Do some Christians need prejudice?

One Sunday in 1960, in Leland, Mississippi, as an altar boy, I was counting confirmed heads in the congregation during the sermon in preparation to tell the Episcopalean minister how many hosts to magically incorporate for consumption by the communicates.During his sermon, the minister asked the congregation what they thought Jesus might do if a large group of black Africans showed up for the Sermon on the Mount. Most adults in the congregation knew that the minister was preparing them for the arrival of local Blacks who would visit our church in response to similar events in Jackson and other larger cities across the deep South.Well, about half the congregation responded by rising up and departing St. Matthews Episcopal chuch never to darken its portals again. (I'll never forget the minister having to cram dozens of extra communion wafers into his mouth and washing the resulting mucousy mass down with the surplus wine. Whatta look on his discusted face!) Most of the departing Christians found a happier Sunday gathering place over at the Presbyterian and Methodist assemblages. Good riddance.Now, some folks may think that type of prejudice typical of Mississippi Delta crackers in 1960. But much later in my life, when my kids were attending Old North Methodist church here in Evansville, Indiana (in the mid '80s), an announcement that a Black minister, Rev. Hutchenson, would be taking up residence prompted about half the lily-white congregation to up and start a whole new "non-denominational" church up the road a mile or two. Again, good riddance.Folks, were talkin' two very moderate, centrist sects here, not some wild-eyed, Bible-thumpin', holy-rollin', backwoodsy tongues-talkers. And by the way, both the Episcopalian and Methodist churches were instrumental in establishing Black congregations in the post-Reconstruction South and supporting desegregation in the Post WWII South.So, yes, I too would like to know what it is about those god almighty, sure-fire, our way or the highway cultists that requires sectarian and racial prejudice to reinforce their absolute belief that they and only they have prepaid tickets to Paradise?And considering my two examples above, we have to look not only at the archtypical redneck variety Christian haters, we have to look at mainstream sects also rife with racial bigotry and prejudice. What's up with that?

Berberry:I think I should point out that Leland, a town of about 6,000 people (2,000 white, 4,000 black) in 1960, was more representative of the rural deep South at that time than a city like Jackson or New Orleans.I was in the boy's choir at St. Andrew's Episcopal church in Jackson from about 1956 to about 1959, when a group of Black activists, some of whom were the now-famous Jackson lunch counter protesters, asked to be seated for Sunday services, and were escorted to the front two rows of pews. There was no hullabaloo raised about that incident that I remember; and my father and several other members of that church became active in registration of Black voters in Mississippi for the 1960 national election.So, I just wanted to point out some personal observations regarding the topic of "why some Christians need prejudice" to validate their belief structure, and why some are more prone to humanist actitivism. I wanted to point out that it's not just "bible-thumping" fundamentalists who act out their prejudice.Regards, Abshalom

(If this is not on-track, please advise.)For thousands of years, people have used religion to validate hatred and prejudice. Sects have and continue to use religious belief as an excuse for one sect’s violence toward another sect.The Bible alleges accounts of the Israelite’s genocidal attacks on other inhabitants of Canaan on orders reportedly emanating from the Hebrew god.A recent example of attempted validation of racial hatred is the Christian Identity or British-Israelism movement. This white supremacist movement believes Anglo-Saxons are the direct descendants and inheritors of the original Israelites, that the Jews are descendants of Satan and Eve, and that African-Americans are mud people without souls.
Christian Identity - religious cults, sects and movementsThe so-called Christian Identity movement is full of Ku Klux Klanners and neo-Nazis parading about under banners that incorporate Christian symbols while their skin-headed troopers spew abominable, hateful rhetoric and encourage physical violence toward fellow humans.While Christian Identity hate mongers are an extreme example of the phenomena I think this thread intends to explore, the original question could be phrased as what is it that apparently requires some people to incorporate prejudice and hatred into what they promote as Christianity? Is this the question, or not?

Berberry, I’m not sure yet whether I can cite any teachings attributed to Jesus that the "Christian Identity" movement interprets as validating racism; however, one of their beliefs is "that the Commandment which forbids adultery does not refer to extra-marital sexual relationships. Rather, it forbids 'racial adultery'; i.e. inter-racial marriages. Their reasoning is that the 10th Commandment which forbids coveting one's neighbor's possessions already bans adultery since one of those possessions is the neighbor's wife; and God would not have repeated Himself. http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/.../identity.htmlNow, with wacky postulations like that, it’s reasonable to assume they have twisted some of the teachings of Jesus to suit their bent reasoning as well.

In Message #49, Berberry clarifies that he is "looking for any of Jesus' teachings that would validate bigotry and prejudice."While trying to find something along those lines, I ran across this, which seems to indicate extensive religious tolerance:"An argument started among the disciples (who after Jesus' passing are supposed to extend Christianity to the world) as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, 'Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all -- he is the greatest.'""Master," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.""Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."Luke 9:46-50

Berberry:Of course there will always be some wacko who will stretch an interpretation to justify his demented fancy. Like someone claiming that Jesus's statement that the entire Law remains intact justifies the ethnic cleansing of Canaan. But then we would know we are dealing with a psychopathic cretin.

From Jar's message just above:"What you find today is that the concept is to outshout the guest unless the guest is following some predetermined party line. The majority of the content comes not from the guest but from the hosts."Absolutely right! And this would make an excellent topic to spin off from in the Coffee House.Back during Christmas 2004, a lady hosted Chris Matthews' Hard Ball on MSNBC. Matthews is one of those blithering talking heads that dominates his air time with endless rephrasings on his questions all structured to answer his own questions or force his guests into a "yes" or "no" simplistic response to his hogwash rather than giving the viewer potentially an educated view into the subject. When a guest tries to give anything more than a two-sentence response, Matthews cuts him or her off with "oh, sorry, we've run out of time."The lady who substituted for Matthews over Christmas illicited more thoughtfull responses out of her guests in each four-minute segment between commercial breaks than Matthews does in an entire show. What was her name anyway? And why doesn't she have her own show?But that all belongs in that other thread, right?This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-22-2005 10:18 AM