ProfB – Dr. Anthea Butler

Immediately after the announcement Tuesday that Sen. Kamala Harris was Joe Biden’s selection for the vice president’s slot on the Democratic presidential ticket, the attacks and criticisms began flying across the web from conservatives and liberals alike. She’s “extraordinarily nasty.” She’s “a cop.” She’s too conservative — or she’s too liberal. She changes her mind constantly.

Funny how a competent, successful woman accomplishing something heretofore unprecedented seems to do that to people. If a white man had a backstory like Harris’, conservatives would openly consider him a formidable opponent and worthy of at least some respect.

Harris’ story and rise to become the presumptive Democratic nominee for vice president — and the first Asian American and the first Black woman on any ticket — should be a story about the first-generation child of immigrants rising to the top of the political world through intellect, strategy and wit. Instead, the quest to tear apart her identity, her accomplishments and every single one of her missteps will continue on both sides of the aisle and in the media until Election Day in November.

For instance, being of Jamaican and Indian descent has exacerbated criticism of Harris’ record as district attorney of San Francisco and California state attorney general: She is not judged strictly on her accomplishments or failures in those roles, but on what she did or did not do on criminal justice reform as a Black woman in those roles — even though it’s just as likely that, had she been seen at the time as acting on her identity in those roles, she never would have been elected to them at all.

We don’t often discuss how women like Harris face these kind of double-edged swords, or what compromises and struggles these dilemmas require of professional women in order to achieve success in their fields.

Harris, a California Democrat, is furthermore now being singled out by conservatives because she is a child of immigrants from Jamaica and Indian: In the toxic racial environment of America, a past which was once lauded as American exceptionalism is now a reason to revive birtherism — the same ahistoric, anti-constitutional thinking once intended to deny President Barak Obama his elected office because of his father’s immigrant status.

A particularly despicable article in Newsweek inferred — without legal justification, in defiance of commonly understood constitutional law — that, as a result of her parents’ immigrant backgrounds, Harris might well not qualify to be vice president. While Newsweek has issued an “apology” of sorts for the piece, while denying it qualified as birtherism, it will clearly be the start of more to come, especially given the imprimatur of Newsweek.

(Of course, Democrats and lefties have not been immune from debates intended to deny Harris’ identity, with Desi Twitter both lauding and criticizing her, and Black people arguing over whether she is Black enough.)

Then there are the criticisms of Harris — as with Hillary Clinton before her — as being too apt to change her mind. As Peiter Beinart aptly wrote in The Atlantic, it is a false dichotomy to ask if Harris’ stance has changed because of political calculations or personal feelings. People can change, and we should want them to if they are wrong.

But the troubling aspect of this criticism when applied to Harris is that it is often meant to convey to voters that they can’t trust her because she flip-flops. But women — and especially women of color — are often deemed untrustworthy compared to men, and Black women are supposedly even more untrustworthy than white women. Repeating this canard about Harris because she chose to learn from criticism of her political positions plays into our implicit sexist and racist biases — and liberals especially ought to know better.

After all, the Twitter hashtag #TrustBlackWomen got started in part because of Black women’s political savvy during the 2017 Alabama Senate race between Roy Moore and Doug Jones and our understanding of which candidates are worthy of our votes. (Black women also overwhelmingly voted against Trump in 2016.)

If Harris were a man, there would assuredly be some of this scrutiny, but there would be less of it and it would come without much of the context and subtext that comes from her being a woman of color.

America, however, is one of the last remaining countries in the world to not have had a woman at its helm: Israel, India, the United Kingdom and Germany, among others have had women in the highest position in government. America, meanwhile, is still clearly roiling from having had exactly one African American president, having thereafter, with the overwhelming support of white people, elected a president who made his love for Confederate paraphernalia and its fans well known rather than a well-qualified white woman.

So, despite the common theme among professional pundits that Harris was a “safe” choice, the truth is that, in a country that has widely embraced open racism and sexism, she was truly not. She achieved her presumptive nomination because of her skills and intellect — as well as her publicly demonstrated ability to dissect through the lies of this administration. Her elevation at this moment serves as bridge between the old politics of the Democratic Party as represented by men like Biden and the newer, progressive politics of the party represented by women like Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and others. (And, as a woman on the cusp of Gen X, Harris quite literally is a bridge between the Baby Boomer and millennial wings of the party.)

