On July 18, Ruth Graham wrote in Slate “Mariia Butina’s cozy relationship with the Christian right makes total sense.” Butina is the Russian national who was recently indicted on charges of conspiracy and acting as a agent of the Russian government.
For certain, Butina had an easy time making friends with Christian right leaders such as Eric Metaxas and organizers of the National Prayer Breakfast. Graham also wrote about why that”cozy relationship” make sense:
Much of the Christian right views contemporary Russia with a surprising fondness, and it’s a coziness that predates the Trump administration.
Graham then mentions Pat Buchanan, Bryan Fischer, and Franklin Graham as evangelicals who have praised Putin’s hard line on gay and abortion rights. Despite Putin’s authoritarian tactics, some Christian nationalists like the morality he legislates.
Enter Scott Lively
Although there have been many influences on the development of current policies in Russia toward gays over the years, one simply cannot overlook the role of current GOP candidate for governor in MA, Scott Lively. In 2006 and 2007, Lively toured 50 cities in seven former Soviet bloc countries, including Russia spreading his anti-gay message. In a 2013 blog post, Lively celebrated the passage of a Russian law which banned teaching about homosexuality in schools.
On January 25th of this year the Russian State Duma, its highest legislative body, voted to prohibit homosexual advocacy to children, following the enactment of similar legislation in a number of Russian cities including St. Petersburg, and Novosibirsk (the capitol city of Siberia).
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/59099.htm . Go Ruskies!
I am personally very pleased to see this development, having called specifically for legislation of this sort in my speaking tour of the former Soviet Union in 2006 and 2007. During that tour, which began in the Russian Far East city of Blagoveschensk and ended in St. Petersburg, I lectured in a variety of venues including numerous universities, churches and conference halls, and met with numerous government leaders at various levels of influence. The entire tour spanned approximately 50 cities in seven countries: Russia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, and Belarus (we also passed through Kazakhstan but didn‘t speak there).
Toward the end of the tour I published, from St. Petersburg, A Letter to the Russian People (see below) which summarized my central message that I had shared in well over 300 lectures, sermons and media interviews during the prior year.
My pro-family message was warmly welcomed by the people of each of these countries, and to varying degrees the homosexual agenda has been slowed in all of them. To my knowledge the only two Eastern European countries to pass pro-family legislation designed to curtail the spread of homosexuality are Russia and Lithuania, which are coincidentally, the only two countries to whose people I wrote an open letter. My Lithuanian letter can be viewed online at www.defendthefamily.com.
Here you can watch Lively in action speaking in a Russian church. Notice how the audience begins to clap when Lively says a gay man dies.
He also appears in this Russian documentary.
Although it might giving Lively too much credit, he certainly deserves some responsibility for giving Russian leaders a wedge issue to use to compete with the West. In an interesting twist, American evangelicals who have excused Donald Trump’s moral failings have had practice by praising ruthless Putin for his support for traditional morality in Russian law.
Those waiting for an uprising of Christian leaders to condemn Donald Trump for softness toward an authoritarian dictator in Putin can keep waiting. Many evangelicals of the Christian nationalist persuasion think evangelical morality can and should be legislated, even if you have to overlook some things.
Like this article and want to see more like it? Support this blog at Patreon.com.
Also, Warren, if you think that the reason why Russia has laws against propaganda of homosexuality, beastiality, and pedophilia just because of the influence of Scott Lively and American “Christian nationalists” then you are seriously mistaken. It has to do with Russia’s unique culture and different mentalities of its people, that you don’t fully understand. I can’t speak for Uganda, but I heard interviews from members of their parliament who said that it mainly had to do with their African culture. That could be either true or false.
That’s obviously true, just as it’s true that Lively and other Christian right ideologues have gone there to foment more of that hatred and divisiveness.
Lively appears to me to be a very sick man, utterly obsessed with his enduring ideological fetish. So much of what he claims to be the case about LGBT persons is manifestly untrue, but he seems totally incapable of facing this fact. Many of us get things wrong, but can then allow ourselves to be corrected, but Lively …
I wonder if he has ever came face to face with someone who has suffered as a result of the activities of him and his ilk. There are, as it happens, some Ugandan LGBT refugees in MA. Maybe it would do him good to meet some of them? Perhaps it would help to be freed from the shackles of his vicious and absurd abstractions, and (re)connect with the real world and the real meaning of the Gospel.
Lively has always been an alarmist and sensationalist. That’s why he co-wrote Pink Swastika twenty years ago, to cause chaos and seek attention. By travelling to other countries like Russia and Uganda, he gets satisfaction because among these communities it creates unique reaction. I was wondering if his behavior demonstrates symptoms of narcissistic personality, grandeur delusion, and borderline personality disorders, Dr. Throckmorton? But, I highly doubt that he personally cares what happens to LGBT persons in the world, whether they will be legally oppressed or not. All he cares about people having angry reactions to what he says and does, which inadvertently gives him more attention and furthers his ego, based on the things mentioned before.
I think you have it about right, although I am not an expert in personality disorders, so please treat my affirmation with some caution!
What is incontrovertibly the case is that his behaviour has contributed to needless suffering on the part of others.
I have to admit that I know some people who would do a fine job of (peacefully but pointedly) confronting Lively, and I am tempted to see what might happen if the Bully meets some Tom Browns!
Welcome to America, Richard! In this country, everybody from left and right is constantly prone to using inflammatory rhetoric towards their opponents to bolster his or her ego among their admirers without having any concerns that the other side might be suffering. Just recently, a member of the House of Representatives named Hank Johnson (similar to your House of the Lords/Commons) has publicly compared President Trump taking over the Republican Party to Adolf Hitler taking over the Nazi Party in Germany! For that, Johnson was chastised by some Republican congressmembers for allegedly disrespecting and causing suffering to Trump voters.
