In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
I said the most powerful, not all of them. The most mainstream, dominant or powerful branches of their respective religions. It's not a problem with religion, it's a problem with power and corruption. The German Social Democrats and Blair's New Labor pushed neoliberal policies. Doesn't mean I stopped being a social democrat.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
I want to introduce you guys to my favorite Self pronounced Heretical Pastor, John Pavlovitz.
Yes, the Bigger Table is Open to Trump Supporters (And No, I Don’t Expect Them)
It the continuation of my twenty year journey as a local church pastor and online activist, to try and craft spiritual communities where all people are truly welcome—especially those most often excluded based on gender identity, sexual orientation, race, religious tradition, nation of origin, or less rigid theology.
Given the clarity with which I’ve declared my contempt for our current President and my exasperation with those still supporting him, lately I get a fairly loaded but still reasonable question:
“So, John,” they ask me, “is your ‘bigger table’ open to Trump supporters?”
Well, yes it is—though sadly I don’t expect many of them to pull up a chair or to stay very long and here’s why:
The bigger table as presented in the book, is built on a commitment to four non-negotiables for all those who gather there:
Radical hospitality: Everyone is equally celebrated and effusively welcomed without reservation—because they have the same inherent worth. Total authenticity: People can be a fully non-edited version of themselves and know that won’t be a deal breaker for their full inclusion. Real diversity*: Difference in worldview, religion, experience are all not only expected, but seen as necessary and beautiful. Agenda-Free Relationship: You don’t meet someone with the expectation of changing, fixing, or saving them. You simply listen to their story and count it as equally valid and meaningful as your own.
These are the humanity-honoring preconditions for every person coming to the bigger table we’re building, which is likely problematic for those currently supporting this President—a man whose entire campaign and first year in office have been defined by exclusion; by fear of the other, by the hoarding of advantage, by the marginalizing of the outsider. Donald Trump isn’t just seeking to make the table smaller—he’s trying to legislate out all but the wealthiest and whitest. He’s attempting to buy the table and deny access to the lion’s share of those seeking to be present.
And this is the crux of the matter: to align yourself with this President (the one of muslim Bans and Mexico walls and healthcare sabotage and Supremacist coddling and LGBTQ condemnation and Dreamer expulsion—is to loudly champion the smaller table, and to clearly declare a vast portion of the world unequivocally uninvited. It is to ratify his contempt for humanity by proxy, and there’s really no other way around it.
To see all that you’ve seen and to still contend that this President has the slightest bit of compassion or decency or competency, points either to a complete lack of sense, of awareness, or of character—all of which make fellowship with real barrier-shattering diversity a tall order. Reiterating this President’s platform and his conduct or declaring it reasonable or normal, in nearly every way takes a chainsaw to the bigger table.
Donald Trump’s steadfast base (composed mainly of white Christians) have never not been welcomed at the table, and that’s why this all will be difficult for them. In order for his proponents to meet people in relationship while upholding those fundamental non-negotiables that affirm the intrinsic worth of disparate humanity—they really have to stand in direct opposition to him. It’s virtually impossible to simultaneously claim alignment with this President—and with a table where equality, diversity, and empathy all get seats. So as much as someone like myself (seeking to be the people of the bigger table) truly extends the invitation to the world, I know that many Trump boosters will not come or stay very long because they are still holding too tightly to prejudice and hatred, to grab hold of what is being offered there: a place where those things are of no use.
Yes, everyone is invited and welcome where the people of the bigger table gather, but those not committed to hospitality, authenticity, diversity, and relationship without religious agenda—probably won’t come. Those who use Fox News as their primary source of information will likely reject the heart of the bigger table, because they have been indoctrinated to see so many potential table mates as a threat. Given Trump’s dehumanizing treatment of LGBTQ people, Muslims, women, immigrants, and people of color—my guess is that most of his most ardent cheerleaders won’t show up to make those groups feel they’re seen and heard and respected, and that simply isn’t up for discussion.