Kamala Harris is a woman of color, stepping up to serve a nation that has seemingly forgotten that it was built not only on a revolution against a tyrannical power, but on the tyranny of slavery and because of immigration. E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one — does not apply to just men, and it never has. Women are an important part of the many here in America, and it is time that we have a woman near the top (if not quite yet at the top) of the executive branch.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/kamala-harris-already-facing-sexist-racist-attacks-it-ll-only-ncna1236620

Finally: It is not a dream, and Kamala Harris is the vice president-elect of the United States.

For American women, a glass ceiling — first tapped by Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 — has finally broken. For both Black and South Asian women in the United States, we felt it shatter on our first real hit; she is our sister. We see in her the promise that our mothers held out for us, one our grandmothers could not even imagine. For our daughters and granddaughters, we see a brighter future.

Most important, we see the beginnings of change at the highest level of governmental office in America — one that is long overdue.

Joe Biden’s selection of Kamala Harris as his running mate was not just about a symbolic choice to win votes; it was a recognition that, in America, there are millions of competent women who are reasoned and reasonable, intellectual and emotive, engaging and analytical.

Black women like Harris have been the backbone of the modern Democratic Party.

Kamala Harris represents what America should have seen long ago in women, had the media and politicians not lost their way by coddling those far too eager to put women back in the kitchen and in the nursery. Our cultural imaginations can now be turned to all the women who every day work hard, succeed and are capable of running America.

Black women like Harris have been the backbone of the modern Democratic Party, from Fannie Lou Hamer’s standing up for the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party at the 1964 convention to Shirley Chisholm’s run for the Democratic nomination in 1972 to Stacey Abrams’ run for governor of Georgia and her creation of Fair Fight to protect voting rights. With Vice President Harris, their trailblazing political activism opens up a whole new range of opportunities for women organizing and being active through politics.

Her role also makes a very clear statement to the Democratic Party that its future is about Black women and other women of color who can draw voters into the fold, willing to fight and make changes that are important both for their communities and for America as a whole.

Harris’ story will also resonate with the millions of recent immigrants who came to America to find jobs and education and to raise their children to be successful. Her successes are also the successes of immigrants and all people of color in America who have had to fight all kinds of racist and sexist odds to rise to the top of their professions and politics.

And after the last four years of performative femininity — often characterized by straight-ironed hair, professional makeup, pastels, bell sleeves and pussy bows — Vice President Harris will be a welcome breath of fresh air to many women for whom that vision of womanhood is anachronistic. Instead of stilettos, Chuck Taylors will be the rage; instead of tight sheath dresses, we can take a few deep breaths — as well as a hearty welcoming laugh — in a professional blazer.

Kamala Harris is a competent holder of power, exhibiting both strength and compassion.

It might seem shallow to talk about the change in sartorial choices with a changing presidential administration, but the way women in power dress is an important cue about how they view their own accessibility and the role of women in public life. Harris represents women who work hard, play hard, enjoy life and are committed to both career and family — and she will be accessible because she is casually professional and beautiful, not contrived.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/vice-president-elect-kamala-harris-shattered-glass-ceiling-all-women-ncna1246493

Because wearing masks helps to stem the spread of the coronavirus primarily by preventing infected people who aren’t experiencing symptoms from infecting others, people around the world now regularly wear them to protect others in their communities. But in America, not wearing a mask has become a political statement — and it’s a statement increasingly being made by avowedly devout Christians.

For example, attendees at the Students for Trump rally at the Dream City Church in Phoenix on Tuesday mostly eschewed wearing masks and did not socially distance, instead relying on pastors who had claimed they’d installed a system in the church that killed 99.9 percent of COVID-19 in the air. (The pastors later took down a video of the claims, which were debunked by experts who noted that the virus is primarily spread by respiratory droplets by people within 6 feet of each other.)

Whether what follows — in a county currently in the middle of a spike in community transmission, with 1,231 new cases reported Tuesday alone — is another spike in cases won’t likely be clear for two weeks. But, if it is, it won’t be the first time that a church has been the locus of transmission when they had the knowledge not to be.

Since the pandemic-related stay-at-home orders began in March, we’ve had pastors arrested for holding church services in violation of them, numerous outbreaks of COVID-19 traced to churches, and even a certain man in a white house who wanted Easter Sunday to be not just the celebration of Jesus coming out of the tomb, but the edict for going back to church. From singing in churches to attending funerals, churches have become serious vectors for the spread of the virus — and yet some pastors seem to have missed the memo.