Well, there is IMO a difference between the cut-and-thrust of politics (although people should be careful in their choice of words, of course) and the advocating of material persecution of this or that group. Lively advocates the persecution of LGBT persons: he supports criminal penalties and/or forced ‘therapy’, or has encouraged others (eg. Ugandan MPs) to do so. If a politician were to suggest criminal penalties for supporting or voting for a particular candidate, then one could argue ‘equivalence’.
Just like you believe these things about Lively, there are white evangelicals who voted for Trump who believe that Democrat politicians want to persecute them. They are afraid that Democrats might encourage them getting fired from jobs for allegedly being racist. Likewise, as I’ve shown a link from SPLC, there are some gays who want Russian evangelicals to be deported from the US for openly preaching against homosexual lifestyle and for having Lively come to their churches. That looks like a persecution to me.
Have Democrat politicians proposed that there be criminal penalties for attending white evangelical churches? That would be ‘the equivalent’, I think. (I’m pretty sure that the answer to my question is “no”.)
If there is evidence that a public employee is behaving in a racist (or homophobic, for that matter) manner, then that employee is, I would imagine, breaking their contract of employment, and the dismissal of that employee is justifiable. Obviously, the fact that someone ‘comes out’ as white Trump-voting evangelical is not, of itself, sufficient grounds for dismissal. Do you believe that these white Trump-voting evangelical public employees (WTVEPE persons!) have genuine grounds to be afraid of “Democrat politicians” provided they perform their duties in line with their contract of employment?
If foreign nationals in the Unites States are found to be inciting hatred against US citizens or residents, then deportation might be justified under certain circumstances, though I admit that it is an extreme sanction.
As for Lively: he clearly supports, and has encouraged efforts to, impose or increase criminal penalties against people for no other reason that they are in consensual same-sex relationships or campaign for gay rights. It is not a matter of what I believe; it is a matter of well documented fact.
And even if your argument is intellectually justifiable (I don’t buy it, by the way – in case you hadn’t guessed!), tu quoque is no defence in law! In other words, the fact that X does something wrong does not justify or excuse wrongdoing on one’s own part.
I never justified Lively’s behavior and I don’t believe it is consistent with Christlike manner, but all I was saying that there is evidence that people on the left (including gays) could be as nasty and even worse as Lively. I just don’t understand why people are so afraid of him? Even if he supports harsh criminalization of two adults of the same sex engaged in consenting intimacy, that particular law was prevented from being enforced. Certainly, it is impossible for such laws to be made in the Western world, especially in America. I do not necessarily agree with fears of evangelicals of being disproportionaly fired but I am simply acknowledging that there are people who fear this.
If you want to compare Republican politicians versus Democrat ones, then you might consider Bernie Sanders’s (a Democrat turned Independent) attack on one judicial nominee. Sanders said that because that nominee was an evangelical Christian and stated that whoever does not believe in Jesus stand condemned, he is unfit to be a public servant. Personally, Sanders scares the daylight of me. Btw, being denied employment based on your religious belief is also a persecution.
Also, most of those Russian immigrants I was talking about are American citizens.
I’d be interested to know exactly what Sanders said and precisely why he said it (eg. was it in response to some particular speech/action on the part of the nominee?).
Back to Lively: I don’t get what you say at all. Whether or not it would be easy to enforce laws against LGBT people is not the point; the point is that Lively has deliberately, with malice of forethought and over a significant period of time, sought to stir up trouble for them. Maybe in the USA he is pretty ineffective in respect of his agenda, but he has contributed to very real problems elsewhere.
Check out this article written by Jim Wallis:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/06/12/bernie-sanders-got-christian-theology-wrong-but-hes-right-about-islamophobia/?utm_term=.8bbce5e6e762
Btw, I think I have shown this link in thread about Ralph Drollinger, if you remember.
It was actually Russell Vought, a professor in Christian Wheaton College who was nominated for a job in Budget Office. Sanders rejected his nomination, after asking Vought if he thinks Muslims and Jews are condemned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsCMP07nPwc
Sanders was trying to be our President and it is not surprising that out of fear that such extremely leftist man harboring strong prejudice towards evangelical Christians could potentially make draconian laws regarding their faith, they chose to vote for Trump.
I was simply saying that it is more reasonable to fear Sanders than to fear Lively and Trump, hardly at all.
My assertion that Vought is at variance with the dogma of the Church is based on this (see below) from the declaration known as Lumen Gentium, which was promulgated in November 1964. (The quotation below is from Chapter 2, Article 16.)
“Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.”
Okay. I think I would be concerned if a candidate for public office had made ‘negative’ statements about whole groups of people, if only because it might be indicative of an outlook that fails to respect the uniqueness of each human person. Yes, Sanders’s approach was quite ‘rough’, but I don’t think his interlocutor understood the reason for the Senator’s concern, and failed to address it.
I certainly have a theological issue with Vought. The dogma of the Church does not state that all people of other religions are “condemned”. People like Vought might find themselves in less trouble if they actually proclaim what the Church teaches!
Vought stated to Sanders that because he is a Christian he believes that ALL people should be treated with dignity and respect. That should have been enough and it should have not been a concern for him being an employee of Budget Office. Thus, it showed ignorance and prejudice on Sanders’s part about evangelical Christians, something that Jim Wallis addressed. So, do you understand now why many evangelical Christians might feel likely voting for Trump?