If LGBTQ men and women aren’t truly welcomed at the table, it isn’t big enough. If people of color don’t get to be fully present and heard, it isn’t big enough. If non-Americans don’t have an equal seat, it isn’t big enough. If Muslims can’t be there without feeling threatened, it isn’t big enough. If women are asked to take a lower seat, it isn’t big enough. This isn’t virtue signaling—it’s unapologetically demanding an equality that has been absent.
The dream of the bigger table is to create space where no one feels they are disqualified from dignity. It is a non-partisan, non-sectarian aspiration. It claims no political ideology and no theology—beyond an apologetic of love that allows everyone proximity. It isn’t about making America great, it’s about making humanity human.
Yes, the invitation to the bigger table is open to the world—but active violence, discrimination, and bigotry will have to wait in the car because they are not welcome.
There’s a chair for everyone at the bigger table, but not everyone will want to take a seat—because they’re not used to making room for the world.
And they’re going to need to if it’s going to be big enough.
Trump supporter, consider yourself fully invited—but know what your RSVP will require.
- Diversity does not mean tolerating active bigotry or violence against people. The table is big, not because you can say or do any horrible thing you want to, it’s big because all people’s inherent worth is protected—especially those usually marginalized. It will not sacrifice oppressed people on the altar of us tolerating their oppressors.
This guy has a lot of really great essays on his blog, and I would suggest checking them out.
edited 12th Dec '17 10:52:36 AM by megaeliz
A lot of the left, (including my) problem with Christianity's influence in the United States is not with the beliefs specifically, but how the followers often go about it. Specifically, their want for control. Not on any normal level, but complete social control not for any secular reasons but mearly because they want everyone to follow their God or ban something they just find personally offensive. Just look at all, (every single) terrible attempts to give anti-gay marriage arguments without invoking God. Because they are squicked out for religious or perhaps personal reasons.
That and the constant, constant hypocrisy. Their call for "Religious Liberty" is pretty blatantly hypocritical, unless they want people to be able to refuse service to them because they are Christian, after all their beliefs might be that no Christian could truly be married because Christianity is a false religion. Now you could say "Most would be fine with that" but would they really be fine with that if the side that did that was the majority in their town, their state, the nation? I really don't think so. Even if was "small things" like wedding cakes and pictures.
edited 30th Dec '17 9:05:31 AM by Wildcard
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I'm not sure I get what you are saying, but I don't think a Satanist bakery should be forced to make a cake for a Christian wedding, for example, as the ceremony would go against their religious beliefs.
How about from anybody? Carte Blanche to deny Christians "non-necessary" services?
Also, are you for gay marriage? After all, some sects are for it, and to deny them the legal right to do that is pretty clear religious discrimination.
Shin Megami Tensei IV
I would love to see if a discussion like it gets media attention, it would be pretty hilarious.
When denying a cake for a gay couple (who can get one easily in other place) became the same as denying any no-neccesary-to-live right to everyone from a different religion that I ?
edited 30th Dec '17 10:43:54 AM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my country
I don't think anybody should be denied service simply based on their religion, sexuality or race. I do believe that a business owner should be able to deny goods that will go to a ceremony that goes against their religious beliefs (KKK reunion, gay wedding).
I am pro marriage equality too, if you want to know.
edited 30th Dec '17 10:55:44 AM by Grafite
Life is unfair...
No it's not exactly the same, just very similar if what you are asking is "Are necessary services like hospital service or food service the same as catering or participating in an event.
[[quoteblock]When denying a cake for a gay couple (who can get one easily in other place)"[/quoteblock]]
Is bull. If you've lived in some parts of the Southern US, or a very rural town at any point in your life you should already know there are places were it is barely even safe, and where nobody will want to provide "unnecessary services" to gay people.
So would you allow any unnecessary non-government, any private business that doesn't provide something necessary to deny something on the grounds of your religion. Basically are you okay with a gay restaurant owner refusing to provide a table for a church get-together? Or better question, are you okay with a Jewish couple not getting health coverage from their employer for their child to get circumcised?