In Oregon, the Lighthouse Pentecostal church in Island City is the site of a major outbreak of the coronavirus. The church held services in April and May even though the state of Oregon put size restrictions on gatherings; weddings and graduation events were also held at the church during that time. Last weekend, 66 percent of 356 people at the church who were tested ended up positive for the virus. While the church had videos of various events without social distancing up on its website, those have now been taken down, and the leadership has gone silent.

Across the country in West Virginia, Graystone Baptist Church has also contributed 41 cases to a broader coronavirus outbreak in the area. The pastor encouraged but hadn’t required parishioners to wear marks, and stopped the handshaking part of the service but didn’t stop parishioners from doing it anyway; he told the Register-Herald, “The bottom line is this is the attack of the devil on my church.” State officials have linked most of the cases in the broader outbreak to either church services or tourism to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

Even a priest of a Catholic church outside Sacramento, California, who did not wear a mask while giving Communion on June 13 and 14 — ignoring the guidance from the diocese said that they should do so— tested positive for the virus. To date, at least, none of his parishioners (or the unmasked deacons who also gave out Communion) have tested positive, according to news reports.

It seems like it is time to ask an important question: Is the recalcitrance of Christians — and, predominantly evangelical Christians — to wearing masks and limiting their churchgoing killing their neighbors? Or, alternatively: Why is it such a big deal for churches and the faithful to wear masks, or worship online at home?

The answer to these questions lies in understanding something that’s become implicit about some faith traditions in America: For many, their religious activities are not just about their faith, it is also about their politics. And since a simple face covering has become the focus of the new political culture war — going without a mask is standing for freedom, according to those who don’t want to wear one because they are following the president — it’s not surprising then that churches, especially conservative ones, are hotbeds for unmasked worship, limited social distancing and, thus, the spread of the coronavirus.

It is, after all, important to love one’s neighbor — but in America, individual freedom is often more prized than biblical admonitions. The churches that pressed to open their doors early or even meet in defiance of stay-at-home orders did so not because they were afraid their members’ faith would fail in 90 days. Pastors prefer to preach to members (who then open their physical wallets when a basket is passed) rather than a computer screen of people. Pastor Tony Spell — who was placed on house arrest for opening up his church in Louisiana in defiance of state stay-at home orders — is an excellent example of a pastor whose demands seemed to be less about meeting the needs of his members and more about attaining broader recognition for himself and the church.

Not all churches however, have forgotten how to love their neighbor; many churches in America are being careful, implementing distancing requirements, forgoing singing and requiring members to wear masks. A pastor in Orange County, California, asked the board of supervisors to reimplement a mask requirement (and was ridiculed for her efforts, rather brutally).

Or take the Houston Northwest Church — which, like Phoenix’s Dream City Church that played host to the Trump rally, finds itself in the middle of one of the new rapidly growing epicenters of COVID-19 in America. It has decided that all attendees should wear masks. According to pastor Steve Bezner, they began to see masks as, and explain to parishioners that masks represent, a “love of neighbor.” When in-person services resumed in early June, masks were required to be worn upon entering the sanctuary and, once inside, if members did not wish to wear a mask, they are required to sit in the maskless section, while those wearing a mask sit together, as well.

Other churches, of course, are forgoing meeting in person altogether until the situation improves.

While the virus rages across America, to mask or not to mask isn’t really so much a question of politics as it is an imperative of public health. So if Christians truly believed that they should love their neighbors as themselves or obey the golden rule, then wearing masks ought to be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, for so long, many churches preached that Republicanness was next to godliness — and now a strict adherence to the gospel of Trump all but demands they ignore those of Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31 and Luke 10:27.

But if we are ever going to end this pandemic — and grieving over Zoom and iPads — people of faith are going to have to listen to science and the Bible, care for each other and our communities as much as ourselves and our political heroes, and wear our masks.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-phoenix-megachurch-rally-proves-how-much-faith-face-ncna1231992

(RNS) — This week, President Trump took on two new titles, one bestowed upon him, and the other self-proclaimed.

First, in a series of tweets, the president quoted Wayne Allyn Root, a noted conspiracy theorist and Messianic Jew, who said that “President Trump is the greatest President for Jews and for Israel in the History of the world,” and “The Jewish People love him like the King of Israel.”