I did not say I agreed with Sander’s decision to vote “no”; I really do not feel qualified to judge on the matter.
Vought seemed okay about the firing of his colleague for “expressing solidarity with Muslims”. If I had been on the panel of enquiry, I might have probed that aspect of the story …
By the way, I do agree with you that, if a Senator voted against Vought solely on the basis of his (V’s) religious convictions, then that would be a matter for concern.
More generally, I would point out that one of main authors of the particularly adversarial atmosphere in US politics is Trump himself (he held on far too long to all that ridiculous nonsense about Obama not being American and squawked “lock her up!” at many a political rally – to mention just two matters). Ironically perhaps, Trump’s style might be disadvantaging at least some of his nominees?
What I’m saying that Sanders has a reputation of being hostile toward evangelical Christians and so does Hillary. Trump, during his presidential campaign has promised to protect religious liberty. Therefore, many evangelicals developed fear for Sanders and Hillary and chose to vote for Trump, both in primary and general elections as opposed for the other two. Pretty much, they chose “the lesser of the two, or three, evils.”
Reputations can be deserved or not.
We’re on firmer ground when we look at recorded speech or actions: Vought said what he said apparently in response to the firing of an educator who was expressing her “solidarity with Muslims”. I don’t know the particulars of what happened, but can see how events such as these might ‘attract attention’ in respect of a sensitive government appointment.
If Sanders decides to run for President next year, I’d expect more evangelicals to vote for Trump and even possible praise Lively for supporting Trump.
People can support whom they choose, Sam. That’s the point of a free society.
But I’m still interested in the Vought case. As you can now see, Warren posted about it (but noone commented at the time, interestingly). I would be interested in looking at the context of Vought’s ‘offensive’ remark, as I think that, when it comes to public service, the context (ie. the Hawkins affair) is more important than the remark itself. Sanders should have explored the context, rather than making a judgement based on a statement of religious belief, however heretical that statement might be.
Well, it appears that many people in this thread wanted to understand why evangelicals would support Lively and vote for Trump. Perhaps, the answer to it, could be, because of Sanders. I commented on that thread you’re talking about, Richard. Pretty much, Vought said that Hawkins was incorrect theologically.
I’m sure that there are people who will say that Sanders is a reason for the inherently inconsistent position.
Vought has every right to opine on Hawkins’s theology, just as I have the right to opine on Vought’s (his position is not consistent with the Church’s teaching). My concern is this: should he be using theological differences to justify what appears to many to be Hawkins’s constructive dismissal? This is area where I think Vought have been genuinely vulnerable. (Is “constructive dismissal” a recognized concept in US employment law? Apologies if it is not.)
As private institution, Wheaton College, has a right to fire anybody who does not support its school religious position. But Hawkins resigned by herself. Anyway, it was still inappropriate for Sanders to use this event to publicly accuse Vought of disrespecting non-Christians. Bear in mind, he still had a right not to confirm his nomination but by publicly humiliating Vought, Sanders sent a message that he does not want evangelical Christians to be a part of American society.
I agree that any suggestion that a person should be disqualified from public office simply because they state a certain religious belief is unacceptable.
As I said before, I am not entirely clear on the precise circumstances of Hawkins’s ‘resignation’, but when the same people who scream about their “religious freedom” justify the pushing out of someone for doing as their conscience directs them, things do take on a rather grubby and smelly aspect.
I’d be interested to know what YOU think about what Hawkins has said here is in conflict with Christianity.
https://www.pbs.org/video/chicago-tonight-suspended-wheaton-college-professor-addresses-religious/
Well, it appears that she is ambiguous. On one hand, she says that Christianity and Islam is different, but then she says that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. I take that from Wheaton’s perspective it appeared odd.
So ‘Bible-believing-evangelical-Christians’ believe there is more than one God (one we worship, one that Muslims worship, and then maybe some more that others worship)?! That’s certainly a new one to me!
Surely she is correct in what she says: there is one Giod who is understood and worshipped differently by Muslims and Christians (and indeed different types of Muslims and Christians).
I have far more of a problem with Vought’s sweeping and unsubstantiated statement about Muslims. And maybe this is something Sanders should have focused on: the sweeping and unsubstantiated nature of what he said. And – as I’ve said before – it does seem odd that someone who champions “religious freedom” did not at least question the ‘resignation’ of Hawkins.
Hey Richard, I left a response to it here:
/2017/06/09/friendly-atheist-unfriendly-religious-test/#comment-4316331352
Let’s continue conversation over there.
Here’s Warren on Vought vs. Sanders: /2017/06/09/friendly-atheist-unfriendly-religious-test/
I think this is about right. I’m still quite interested in Vought’s contribution to the debate over the dismissal (persecution?) of Larycia Hawkins. I’ll try to do some research on that and let you know of my thoughts.
Just like you believe these things about Lively, there are white evangelicals who voted for Trump who believe that Democrat politicians want to persecute them. They are afraid that Democrats might encourage them getting fired from jobs for allegedly being racist. Likewise, as I’ve shown a link from SPLC, there are some gays who want Russian evangelicals to be deported from the US for openly preaching against homosexual lifestyle and for having Lively come to their churches. That looks like a persecution to me.
“GAWD H8S FAGS!” + “Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend” = “URRA, PUTINO!”
Poor little Evangelical Culture Warriors, sucking up to the Autocrat of All Russia.
Nobody told them Russia already has a State Religion — the Russian Orthodox Church — and they do NOT share Power.
