Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Take The Con Artists Out of Christianity - Luck, Coincidence or Something Spookier, I Don't Know

but last night while doing my look at comedy for relief from too much news, I watched what the Seth Myers channel posted AFTER I wrote what I did yesterday morning.

I will warn you that listening to Trump pretending to be religious is painful as are the numb nuns the vulgar materialist and sex abuser used as a prop during a speech.  But listening to his "spiritual adviser" the pseudo-Christian Paula White is really painful.   She is exactly the kind of person who I was talking about yesterday, who claims to preach Christianity while actually promoting a horrific materialist-pagan - in my opinion obviously Satanic - fraud which has made her mega rich.  If this kind of thing is what the Constitutional "separation of church and state" the hands off of religion provisions can lead to, those need to be tuned so as to exclude such obvious frauds and phonies from the protection that prevents the suppression and criminalization of their rackets.   I know that in the polite world of polite Christianity and the secular religion of Founders Fetishism such things are not supposed to be said but, really, look at her, listen to her con job, the exact opposite of the ministry of Jesus, the Gospel of Jesus, the practice of the early church as set down in Acts and the Epistles.   She is no more Christian than any other successful con artist.  Such things should not enjoy constitutional protection.

It is so disgusting, so damaging to the reputation of Christianity and religion that I think it is worth, by many times, the risks that might come with a constitution which allowed the suppression of this kind of thing, the removal of the name religion from it.  If it would endanger the commercial properties of the richer churches and the means by which those have been gained, at least the Christian churches should never have been involved with those to start with.   Christianity started and has always been supposed to be a church of the poor.   Jesus said if you had money to give it away to people who wouldn't pay it back, to sell all you own and give the money to the poor.  The extent to which we fail to do that is to fail to follow the Gospel.  At the very least those who are supposed to be the experts in following the Gospel should make that attempt.

If you are worried that some judge, somewhere, some future Attorney General could use it to go after legitimate religious institutions, that is a risk which is theoretical, this attack on the reputation of Christianity, this tool of its enemies, including the con artists, is here and now.  Giving it legal cover because the "founders" were too short-sighted, too dim or too inclined to pretend to write poetry to be specific has not worked in this instance.  Enough people are damaged by such con jobs that it is certainly a duty to try to do something about it.  As the story points out,  a number of them have been investigated for crimes, already.  But obviously the legal ability to stop this isn't sufficient.

I will say, specifically, Paula White's pseudo-Christian Pentecostalism is an example of what happens when you have a religious movement that has insufficient structure to prevent such an obvious phony opportunist from setting up shop under the name of their denomination.   In the case of "Pentecostalism" it has gotten totally out of hand and I would say that large parts of the movement are, really, a Satanic materialistic sham and con job and have nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus except as a closed set of pages for a con artist to wave around as a prop.  Like the two that Trump was sworn in on.  As Samantha Bee also said, that was two more books than he ever read in his life, something the estimable Seth Myers points out, too.


  1. "God is the ultimate, and look at this land deal I made!"

    People must have really hated Hillary.

    But asking for a token black writer to say that "appropriation" of speech is offensive is absurd. Amber wouldn't call the late Peter Gomes an Uncle Tom for sounding more like Christopher Hitchens than Chris Rock.

    Or would she?

    1. Paula White's act in blackvoice is an act, it isn't her normal accent and it is offensive. It is as bad as someone playing any other ethnic, racial or religious stereotype. What people find offensive is something they find offensive, in the end. You can't tell her that he didn't find the Black stuff more offensive than telling women that they were to blame for the wrongs their husbands and boyfriends commit, which was Seth Myers question.

  2. Granted, White’s a slimy snake-oil salesman; one of the whitewashed tombs Jesus warned us about. I wouldn’t disagree that it’s not her accent. BUT, as a large number of Pentecostal Christians are indeed black, it’s not hard to imagine she picked up idioms and speech patterns from her time working and associating with them. Malcolm X wrote in his autobiography about being able to speak to an audience, and how he could use the King’s English when speaking to a college class but employ the street lingo he learned as a hustler when talking to a more urban crowd. Hell, I used to go back to Quincy every summer when I was in school as my parents (who met in Boston) had friends in the area. After three or four weeks spent hanging out in Boston, I’d come back to California and my friends would joke I sounded like Mayor Quimby from ‘The Simpsons.’