If being named king was not enough, the president would go on to state later that day at an impromptu press availability with the media that he was “the Chosen One” to take on China.

To use a Yiddish term, oy vey, indeed.

For Christians, and for Jews as well, Trump’s self-aggrandizement with these two titles is very problematic.

First, the last king of the Israelite Kingdom was Hoshea, who may have ruled from around 732 BCE to 723 BCE.

Second, to speak of a king or Messiah-type figure for Jews is problematic, since some Jews think that the Messiah has yet to come. For Christians, Jesus is the “Chosen One” or Messiah, and sometimes, the title of “Chosen One” is an Apocalyptic term to describe when Satan will return to the Earth.

A gold coin featuring King Cyrus and President Trump being sold on the Jim Bakker Show. Video screenshot

You can see the problem. The president’s self-congratulatory moments resulted in real consternation for both atheists and believers alike. Trump’s words and actions reminded some of the “Left Behind” series or an older version of Rapture movies like “A Thief in the Night.” But these kinds of titles and appellations have a bigger issue, and one worth noting.

Trump’s two announcements this week reveal why some evangelicals see him as “God’s Chosen One” — a King Cyrus-like figure, anointed by God to save America from cultural collapse. That claim was made in books and even a feature film about a so-called Trump Prophecy. Some charismatic Christian followers of Trump even created a coin with images of Trump and Cyrus on it to use during their prayers.

There have been a series of paintings of Trump as a kind of redeemer figure by John McNaughton. Others depict Trump being hugged by Jesus, or signing bills at the resolute desk with Jesus standing behind him. These images, for some evangelicals, are fan images of the hopes and the realities they believe President Trump’s election has wrought.

Trump’s declaration, however, of being the Chosen One and his enthusiastic reception of “King of Israel” may end up backfiring on him. For one thing, some Christians would consider using the phrase “the Chosen One” very much like blasphemy. Some evangelicals were dismayed, comparing Trump to Herod Agrippa in Acts chapter 12, who was called God. Herod, of course, accepted that accolade, and it did not end well for him.

President Trump speaks with reporters on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on Aug. 21, 2019. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Others, especially those who are Dominionist, would be pleased that President Trump is finally being recognized for who they really believe that he is. Some evangelicals have spent a great deal of time since 2016 extolling Trump in this manner. So it is no surprise that he is accepting these accolades.

Meanwhile, Trump’s acceptance of being “the King of Israel” may just sound strange to ears not attuned to some quarters of Christian belief. But for those quarters of Christianity who believe in end-time prophecies and other beliefs about famous men, it is a sobering moment.

For some evangelicals, thinking of Trump as “King of the Jews” means that because he is the protector of Israel, Jews are that much closer to becoming “saved” and converted to Christianity. For Dominionist groups, some of which are already in Israel waiting for the “last days,” Trump’s embrace of this statement is further confirmation that he is God’s man in the last days, who will help to bring Christ back to Earth.

Perhaps the best way to understand Trump’s statements is in another context altogether, and that is by watching the new Netflix series by journalist and writer Jeff Sharlet, called “The Family.”

Based on the 2009 book by Sharlet, the series covers the activity of The Family and C Street, which courted many politicians and holds the National Prayer Breakfast each year. Sharlet’s first article about this group, entitled “Jesus Plus Nothing,” is an excellent way to understand what may be behind Trump’s statements.

A still featuring President Trump from the Netflix docuseries “The Family.” Image courtesy of Netflix

For the Family, any man chosen for leadership positions is chosen by God, no matter what his personal faith life or beliefs may be. In their theology, God can use any male leader to achieve God’s purpose. To put it one way, Jesus cares more for the wolf than the sheep. A strong man can make things happen.

A strong man is God’s man, no matter what sins he may or may not have committed.

This may be sobering, but in fact, hearing Trump call himself the Chosen One is the upshot of what some Christians believe to be the role of political leadership.

Trump’s declarations are not so far off, not only from his churchgoing days of Norman Vincent Peale and positive thinking; it is also a pastiche of certain kinds of evangelical and End Time beliefs that are merging together along with conspiracy theories to empower his presidency with the evangelicals that back him.

Whether it is blasphemous or a unique election strategy, we may be hearing Trump make these kinds of statements throughout the 2020 campaign cycle.

https://religionnews.com/2019/08/23/why-trump-and-some-of-his-followers-believe-he-is-the-chosen-one/

(RNS) — The woman you gave me made me do it.