I’ve read some recent comments that Lively was a member of the Hebrew Roots movement, which tries to make Christians follow Jewish laws.
Just in case anyone was thinking of crediting Scott Lively for chastising the Russian congregation’s delight over a gay man’s death, his account of what happened that day is a gross distortion of the truth. Here’s what the prosecuting Sacramento DA had to say about the case:
Vusik fled the scene and left the country and is still on the FBI’s Most Wanted list to this day.
As for Lively’s claim that the entire Russian community is being accused of murder. It is, of course, ridiculous. In fact, a Russian blogger thinks the Sacramento Bee was too soft on the anti-homosexuality bigots in the Slavic religious community, pointing out that other Russians were being much more critical:
http://moscowthroughbrowneyes.blogspot.com/2007/08/satender-singh-case-in-international-or.html
As a son of Russian speaking immigrants, I can tell you that in general, Russian Christians tend to be more vocal about the disgust of the homosexual lifestyle by referencing to Leviticus 18 and 20, than compared to native-born English-speaking Americans. But that does not demonstrate at all that Russian immigrants are more homophobic than other groups in America but that they are less politically correct than the natives, among Christians and non-Christians.
Here is a more balanced account to what happened:
https://www.pressreader.com/usa/los-angeles-times/20080316/281968898393579
Btw, one of those accused guys was convicted for disturbing the peace and got 150 months in jail. The jury got deadlocked on hate crime.
Things like electing “a low-life from Queens” as President of the United States.
Does Scott Lively wash the blood from his hands before he attends Prayer Breakfasts?
No, I suspect he just claims it is Jesus’ blood.
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised.
Hate should never “trump” love in Christian circles. Yet- in conservative circles it is apparently true. And I read that Franklin Graham received at least $250,000.00 for his support of this president*. Does cash “trump” truth as well?
And then there’s that wee, minor, little, Crimes Against Humanity charge.
Scott Lively is pond-scum.
And that’s belittling pond-scum.
Scott Lively is pond-scum.
Pond scum is too kind. US District Court Judge Michael Ponsor’s descriptions of Lively spared no contempt in his written opinion of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) vs Scott Lively last year.
“Defendant’s positions on LGBTI people range from the ludicrous to the abhorrent. …
This crackpot bigotry could be brushed aside as pathetic, except for the harm it can cause. … he offers the bizarre argument that a fascistic and violent gay movement in pre-war Germany propelled the rise of Nazism. …” and so on. A good read!
https://www.scribd.com/document/350534580/Ruling-to-dismiss-federal-suit-against-Scott-Lively
For those who wish to download the PDF without dealing with Scribd nonsense, here is an open link: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/06/350_2017-06-05_ORDER%20granting%20Def%27s%20MSJ_2.pdf
It can also be accessed here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14406925493926229926&q=sexual+minorities+uganda+v+lively&hl=en&as_sdt=4,82,84,89,94,95,105,119,145,147,152,157,158,379
Come on, this case got dismissed as frivolous lawsuit, and rightly so.
No, it was not dismissed for frivolity. As Judge Ponsor writes on page 3 of his decision to dismiss:
https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/06/350_2017-06-05_ORDER%20granting%20Def%27s%20MSJ_2.pdf
I read the document and found that so far, Lively demonstrated an extreme disgust for homosexual lifestyle and gay-affirming cultures, but there was no evidence that his actions, particularly expressions of his dislike for gays, led to directly to what was happening in Uganda, including the passage of that infamous law, which eventually got stripped by their court, or so I heard. I thought that because of this, it should be considered frivolous. I’m not an expert on legal terminology.
It’s no doubt that Lively meant to offend gays and those advocating for gay rights, when he co-wrote Pink Swastika, and he indeed twisted facts to do that. But, as I have said 7 years ago, it was an example of a political satire, a piece that carries no agenda except for intentionally getting somebody angry as a purpose for entertainment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_satire
Different people throughout the world have been doing it, both on the right and left. It’s not any different than what Michael Moore did by demonizing George Bush by drawing connection between him and Bin Laden family.
As for this thread overall, it is obvious that there is a lot of hostility towards Russian Christians from gay rights advocates, just because we are more direct about preaching from the Bible, which makes people upset. It even comes to a point when we are being persecuted by practicing homosexuals in power, like the story I told about my cousin and his wife, and I find it highly unacceptable. Scott Lively is popular among Russian Christians in Russia and America, not because he supposedly wants to persecute gays by extremely harsh methods (that’s untrue about him and on the Russian Christians part), but because he believes that people should not be afraid preaching from the Bible especially if it makes somebody angry. This is what majority of Russian Christians believe.
Lively had been going to Uganda for several years before 2009 and had been advocating for criminalization of homosexuality there during his visits. His purpose hasn’t been to entertain unless you think jailing people for their private choices is entertaining. Preaching your view of the Bible is one thing, using it to deprive people of life and liberty is another.
Personally, I do not find it entertaining to intentionally offend any group of people let alone jailing consenting adults for what they do in bed, but I was merely stating that people who write political satires or mockumentaries, do think that intentional inflammatory rhetoric and cause of offense to audiences is an entertainment. That’s what Lively did when he co-wrote Pink Swastika. Obviously, there is always a negative reactions to such actions, so it’s no surprise that many people started attacking Lively for that. Michael Moore received the same amount of reaction for making 911 Fahrenheit, especially from veterans who felt offended by it. As for Uganda, based on my reading of a court case that Seashell provided, I did not see that Lively’s preaching against gays and homosexuality was responsible for that country’s anti-gay climate and passage of any laws, over there. There was no evidence. I have a feeling that you have a misconception about Russian Christians and their alleged relationship with Lively, so I decided to clarify a few things due to me being a part of this community.