Also the constant lies many religious people perpetuate doesn't help people think of them better. Like that the Colardo Bakery people were fined because they refused and not because they doxxed the gay couple with intent to get other people to harass them.
edited 30th Dec '17 11:51:51 AM by Wildcard
Shin Megami Tensei IV
Is a cake, not a cable service or access to Internet. Is still a dick move, but I cant demand people from being jerks.
Yeah, is a dick move and shows that the owner is a jerk but I wouldnt damand him.
No ,because if they are conna circumcise their child, then it certainly needs actual health coverage.
And now you moved the goalposts.
edited 30th Dec '17 12:08:32 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my country
Nope just added some stuff. That was a different point I was making related to the topic not directly at you. Nice try though.
So if you truly feel that way than are you okay with Catholic employers refusing to cover birth control?
Shin Megami Tensei IV
No. Because Birth control is a medical need.
You are comparing a luxury like a cake with a actual need.
edited 30th Dec '17 12:17:51 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my country
A luxury everybody with the money should be able to get. But that is what so many who cry "religious liberty" are asking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zubik_v._Burwell#Affordable_Care_Act
Shin Megami Tensei IV
You are seeing me defending them? I call them jerks all the time, but I cant force people to stop being jerks, I only could force them from being outright criminal.
And? . I dont see anything particularly bad with it. Ironically, that is a actual case of religious freedom because it counts non Christians religions too.
edited 30th Dec '17 12:35:54 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my country
Because it didn't just include the church, it includes a charity that wasn't run as a auxiliary for a church. Specifically 25 homes for low-income elderly that included non-Catholic employees working them.
It is about those crying religious liberty often think any religious employer should be able to control the health coverage they give employees. If you don't think so, great, but you have a definition of religious liberty that is different from many making the objections. Who make the claim that any compromise is "religious persecution".
edited 30th Dec '17 12:43:46 PM by Wildcard
Shin Megami Tensei IV
I never speak anything about what they might think, I said what I think. Who cares what about them (or I) think, what matters is who is right and which choice benefit the most people as possible.
edited 30th Dec '17 12:49:58 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my country
I care because what they think often effects how they vote. If they vote to give themselves more power at the expense of others I have a problem with that.
Shin Megami Tensei IV
But they arent here
Oh, bother.
If you really do not see a problem with so-called religious freedom laws...
Hint: it is a very different thing from “freedom of religion”.
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
Exactly.
edited 30th Dec '17 3:14:41 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
It's not so much "freedom of religion" but rather "freedom to discriminate".
I'm mostly in agreement with Wildcard, but I have a request- could you please stop generalizing to all Christians when the behavior you are objecting to is really more characteristic of evangelicals or fundementalists?
A procrastination in of itself
We can make certain kinds of jerk behaviour criminal, that’s what people are advocating for, making discriminating against people for certain reasons a crime.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Shin Megami Tensei IV
I think that there degrees of discrimination and how punishable should be, I'm fine with a small punishment for people like the Bakery guys. But not more honestly.
I mean, treating a dick move like that a crime kinda dismish the point of what's a crime.
edited 30th Dec '17 4:54:35 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my country
Oh, bother.
So you think homophobic discrimination is just being a jerk?
Shin Megami Tensei IV
A big jerk, but not enought to be a crime. If I'd will make it a crime, I would punish it with a penalty fee and Nothing
edited 30th Dec '17 5:05:43 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my country
Not to mention that an institution can, in most cases, be fixed over time (as long as there are people within who want to fix problems and clean up the predecessors' mess).
That being said (and this bit is for the thread in general), a religion at its most complex can't simply be narrowed down into left vs. right, liberal vs. authoritarian, or progressive vs. conservative. These political terms were conceived and codified long after the texts from most religions were written. Ultimately, trying to pin a religion into a political box is a futile exercise (and vice-versa, so to speak). At best (and in light of general History around the world), what one has is different political interpretations of religious spirituality, texts, attitude and actions. Most of these get some things fairly right (at least, within the limited realms of human understanding), but not all of it right. For better or worse.
edited 12th Dec '17 10:24:59 AM by Quag15