    While I can’t tell Amber she didn’t find it offensive, I can tell her she’s being absurd. I have no doubt her opinion is as shaped by politics as it is the content. If they did a similar bit with Justin Timberlake and his God-awful posing as an R&B singer, the crowd wouldn’t know how to react. Largely because most of them probably don’t know who Otis Redding or Al Green are.

    1. As I said in the piece, one of the problems with the Pentecostalist movement is that it is disorganized and that leaves it pretty open to being a tool of hucksters and hustlers shouting hallelujah and shaking down the rubes for money. I would contrast that to parts of it such as the Azuza Street Mission which was integrated and far more sexually equal than just about any other current thing in the early years of the 20th century.

      Malcolm X addressing people in different ways depending on his audience is a far cry from Paula White doing a blackvoice act to shake down people.

      I don't understand why you've got problems with what she said in answer to Myers question. She was stating an opinion of what she found more offensive in White's act. That's her opinion and, as such, it's valid.

      I have been spared knowing anything about Justin Timberlake except that he's not the one who got flack from the fleetingly infamous "costume malfunction" he, in fact, caused. Well, and that he's got no talent. I've never seen him or heard him trying to do R&B but thanks for the warning that I might accidentally come across it.

  3. “Malcolm X addressing people in different ways depending on his audience is a far cry from Paula White doing a blackvoice act to shake down people."

    In terms of means and motives, yes. But the point is people can and do tend to adopt the speech patterns and vocabulary of those around them. It’s not racist or “appropriation of culture” just because she’s a Republican.

    “I don't understand why you've got problems with what she said in answer to Myers question. She was stating an opinion of what she found more offensive in White's act. That's her opinion and, as such, it's valid.”

    Because it’s an opinion ignorant of any facts but filled to bursting with feelings. I don’t doubt she’s offended. I doubt even less she could explain why without sounding like a racist.

    “I have been spared knowing anything about Justin Timberlake except that he's not the one who got flack from the fleetingly infamous "costume malfunction" he, in fact, caused.”

    To be fair, Janet Jackson was so damn vague and evasive about the incident while he was direct and likely dishonest. Had she been half as assertive that it was a joint venture, who knows? But he blamed her and she kept dodging the question, which made him look innocent and her guilty.

    Funny, that was the only part of the ‘Super Bowl’ I didn’t watch.

    “Well, and that he's got no talent.”

    A devastatingly banal actor, awful singer (he’s worse than Pat Boone, who never tried to act like Little Richard) he does have some talent as a variety show host. His work on ‘Saturday Night Live’ is often amusing and plays to his strengths. When singing an R&B parody like “Dick In A Box,” it’s funny. When singing a faux R&B song that sounds like a parody, it’s awful. Just, awful.

    1. I am sure she could be quite eloquent on why she found what she found comparatively more offensive. And I doubt it would sound racist.

      I have no idea why Janet Jackson would have been "vague" about the incident, perhaps because it was unplanned, perhaps because she was embarrassed, perhaps because she was the one catching flack for it. And he's the one who did it.

      I don't watch football, I only saw it on the news. I know nothing much about J.T. except that I can't stand his singing and have no use for the kind of stuff he appears in.

  4. You can be eloquent and racist. Lots of Victorians were. I've yet to hear any argument against "cultural appropriation" that wasn't racist. She might make one that will be the exception. I doubt it but anything's possible.

    Everything I read about the incident indicates it was a deliberate effort to be provocative, a la Madonna, and when it didn't go over the way they hoped, Timberlake insisted it was her idea and she pretended like she didn't know what anyone was talking about. She was catching flak because when asked for comments, he denied, loudly, and she tried to change the subject.

    Jackson's career was not one of modesty or conservative choices. If you push the boundaries you're going to go too far on occasion. Madonna did it frequently, but she always owned it. Had Jackson did the same I doubt the press would have cared as much as they did.

    1. I don't find her work racist or in any way offensive.

      I have also read a lot of Victorian racists and I wouldn't call it eloquent, I'd call it cruel and dishonest.

      I really don't know enough about the "costume malfunction" and I really don't have any desire to discuss Janet Jackson's career which I only know doesn't interest me. I certainly, though believe that Madonna gets away with things for having white skin that a Black Woman wouldn't have.