1. You have produced no evidence that Lively’s book was intended as satire. I have studied Lively and the book. He meant it as a historical analysis.
2. You need to read more than the court case. I have followed Lively’s work since 2009 and examined what he did before that to support criminalization.
Political satire is different from general satire. Please, look at the link about what it means. Pink Swastika could also be classified as mockumentary. The purpose of such works is to offend disagreeing parties through the use of inflammatory language by twisting facts. Lively, surely accomplished that.
As you understand, it’s really not much my concern what Lively did in Uganda, but it bothers me personally by a trend on this thread that supposedly Russian Christians in general are more homophobic than other ethnic groups just because some of them (I personally haven’t) have had associations and personal relationships with Lively.
You are not helping your cause by sticking to a defense of Lively as mockumentarian when there is absolutely no evidence for it.
But, isn’t it true that Lively in his book, twisted facts by combining them with known falsehoods and he also mocked gay rights activists by doing it?
…but there was no evidence that his actions, particularly expressions of his dislike for gays, led to directly to what was happening in Uganda, including the passage of that infamous law, which eventually got stripped by their court, or so I heard.
No. You misread. The court found that Lively was guilty of aiding abetting crimes against humanity in violation of international norms. However, because Lively did most of his dirty work while in Uganda and not the US, he could not be prosecuted in the US under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and that’s why the case was dismissed.
Whatever else you think, you need to know that Lively does want to to persecute gays harshly. It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact and one that Lively would probably admit.
Even if it’s true that Lively wants to persecute gays harshly, does it justify harsh persecution of Russian evangelical Christians, on the basis of alleged association with Lively?
I’m not sure where you’re seeing “harsh persecution of Russian evangelicals” in this thread or the original post. If anything, I see negative comments about US Christian nationalists, not Russian Christians.
By US Christian nationalists, it is meant Scott Lively, I suppose. I have seen comments from a few posters here suggesting that Russian evangelical Christians are the most homophobic people among other ethnic groups, and they are supposedly working together with Lively, Trump, and Putin. I can tell you, that’s utter nonsense. The story that I shared in the post where I responded to StrarightGrandmother and Jeff Ryan, is an example of persecution.
You might be interested in reading this article. I suggest you pay attention after the paragraph titled Outnumbered and Fearful:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2007/latvian-anti-gay-movement-spills-over-us
I’m surprised at myself for actually liking this article, written by SPLC, because here, they used a fairly balanced approach.
This article said everything and more that Dr. T and others in this post and comments have said about Scott Lively. Nor did Slavic evangelicals fare well in the article. I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. None of this helped your argument and I don’t get why you liked it.
In this article SPLC faulted Slavic Evangelicals for association with Lively and his ilk and they also faulted LGBT community for expressing Russophobia:
I also found it commendable that SPLC does not consider all Russian Christian immigrants as homophobic:
I learned for myself that SPLC can be open-minded.
He’s evil, he’s truly evil, like in Hitler evil.
It used to be that if you mentioned Hitler you were called on Goodwins law, but not any more.
Not any more because it is just a fact, it’s true.
What I thought was World Congress of Families was in Russia before Scott Lively, so I went and looked, yup going back to 1995 World Congress of Families was involved in Russia.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/world-congress-families-russia-gay-rights/
So they pre-date Lively, so actually Lively probably saw a ripe opportunity that WCF opened and he stepped through that open door that WCF Allan Carlson and Larry Jacobs started. I remember it as first WCF, then Scott Lively then all the other extreme right American Christian leaders came after. I remember that book Lively wrote he had it translated and published in Russia, he was out promoting that anti gay book. It breaks my heart to see how much time, effort and Christian money has been put forth to denigrate and persecute sexual minorities. It just breaks my heart.
He’s evil, he’s truly evil, like in Hitler evil.
It used to be that if you mentioned Hitler you were called on Goodwins law, but not any more.
Not any more because it is just a fact, it’s true.
What I thought was World Congress of Families was in Russia before Scott Lively, so I went and looked, yup going back to 1995 World Congress of Families was involved in Russia.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/world-congress-families-russia-gay-rights/
So they pre-date Lively, so actually Lively probably saw a ripe opportunity that WCF opened and he stepped through that open door that WCF Allan Carlson and Larry Jacobs started. I remember it as first WCF, then Scott Lively then all the other extreme right American Christian leaders came after. I remember that book Lively wrote he had it translated and published in Russia, he was out promoting that anti gay book. It breaks my heart to see how much time, effort and Christian money has been put forth to denigrate and persecute sexual minorities. It just breaks my heart.
Mike Godwin suspended his law after the neo-nazis invaded Charlottesville last year.
https://gizmodo.com/godwin-of-godwins-law-by-all-means-compare-these-shi-1797807646
Wasn’t the name of Lively’s book The Pink Swasitka or something?
Yes, he co-wrote it. It is an embarrassment to intellectual honesty.
Like what, stating historical facts that during the 1920s, the German Nazi party was comprised of homosexuals who played crucial role in its various activities, including Ernst Rohm, who himself tried to be Fuhrer? German historians write about these things all the time, so why can’t Americans do the same?
Because credible historians, which Lively is not, consider him a joke. Because you seem unaware of the Night of the Long Knives, and Rohm’s killing, by the Nazis, in July of 1934. Because homosexuality was outlawed, with the result that some 100,000 homosexuals were arrested and imprisoned, while 5,000 to 15,000 were sent to concentration camps, where many were castrated and many others died.
