Monday, February 10, 2020

Is Michael Brown a hypocritical bigot?

Like most folks, I am sick unto death of pointing out the morally vapid hypocrisy of American evangelicals when it comes to Donald Trump.

i) What makes Rauser imagine he speaks for most folks? Does he have polling data to back that up?

ii) Why is a Canadian theologian so obsessed with an American president? Why is he constantly attacking Trump but only very rarely has anything to say about Justin Trudeau?

Brown is aware that he will be called a homophobic bigot. But it is worth highlighting why the charge seems so plausible in this case. Evangelicals like Brown fall over themselves to excuse Trump’s grotesque immorality. 

I've seen and read several things by Brown in which he's critical of Trump's personal morality. On the face of it, Rauser's allegation is willfully uninformed and slanderous. 

By contrast, Buttigieg’s sin, being married to a man, makes him unfit for public office. It is on that topic that these leaders suddenly believe morality matters and that they must draw a line in the sand.

i) What's required to show that Brown's position is hypocritical? It's certainly not enough to show that Trump's past sexual behavior violates Brown's moral standards, because a sophisticated ethical system will have a priority structure in which some standards rank higher than others, or where it's a combination of violated standards that makes the difference. So Rauser hasn't shown, or even attempted to show, that Brown's position is hypocritical. 

ii) It's revealing that Rauser keeps comparing homosexual "marriage" to heterosexual marriage, as if they're morally analogous. But sodomites can't cheat on each other. Only straight married couples can cheat on each other. Homosexual activity is sinful whether that's with a so-called homosexual "husband," or callboy, or rentboy, or boyfriend (or lesbian counterparts). Homosexual activity is sinful whether that's with one partner for life or multiple partners.

iii) Moreover, homosexual "marriage" defiles the divine institution of marriage in a way that heterosexual adultery does not. Adultery is a sin against particular marriages, but it doesn't redefine the God-given nature of marriage. While adultery is a grave sin and potentially damnable, it's not sacrilegious–unlike homosexual "marriage". 

iv) Does Brown only draw a line in the sand with respect to homosexual candidates in a queer marriage? Does Brown not also draw ideological lines in the sand with respect to straight Democrat candidates? Is Brown okay with Elizabeth Warren? 

Yeah, that sure does look like homophobic bigotry. Behavior and reasoning like this provide very plausible evidence that Christians like Brown have an irrational fear of and/or antipathy toward gay people.

That's just demagoguery. This isn't about fear of/antipathy towards homosexuals, but about empowering homosexuals to make public policy decisions that punish virtue while promoting vice. 


  1. The ironic thing is that he's the hypocrite. He claims to be a Christian yet rejects many basic Christian teachings, and some of Christ's teachings.

    1. That's why i often have more respect for atheists who reject Christianity because they are honest and consistent enough to admit they reject Christianity because of its teachings which they find abhorrent, than pseudo-Christians who take on the language and garb of Christianity, yet reject its clear teachings.

      In my fallible opinion, Rauser seems to be among them. He's a smart guy with enough intelligence and philosophic know-how that he should be able to see his inconsistency, yet persists in his oxymoronical theological and philosophical stance.

      Inconsistent pseudo-Christians are usually either ignorant or dishonest. I'm willing to dialogue with the former out of pity in hopes of getting them to make a clear stand for or against true Christianity. The latter disgust me and I either leave them alone, or if necessary [under some circumstances] do my best to embarrass them by exposing them in their inconsistency. So that they can finally see their own hypocrisy and hopefully shut up [out of pride for being shown to be hypocrites], and in hopes that others see them exposed and not fall into such error themselves [or remain in such errors if they are among the ignorant type].

    2. Another ironic thing is that the crime/sin of hypocrisy is often considered one of the greatest sins [or the greatest] among Pseudo-Christians, yet often they are the most egregious perpetrators of that sin.

    3. Perhaps the modern English meaning of 'hypocrite' meaning 'someone who doesn't practise what he preaches' or 'holding double standards' is less clear.

      The original Greek word referred to stage actors - those who put on an outside mask, a show, a performance for the crowd.

      In such a case, this would fit Rauser more than Brown. The latter is very clear on what he stands for, while Rauser is putting on the facade of a 'Christian' when it suits him to woo his target audience.

    4. This type of hypocrisy is exactly what "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" means. It doesn't mean the classic curse word term, or even using the name Jesus as an expletive, although both are abhorrent. It means do not represent yourself as a follower of God but falsely so. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, the only unpardonable sin, is attributing to God what He is or does not, or attributing to anyone or anything else what God is or does. Thinking/claiming there is salvation through any means other than Jesus is blaspheming the Spirit, or I suppose, bs.

  2. "Trump said and did horribly offensive, immoral things in the past!"

    So did Saul of Tarsus. Your point?

  3. Fantastic Steve - thanks for your insights