your arguments like in, say, the "Yet another Islamic attack in London" topic, then the mods would likely take action against me for trolling the P&CE section, and SS.org would be improved.

    If you instead report a factual observation (you repeatedly ignoring factual evidence which undermines your arguments) as a personal attack, you'll draw attention to your trolling P&CE through such previous behavior by abusing the Report button with a false accusation. The mods will take action against you for trolling the P&CE section, and SS.org would be improved.

    No matter what you decide, one person will be shown to not be straight-forward in a demonstrable way and will lose credibility, and that is helpful. No matter which person it is, the facts will win, and SS.org will be improved.

    ----

    Just for the record, I don't mind engaging with trolls and pointing out when they argue against established fact. I don't think they'll necessarily change (although they do eventually either change or get banned over time, like those who defended violators of child labor laws in the "Hobby Lobby decision/child labor law violations" topic). However, I normally think of those who read the topics from the sidelines, and who see over time how some people repeatedly argue against facts and use poor logic. They're the ones who might change their minds on an issue... using the evidence and reason.
     

Share This Page