Rohm and his crew were hardly unknown when Lively took an opportunity to exploit that chapter and manufacture, out of whole cloth, claims of rampant homosexual influence. Lively is a cheap carnival barker who, like you, blindly loathes gays and wants to see them eradicated.
Or do you subscribe to the “Hitler was gay” claim Lively propounds?
Actually, many German historians write extensively how gays, women, and even Christians contributed to the rise of the Nazi Party to power. There are theories suggesting that Hitler himself might have been either gay or bi, considering how he lived his life. As you said that homosexuality was outlawed in Germany, it’s plausible to think that he stayed in the closet. So, to answer your question whether Hitler had non-heterosexual orientation, I’d say, probably, but it can’t be proven.
Certainly, not all gays are thought-police bigoted bullies, so I got no problem with all of them. But those who are… that’s quite another story.
If Scott Lively is evil like Hitler, then gay rights groups like Soulforce, XGW, AU, and PFAW are evil like Lenin and Stalin because they hate Bible-based Christians and want to oppress them for not accepting homosexual lifestyle and being vocal about it.
How are they oppressing you? They have First Amendment rights like anyone else.
You just want the freedom to treat others as less than human, less deserving of rights. Fortunately, your cohort is shrinking, and will largely pass from this earth. See ya.
I was just undermining SGM’ position that supposedly, Lively and all Bible-based Christians are evil like Hitler. She compares us to Hitler, so I’d compare her and her cohorts to Lenin and Stalin. You know, commies hated us, too. Obviously, everybody, regardless of what they believe have their First Amendment rights. As for how liberals oppress us, is by controlling our education and workplace, by demanding that any Christians, not only who dare to preach from the Bible, that could offend practicing homosexuals, people of other religions, and atheists, should be expelled and fired. They also want to have us imprisoned, like they do in Europe, just because in their illusions, hearing words from the Bible, dehumanizes them:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262310/Gay-rights-campaigner-condemns-1-000-fine-preacher-said-homosexuality-sin.html
By the way, my cousin’s family that lives in Sacramento were told by their son’s elementary school’s administrator (a man lookalike lesbian) that they needed to go back to Russia to their “homophobic Putin” after they complained that in that school, teachers read to children a book about a boy named Jace, who thinks that she is a girl. I must admit that they called homosexual behavior and transgenderism perversion and abomination and teaching about these like that to children is an offence for which offenders deserved to be drowned in the sea, which certainly got that gay assistant principal pissed big time. But this is the thing about Russian people I was talking about earlier: we are more upfront and honest about our beliefs than Anglo-Americans (the majority). Btw, the things mentioned above are written in the Bible, and when my cousin and his wife were barred from entering my nephew’s school and told they were “out of step with America” (yeah right, they are taxpaying citizens) just because their biblical beliefs offended some powerful practicing homosexual, it does look like an oppression to me. It’s also clear that LGBT and their supporters are seeking a right to talk about their lifestyles in public schools, even in kindergarten, and demand that no parents object to it. Well, I believe they should be denied this particular right.
FYI, perversion is a medical term sought to characterize something that is disorderly, outside of a norm, not personally attack anybody, let alone take away anybody’s rights.
The Bible is clear that human nature is inherently evil, and people tend to do all kinds of bad things, including having homosexual sex, thus all people deserve condemnation but believing that Jesus Christ has died for our sins and rose from the grave, will save us from condemnation. Preaching these words are not being done out of hate for no one, but out of true love. Unfortunately, people like you, don’t get it.
No, I don’t think you do. Many of us read this blog to engage on subjects we don’t necessarily agree on. Not everyone is here to be proselytized at.
Obviously, you just loves you some bible so much that you spend time trolling five month old threads. I responded against my better judgment.
Now I realize why it was my better judgment.
To me, this thread wasn’t so much about the Bible as it was about my people, that’s why it turned me on.
Do these organizations you cite (allegedly) “hate Bible-based Christians” because of who they are, or because of how their behaviour might negatively impact on others? If it is the latter, then I think the ‘equivalence’ you seem to be making here is simply not justifiable.
I demonstrated an example what these organizations and other Radical Left organizations do that amounts to persecution of Bible-based Christians. In other words, the Left is feeling extremely uncomfortable whenever they hear messages from the Bible, not only regarding homosexual lifestyle but also regarding salvation, and they use different intimidating methods to silence us. Part of a Christian faith is to share your beliefs so if the Left is punishing Bible-based Christians for their actions of not being silent about their beliefs, under the false premise that such behavior might negatively impact on others, then the Left hates Bible-based Christians for who they are.
But Lively’s actions have contributed to the harming of others. That is very clear, I think.
We should expect persecutions for being Christians and being light in the world/salt of the earth in the abstract, but I find it shameful for such persecutions to happen in the West, especially in the US, a country that models itself as a bastion for religious freedom and liberty.
So far, the only evidence I’ve seen that Lively’s actions have contributed to the emotional harm of others, in order words, there are a lot of people who can’t handle hearing what he preaches and there are a lot of people who probably can’t handle emotionally what I, Dr. T, or even you preach. So, is it reasonable to compare anybody whose preaching hurts somebody’s feelings to the evils of Hitler?
I also noticed that there is a striking similarity to the ideas of the Radical Left with Communism. It should be noted that my family is from a former Communist country.
I think you need to take a much closer look at the consequences of Lively’s actions. Maybe you need to speak to refugees or something like that?