No, that’s not Adam’s response to God about Eve eating the apple, but Jerry Falwell Jr.’s explanation of the “affair” between his wife, Becki Falwell, and Giancarlo Granda.

Jerry tried to get ahead of a Reuters story that broke about his wife’s sexual relationship with Granda by giving a preemptive story about her affair.

Turns out Jerry may have had “oversight” of the relationship by watching their sexual relations, inviting Granda on vacation and even listening to Becki and Granda’s conversations, according to Reuters.

This unsavory story says much about the sorry state of evangelicalism.

Morality — and the supposition that evangelicals have it — is not about personal behavior or piety. Instead, it is a bludgeon to be used against those who do not support evangelical beliefs or policies.

Looking back at Falwell, it is clear that he signaled this shift about evangelicals and morality in his support of President Donald Trump.

“I don’t think you can choose a president based on their personal behavior because even if you choose the one you think is the most decent,” he said in a Washington Post article in 2019, “there might be things that he’s done that you don’t know about. You don’t choose a president based on how good they are, you choose a president based on what their policies are.”

President Donald Trump talks with Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr., right, during commencement ceremonies at the school in Lynchburg, Virginia, on May 13, 2017. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Indeed.

The schadenfreude that many are enjoying over Falwell’s fall from “grace” comes from the fact that the son of Jerry Falwell Sr., the man who ran the Moral Majority, has been anything but.

Jerry Falwell Jr. is not an aberration, but a sign of the shift that is happening in the evangelical movement.

It used to be that evangelicals were swift to rid their ranks of anyone who had the whiff of any sexual sin. Now, you can hang around for a long time, or at least until you take a pic with your pants unzipped, holding a drink, with your wife’s very pregnant assistant.

While evangelical churchgoers may cling to and embrace certain conservative biblical interpretations surrounding sexuality and gender, their 21st-century leaders care little for it. Jerry Falwell Jr. is one in a long list of men who’ve had to resign because of sexual dalliances or allegations of misconduct.

Ted Haggard, Bill Hybels, Perry Stone, Earl Paulk, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker are some names that come to mind.

They all sought power in many ways, some in the religious realm, but others in the political. In the case of Jerry Falwell Jr., he not only supported Trump but also acted as a surrogate attack dog in defense of Trump’s policies.

Falwell’s fall is another indication of the impotent witness of American evangelicalism.

It’s time to stop pretending that 21st-century evangelicalism is still a movement that believes in sexual morality and values.

It is a political movement with religious people who vote a certain way in order to get the judges, perks and favors that can be given to their leaders through political and economic power. It’s about personal pleasure at the expense of making life miserable for others by legislating a morality that some leaders don’t believe in, nor bother to practice.

Not all evangelicals are like Jerry Falwell Jr., at least in their personal life. One reason he resigned is that a group of Liberty graduates — and eventually the school’s board — had had enough.

Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. gestures during an interview in his offices at the school in Lynchburg, Virginia, on Nov. 16, 2016. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Even his own brother seemed to shake his head at the state of evangelical leadership.

“The world doesn’t need another Christian hypocrite,” the Rev. Jonathan Falwell told students at Liberty after his brother’s departure.

Jonathan Falwell, who succeeded his father as pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church, did not criticize his brother by name in a sermon addressed to students.

Still, his message was clear.

“So many times we see Christians that are more focused on building their own brand than they are about building the kingdom of God,” he said.

Jerry Falwell Jr.’s fall matters because he is the son of Jerry Falwell Sr., the man who put evangelicals on the political and social map of America with the Moral Majority.

His public disgrace — and his apparent lack of contrition or shame — represents the rot in a movement that has never come to grips with its beliefs about sexuality, patriarchy, race and society that have influenced their ranks and American political life.

Evangelicals have sought to make America a Christian nation through education and political action while wrestling with their own desires to break free from the constraints of their conservative upbringings. Sometimes they win. Sometimes, like Falwell, they fail.

While this might be seen as just another sex scandal, I’d say that the fall of Falwell is proof that evangelicals who have fully embraced Trumpism have decided that their desire for power and position outweigh the gospel they claim to love.

In a distasteful final statement, Falwell quipped that he was “free at last” from Liberty.

