[orf]

The backbone of the USA in its formative years was slavery and outright slaughter of native Americans. By people who went to church.

This dark legacy stretches into today - the last lynching was in 1981, and white Christian America still worships a vision of a nice, pearly white European looking Jesus, presented by millionaire preachers in mega churches who say “just give me some money and you too can be redeemed”.

And not to mention their pseudo worship of a man who is so laughably espouses the exact opposite of the Christian teachings. A man who had sex with a pornstar while his second (or third?) wife was pregnant at home and has never read the Bible.

I’d appreciate knowing how you can reconcile thinking what you commented with what actually happened, and how you can view a system of oppression, control and political propaganda (USA’s brand of “Christianity”) as anything but that.

[emmelaich]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism

'backbone?' The south was poorer than the north and it's really the slave owners, plantation owners who benefited from slavery. The rest not so much.

You're right though that many (most?) were at least nominally Christian and supported or at least ignored the morality of slavery.

[waterheater]

> The backbone of the USA in its formative years was slavery and outright slaughter of native Americans.

Actually, most founding states sought to abolish slavery when the Constitution was being drafted. The Southern States were vehemently opposed to such action to the point that they would not ratify the Constitution. As a compromise, slavery was allowed, and no law could be made restricting the importation of slaves until 1808.

Consider, though, that the importation of slaves was banned on the first day which was legally allowed.

I think your problem is that what you refer to as "the USA" is really "the South." The South fought hard for slavery because of economics; slaves were cheap, and plantation owners were powerful. My view is that the powerful Southerners who benefited from slavery created a cult which poisoned the minds of other Southerners into believing that slaves were necessary. It takes a long time to erase all that.

> the last lynching was in 1981

And a school district in Alabama was ordered to desegregate less than ten years ago. What's your point? These are outliers. They don't represent the majority view. You're cherrypicking to make things seem worse, which is exactly what the post discusses.

> white Christian America still worships a vision of a nice, pearly white European looking Jesus

Consider that the book (and movie) "The Shack" portrays the three parts of God as an African-American woman, a Middle-Eastern carpenter, and an Asian woman as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, respectively. "White Christian America" still ate it up. But, according to your logic, they never could have because Jesus wasn't presented as white. Perhaps your viewpoint isn't actually correct here.

> And not to mention their pseudo worship of a man who is so laughably espouses the exact opposite of the Christian teachings. A man who had sex with a pornstar while his second (or third?) wife was pregnant at home and has never read the Bible.

Should a Muslim hate Trump? Should a Jew? Should he only be loved by athiests? What are you saying? People are far more than their religions.

I am close to someone who does things I could and will not do in my regular course of life. I see their lifestyle as degenerative and a coping mechanism, and that's my damn right. Yet, I still bought them a book on their least-harmful hobby.

People can still care and want to see others do well for themselves while recognizing the limits of their ability to affect change. Should we hope that Trump is a failure? That's like hoping for the bus driver you hate to crash into a tree; if that happens, you're gonna get hurt as well.

Maybe those people just see the world from a different perspective than you. It sounds like you're pretty "woke," but have you ever had a kind, thoughtful conversation to genuinely understand their point of view? By mocking them in this way, you're invalidating their opinion. But wait, isn't the left tolerant...

[orf]

> Consider, though, that the importation of slaves was banned on the first day which was legally allowed.

None of this counters my original point. Cotton was an utterly crucial crop in the USA's development, and the total value of all slaves was 48 times the expenditure of the federal government, and 7 times the total value of _all_ the currency in circulation at the time (1860). I'd call that a pretty important backbone, even if it was localized to mainly the south.

> And a school district in Alabama was ordered to desegregate less than ten years ago. What's your point?

My point is that the last lynching was in 1981. That's utterly ridiculous. It only trailed off in the 1950's. Also here's a map of the lynchings[1], see a pattern? Maybe if you overlay a map of the bible belt[2] it becomes clearer. Love thy neighbour, right?

> Consider that the book (and movie) "The Shack" portrays the three parts of God as an African-American woman, a Middle-Eastern carpenter, and an Asian woman as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, respectively. "White Christian America" still ate it up.

To quote you: What's your point? These are outliers. They don't represent the majority view. Maybe they ate it up because it was "wacky" to see a brown Jesus on screen. Only on screen mind you, I don't expect many of them would want that imagery taught in churches! God forbid.

> Maybe those people just see the world from a different perspective than you.

Yeah, I expect their tax-excempt churches had a pretty fair and balanced discussion about both sides. No wait, riling people up about abortion then using that as a device to get people to vote your party into power, so you and your tax-excempt gravy train can continue to benefit is far too much of a good thing to risk. Especially by discussing how we can adapt society for the future rather than harking back to the good, clean family-friendly past (lynchings or not).

Everything is about control. Some people form opinions from TV, some from church. Just because a man stands at a pulpit doesn't make his words any different from a news anchor behind a desk. It's just unfortunate for their followers that they support such a regressive party. And as certain segments of the population age out and Christianity continues to shrink you'll see them ratchet up the furor to stay in control. Control people like you.

But hey, hold your nose and vote for the candidate that was sent from god[3], right?

1. https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/lynching-memorial-graphic-ap...

2. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/BibleBel...

3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/03/trump-florid...

[waterheater]

> I'd call [slavery] a pretty important backbone, even if it was localized to mainly the south.

The localization of the issue to the South is incredibly important to consider, though. They actually seceded and became a different country for around four years because they felt slavery was that important to their economy. And, as another poster mentioned, the South (primarily agrarian) was much poorer than the North (manufacturing and agrarian) and had staggering levels of inequality compared to the North.

You say it's a "dark legacy," but what do you want to do about it? Crap all over the country for something which was last actively practiced 150 years ago? My ancestors were still poor farmers in Hungary at that point; they didn't have anything to do with slavery in the US. Slavery is awful and unjust, but don't expect me to hate others today for the injustices of the past.

> My point is that the last lynching was in 1981. That's utterly ridiculous. It only trailed off in the 1950's.

Racism is learned and taught. During the Reconstruction, the South reinvented their economy and culture, since slavery was dead and the white Southerners had to live near the newly-freed black Southerners. Unfortunately, that reinvention of culture included the significant perpetuation of racism.

It takes a long time to erase all that. Unless they're willing to sit and reason, there's nothing you can do. We can, however, raise our kids right so, with time, the racists will die off.

> Only on screen mind you, I don't expect many of them would want that imagery taught in churches!

Have you ever been to a majority-white Christian church in America? What about a majority-black Christian church in America? They all sing, pray, and listen. There's no discussion of Jesus' skin color, because that's not why they go to church. They go because they want salvation.

> riling people up about abortion then using that as a device to get people to vote your party into power

> you and your tax-excempt gravy train

> good, clean family-friendly past (lynchings or not)

Ok, it's clear you're hateful toward Christians. But are you really hateful toward all of them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in...

Yes, it's possible for a liberal Lutheran to exist. Do you still hate them? Would they hate you?

You lump white Christians together as some massive homogeneous blob, but you just can't do that because it's not fair. Also, do you think all sermons are just political rants? I can tell you they absolutely aren't. In fact, many people will go to church to get away from politics.