I think it would be too simplistic to blame everything on Lively for the creation of refugees in Uganda. This country has many problems that existed way before Lively has arrived there such as failing economy, poverty, corruption in their government, Idi Amin and his legacy, cultural taboos, etc. That is not to say that Lively’s activities contributed to the problems over there, but if you look at it as whole, it’s a lot more complicated than that.
I did not blame Lively for the whole situation in Uganda, but to suggest that all he did was “[contribute] to the emotional harm of others” is pretty wide of the mark, to put it mildly. He contributed to material suffering, and did so deliberately.
Don Schmierer and Caleb Lee Brundidge went with him on that infamous trip; the former is deeply remorseful about getting tangled up with Lively in Uganda, and the letter has gone very quiet on LGBT matters … They know the score!
Vought (a white male) got his job (senators voted on party lines, as expected); Hawkins (an african-american female) lost hers. Many Ugandans have had to leave their homes. It’s pretty clear who has done okay and who have not!
Like I said before, I find Lively’s methods to be unproductive in terms of reaching people who practice sexual sins but I agree with him that there is a dangerous Radical Left movement that wants to oppress Bible-based Christians, especially over the rejection of homosexual lifestyle. Senator Sanders is patronizing this Radical Left movement and so does Hillary Clinton. For this reason, many evangelical Christians decided to vote for Trump, not because they personally liked him but because they were so scared of Sanders and Clinton, who tried to become presidents themselves. I also believe that Hawkins lost her job not because of her race, but because she embraced a wishy-washy theology at a private religious school, whose theology she signed to agree with. But you see, Radical Leftists like Sanders would consider my statements as both Islamophobic and racist and would do everything to screw me. They like to demonize anybody who disagrees with their secularist agenda, and they would want all religious colleges to teach against their will that supposedly “all religions are good and worship the same God.” It’s quite different to Vought because he was applying for a public service job, not a private one like Hawkins, and I’m glad to hear that he got it. Despite Sanders’ bigotry, majority of our Senators are reasonable people who honor our constitution therefore they approved his nomination, and our Vice President Mike Pence and President Donald Trump agreed with them. Hence, it gives another reason for evangelicals to vote for Trump again. In their eyes, voting for Trump is about prevention of discrimination in public employment due to them being Bible-based Christians.
“It’s quite different to Vought because he was applying for a public service job, not a private one like Hawkins …”
Legally, yes. But morally?
Might not the statement “All [fill the gap] are condemned before God” been understood by some as ‘demonizing’? And just look at some of the stuff put out by Lively against LGBT people, including making ‘Nazi’ claims about them, but very far from limited to just that. Most certainly demonizing! Take a look yourself and see what you think …
I agree with you that Lively wanted to demonize LGBT people and all seeking equal rights for gays (I think I’ve said it like 5 times already) but I can’t say the same about Vought. In the context of what he said and done demonstrated that although he was defending the theological position of his school, he also wanted to treat all people outside of his church with love, kindness, and compassion. Yet, Sanders and his kind mischaracterized Vought’s actions in order to further their secularist agenda. I really wanted to use Vought as an example to show why evangelicals are so eager to vote for Trump: because they are so scared of Sanders who they believe will attack them for their faith.
And I’m not convinced that Sanders’s treatment of Vought was persecution anymore than Vought’s approach towards the Hawkins situation.
Evangelicals in the West have no idea of what real persecution is; and, indeed, neither do I. This maybe a little worrying for both of us, since the Lord told us to expect persecution if we are following him!
Odd how they can be so selective in their morality (as you say, “… even if they have to overlook some things”). Makes it clear to me that the motive is something other than evangelical concern, but I haven’t a clue what it is.
Jeff Sharlet touches on it in his July 21st article in the NY Post:
“The Fellowship dates back to 1935, when founder Abraham Vereide believed God told him that Christianity had been getting it wrong for nearly 2,000 years by focusing on the “down and out.” God, Vereide said, wanted him to build a movement for the “up and out,” “key men” with the power to shape whole societies for Jesus.
Democracy, Vereide concluded, would only get in the way.
He followed instead what the organization calls to this day “the man method” — bringing “key men” — and, more recently, a few “key women,” such as Butina — together in private to work things out “beyond the din of the vox populi” — the voice of the people.
It’s not just the means that are antidemocratic. God, the Fellowship believes, can be understood through a study of strongmen. “You know Jesus said, ‘You got to put Him before mother-father-brother-sister’?” the late Doug Coe was fond of preaching. “Hitler, Lenin, Mao, that’s what they taught the kids.”
Power, wealth and authority matter more than morality.
https://nypost.com/2018/07/21/why-the-christian-right-has-embraced-putin/?utm_source=twitter_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons
There’s always power. If you can gain it by overlooking some sins and loudly–more loudly than strictly necessary–condemning others, morality can get skewed quite a bit.
There’s also the fact that homosexuality is a “safe” sin to condemn. The Bible, if you squint and look sideways at it, sort of calls it a sin; but it’s not one that most people are tempted to commit, under ordinary conditions. So Scott Lively’s tribe of Christians is free to condemn gay, lesbian, and bi people without fear and without compassion, for desires that those Christians who condemn them do not experience.
It’s pretty straightforward, really. When your yardstick for morality is holy scripture, it is your political beliefs that determine which selection of moral imperatives you take from it.
For example, if you are a very conservative Christian, the Bible confirms your belief that homosexuality is an abomination and that government has authority from God to do what it can to stamp it out. If you are a very liberal Christian, the Bible confirms your belief that gays and lesbians are equal in the eyes of God, up to and including the right to marry and be ordained ministers (at the same time), and that government has the authority to punish those who direct hate-speech and violence towards them.