Hopefully, we are free from him as well.

https://religionnews.com/2020/08/27/jerry-falwell-jr-s-fall-liberty-university-and-the-myth-of-the-moral-majority/

(RNS) — On Sunday, evangelical leader Beth Moore tweeted about the Jericho March, a pro-Trump bacchanal of racism and violence held in Washington, D.C., this weekend. “I do not believe these are days for mincing words,” she wrote. “I’m 63 1/2 years old & I have never seen anything in these United States of America I found more astonishingly seductive & dangerous to the saints of God than Trumpism. This Christian nationalism is not of God. Move back from it.”

It’s about time. But it’s too late.

Moore, David French, Michael Gerson and other evangelical writers have been wringing their hands for years about evangelicals and Trump. They have made a cottage industry of the “I’m shocked” genre of commentary. This group is quick to proclaim they’re upset every time an evangelical pastor or a political leader widely supported by evangelicals acts up in the name of Trumpism.

This performance of piety in the face of evil is empty, because it does not deal with the core issue: white evangelicalism’s own racism.

Complain as they might about Trump, this president simply tapped into the racist id that has always been a foundation of American evangelicalism. Now that white mobs are marching and inciting violence, they export the racism and violence to a specter called Christian nationalism.

Here’s the hard, ugly fact: Evangelicals support the racism, sexism and violence done on their behalf by so-called Christian nationalists. Black Christians have seen this for more than 400 years. We are not surprised, and these evangelical writers shouldn’t be either. Evangelicals’ politics are about their power. They use morality to hide their thirst for it.

Evangelicals know full well the ugliness and perfidy of the people they vote into office, support with their dollars and those they listen to every Sunday in pulpits across the nation. They claim to hate the ugliness, yet they remain in the same pews and support the same political leaders.

The Southern Baptist Convention has spent considerable time in the past year condemning critical race theory, first with a resolution at their 2019 annual meeting and most recently with a statement from six Southern Baptist seminary presidents proclaiming that the theory is incompatible with the denomination’s statement of faith.

The SBC’s position on CRT conveniently dovetails with the Trump administration’s recent Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping, which cuts out “blame focused” diversity training at federal workplaces. Diversity training shows the inequities of life for many ethnic groups in America. The only ones who may be uncomfortable with those inequities being called out are those who are still perpetuating them.

The Black church has also come under fire from Republican politicians who love to visit Black churches for photo-ops but balk at the convicting message of the gospel. The upcoming runoff in the Georgia Senate race is an excellent example. Senator Kelly Loeffler, who attended a commemoration on Martin Luther King Jr. Day at Ebenezer Baptist Church in January, is now digging up old sermons by Ebenezer’s pastor, the Rev. Raphael Warnock, to twist and misrepresent Warnock’s words (and the gospel itself).

Yet when participants of the march for Trump tore down and burned Black Lives Matter banners from Asbury United Methodist Church and Metropolitan AME Church, two historically Black houses of worship, on Saturday evening (Dec. 12), evangelicals condemn Christian nationalism — not the racism undergirding the Christian nationalism, not the Christian nationalism undergirding white evangelicalism. These things go together like peanut butter and jelly — a natural fit.

When white evangelicals ignore race as the motivating issue, I doubt their witness. Their handwringing, the self-abnegation, is meant to assuage their own discomfort, rather than the discomfort, violence and continual distress of Black people in America. I invite them to back up their words with actions, to reach out to those in the crossfire of this racial storm, to stand up against the leaders and associates in your denominations who remain silent because they voted for chaos instead of community.

If you don’t want to do that, then be quiet and get out of the way of the real prophets God is calling for such a time as this.

Repost from: https://religionnews.com/2020/12/14/white-evangelicals-dont-just-condemn-christian-nationalism-own-it/

Stories of Irish slavery on Facebook, Twitter and other platforms abound as both history and conspiracy theories that obscure the actual history of Irish indentured servitude and Black chattel slavery in America. These readings of history promoted by conspiracy theorists on social media platforms serve another purpose: to support white nationalist beliefs, oppose immigration, and even to denigrate religious traditions. For scholars not attuned to these conspiracy theories, these are trying times that put the teaching of history in tension with students, colleagues, religious institutions, and the state. Professor Butler’s lecture will engage these urgent issues, paying special attention to the relationship between Ireland and America on race, immigration, and religion, both past and present.