Moderate liberal and conservative Christians typically fall somewhere along the spectrum between those two positions (often uncomfortably so), and it’s not really that difficult to predict where they will land if you know something about their politics.
You’ll be hard pressed to find a conservative Christian organization lobbying to erect a monument containing the words of the Beatitudes on government property, and you’ll be just as hard pressed to find a liberal Christian organization that lobbies for a return to the days when the Ten Commandments were taught as morality in the nation’s schools.
I have long believed that political belief has become more fundamental than religious belief. When it comes to working toward the type of world they want to live in, liberal Christians have far more in common with liberal atheists than they do with conservative Christians, and the same holds true on the conservative side too.
One striking piece of evidence for this is the way in which right-wing fundamentalist Protestant Christians have overcome their traditional prejudices against Catholics and Mormons and found common cause with conservatives from those religious traditions in a wide range of social and political issues. Such alliances would have been all but unthinkable fifty years ago.
Of course, you don’t need the Bible to divide those from the same religious tradition. Wherever a plurality of political thought is allowed to exist, people from the same religion will similarly divide over what their holy scripture and religious traditions teaches them about morality. And not to leave anyone off the hook, atheists will find ways to divide just as fundamentally over what the science says, based on their political beliefs — e.g. issues like climate change, the environment, abortion, etc.
In short, when it comes to a person’s take on issues of morality, politics trumps religion, and the more politically extreme a person is, the more extreme the cognitive dissonance becomes.
Very nice. What do you do anyway?
There are some counter-intuitive things about Conservative Evangelicals that the outside struggles to grasp. Moral Relativism is only slightly less evil then homosexuality. I’ve been hearing about its evils for years. What the World at large, and especially Evangelicals miss, is that Evangelicals are by nature Moral Relativist. If they are not, then they are not true Evangelicals.
If one strives to live after the Christian traditions as interpreted by your respective tribe, then you must judge your current state as relative to those interpretations. From the moment I wake in the morning, all thoughts, actions and states must have measuring mechanism to determine the relative justness, or not justness of these.
Example: Bob looks at porn and feels really bad about it. But, Bob is a relatively good man, because he feels intense ill-will towards any who would engage in abortion. Therefore, Bob has some issues to work on, but also knows he is growing in his faith. He will need to practice measures as prescribed by his respective group to address the porn issue.
Or he could just not get caught, say nothing, and at which point, its just a win win. Bob is is completely moral, relatively speaking.
If you’re saying that conservative evangelicals engage in moral relativism all the time even though they claim to abhor it, then yeah, of course they do — just contrast their implacable hatred of Barack Obama vs. their willingness to bend over backwards to forgive Donald Trump.
We all do it to, of course, just not to the ridiculous extent we see in people like Scott Lively and his ilk.
As for what I do — nothing special. I grew up in the UK and emigrated to the US for work about 25 years ago, and have been alternately fascinated and horrified by the antics of the religious right in America ever since. Call it a hobby, I guess…
As a liberal, I used to believe that the demise of the Religious Right as a political force would help reverse the trend toward the right the US has seen in the last 30+ years, but if the election of Donald Trump proves anything, right-wing conservatism is the more fundamental force in US society, and will find other ways to justify its existence.
It’s pretty straightforward, really. When your yardstick for morality is holy scripture, it is your political beliefs that determine which selection of moral imperatives you take from it.
For example, if you are a very conservative Christian, the Bible confirms your belief that homosexuality is an abomination and that government has authority from God to do what it can to stamp it out. If you are a very liberal Christian, the Bible confirms your belief that gays and lesbians are equal in the eyes of God, up to and including the right to marry and be ordained ministers (at the same time), and that government has the authority to punish those who direct hate-speech and violence towards them.
Moderate liberal and conservative Christians typically fall somewhere along the spectrum between those two positions (often uncomfortably so), and it’s not really that difficult to predict where they will land if you know something about their politics.
You’ll be hard pressed to find a conservative Christian organization lobbying to erect a monument containing the words of the Beatitudes on government property, and you’ll be just as hard pressed to find a liberal Christian organization that lobbies for a return to the days when the Ten Commandments were taught as morality in the nation’s schools.
I have long believed that political belief has become more fundamental than religious belief. When it comes to working toward the type of world they want to live in, liberal Christians have far more in common with liberal atheists than they do with conservative Christians, and the same holds true on the conservative side too.
One striking piece of evidence for this is the way in which right-wing fundamentalist Protestant Christians have overcome their traditional prejudices against Catholics and Mormons and found common cause with conservatives from those religious traditions in a wide range of social and political issues. Such alliances would have been all but unthinkable fifty years ago.
Of course, you don’t need the Bible to divide those from the same religious tradition. Wherever a plurality of political thought is allowed to exist, people from the same religion will similarly divide over what their holy scripture and religious traditions teaches them about morality. And not to leave anyone off the hook, atheists will find ways to divide just as fundamentally over what the science says, based on their political beliefs — e.g. issues like climate change, the environment, abortion, etc.
In short, when it comes to a person’s take on issues of morality, politics trumps religion, and the more politically extreme a person is, the more extreme the cognitive dissonance becomes.
Odd how he doesn’t seem to mention his role in the ugandan anti-gay laws.
I imagine the demos are hoping (supporting?) Lively in the primary, because he doesn’t have a prayer of winning in MA.
I stopped saying stuff like that on Nov 9, 2016.
Like this comment x 50, if I could.
Like this comment x 50, if I could.
Don’t confuse Massachusetts for the United States. It’s an insult to Massachusetts.