Sunday, August 09, 2009

Religion Hypocrisy and Real Conservatism

Over the last few weeks I have been discussing the views that racial supremacy is not in line with
American values. I want to point out that it is not sanctioned by Judaism or Christianity. There is something severely warped in the minds of any Judeo Christian who believes that God sanctions
racial supremacy of any kind. Perhaps if noted author Stephen Schwartz stopped in he would add most varieties of Islam to this list.

I want to point out that no known large group of Jews endorses any kind of kook theories about race. Even the bug eyed Kahanist nuts accept Jews regardless of race provided they were born to a Jewish mother or converted. Any notion of human value based on race is deeply offensive to Jews.It is beyond incomprehensible that a scholar who is indeed a friend to the Jewish people could get this one so wrong. The logic is that a people whose families were exterminated on racial supremacy idiocy should then subject another group to this madness. Any devaluation of life based upon crank theories of race is very offensive to Americans and exponentially more so to Jews.

There are many wonderful religious readers of this site who are Conservative and religious. There is Junglemom who has dedicated her life to spreading the word of Jesus in Latin America.
There are many others from TMW, AOW, Warren and many others to numerous to name. And woe unto any KKK goon that ever goes near Mr Beamish. I have no idea what sort of devious mischeif he would plot, but I do not think it is possible to give clowns wearing bed sheets and pillow cases wedgies. Maybe some form of pink food coloring applied via a super soaker might be
appopriate. None of the Christians I am proud to call friends go near racial supremacy.

There is something severly warped about people who call others athiests or radical sons based upon stating the basis of law in our country is Civil Law. We do not have second class citizens of any type. The basis of our law is to respect individual rights and religious freedom. There is a concept of equity meaning that the law should treat people similarly or provide equal opportunities. I have disagreed with many over my support for Civil Unions. I respect that there are some who feel differently. This type of argument is part of our tradition of intellectual freedom.

However, I will not dignify the hypocrisy of people wraping themselves in our flag and pretending to be holier than thou while embracing racial supremacy. Sorry, but while my disagreement is within the bounds of intellectual freedom that is part of our traditions, racial supremacy makes a mockery of those traditions and is not Christian in any definition. Even in my casual reading of the New Testament it is an inclusive concept welcome to all.

Sorry, but I have never represented myself as a Conservative. I am a Rudy Republican. However, if people are going to make dogmatic litmus tests to determine who is a Conservative racial supremacists are not even close to the definition.


beamish said...

I don't run into Klansmen that often (I don't frequent leftist blogs, and most of my friends are conservative) but if I were to run into a Klansman claiming to be a conservative, I would point out that the ACLU works on his behalf for free, affirmative action enshrines the idea that certain racial ethnicities are inherently inferior, and the Democratic Party has kicked out more Jews than Klan members. I would point out that he's claiming the wrong turf.

Alligator said...

Beak, I think you are beginning to understand better what caused many of the former BE members to depart. It wasn't obvious to me for a long time but eventually it surfaced and became clearer.

To understand how Yeagley can take some of the outrageous positions on women and race that he does and see nothing wrong with it, there are two lenses you need to use:
1) His relationship to his dad. As you pointed out, his dad was a product of the time and Yeagley is not responsible for his father's attitude. I fully agree. But sons seek affirmation from their father and with rare exception, usually grow up to mirror many of their father's traits and attitudes. Studies confirm this. That is why change in a society is usually so gradual. I would suggest re-reading carefully his recent comments about his father in that context.

2) I think it is helpful to understand some foundational doctrines that are unique to the Seventh Day Adventist Church. My aim here is not to assault anyone's faith or freedom of religion. I merely point to some doctrine that exists or was at least widely embraced by this sect until the recent past. In that regards do some research on the church founder and "prophetess" Ellen G. White. Yeagley has referred to her and obviously regards her as a spiritual authority. And it is important to read about Mrs Whites "visions" and doctrine in her own original words, not the edited versions that have been published beginning in the 1960s.

Especially pay close attention to the doctrine called "Amalgamation" and see if you find any similarities between Mrs. Whites' view of other races, and Yeagley's view of those races.

I'm just reporting, you decide. But at least for me, I finally began to understand why he believed and said some of the things he does - things that disturbed me deeply as a Christian, patriot and small "l" libertarian.

Although I no longer post there, I do look in from time to time. I was startled that he has recently revealed so many personal details of his life on an open forum that way. Puzzling.

The_Editrix said...

"There are many wonderful religious readers of this site who are Conservative and religious."

I think it's hard do be anything else if one is conservative. Here is an interesting website: However, they've got a lot of explaining to do, it seems.

Btw. here is an interesting bit that supports Mr. Beamish's "Nazis are really leftists"-theory:
I still don't buy it, however, I think we were talking at cross-purposes because the European definition of "right" is very different.

beakerkin said...


I spent time reading up and it explains a lot. No doubt the Church has grown even if Yeagley is mired
in a more shameful past.


This may sound funny but some of his views of Jews echo classic Nazi material. He presents communism as a "Jewish reaction" to persecution.

Marx was an avowed antisemite and his followers have abused populist
antisemitism to further their cause.

beakerkin said...


Those of us who are huge Mr Beamish fans understand the modesty of Mr Beamish. Based upon past experiences
there would be some form of comedic
justice dished out by Mr B.

He is uniquely American in many ways.

beamish said...

Btw. here is an interesting bit that supports Mr. Beamish's "Nazis are really leftists"-theory:
I still don't buy it, however, I think we were talking at cross-purposes because the European definition of "right" is very different.

If Nazis were to renounce centrally planned economics, renounce agricultural collectivization, renounce welfare statism, renounce eugenics, renounce euthanasia, renounce anti-Semitism, and were to start jumping up and down screaming for more laissez faire capitalism, they'd begin to qualify for being considered right-wing.

But, they were leftists.

The_Editrix said...

According to American standards, yes. Not according to German (and some other European) standards, because we have different definitions. I realized recently that I was talking about apples and you about oranges and that caused the misunderstanding. I think it is mainly because:

1) "right wing" is a derogatory term in Europe, but not in America

2) any expression of nationalism is firmly placed on the right and no other political markers (like, say, collectivism) will change that perception

3) we simply DON'T KNOW things that you consider "conservative" or "right wing", such as a minimum of welfare statism, laissez faire capitalism or "small government", so we have to define political lines differently.

Following your definition that means that all of Europe is leftist. (Which it is.)

I think I read at Lawrence Austers blog a definition I found sensemaking. It said that Nazism revolved round the aggrandisement of the "Aryan" race over the rest of humankind, something which can not be defined as leftist. However murderous Communism may have been, it was not about "race". Internally, he says, Nazism was a form of leftism with all the political markers you mention. Externally, in their relations with other people, this aggrandisement of Germanness was rightism (nationalism) in the extreme.

I guess we all tend to forget that "Nazi" stands for National Socialist.

But then, if you are lucky and find one of those rare paragons of conservatism at this end, somebody who stands for free enterprise, small government, occidental values and all that, there is a 95% chance that he is an antisemite, which would make him, according to your definition, a leftist. (I think there is a 97% chance that an avowed leftist is an antisemite, a difference that is not all THAT dramatic.)

I was talking mainly about Germany. In other European countries there may be varying figures, but not to a dramatic degree.

At the end of the day, all that remains is the realization that cross-Atlantic comparisons ought to be performed with utter scrupulousness to avoid misconceptions.

beamish said...


I think "nationalism" is a flimsy indicator of right-wing thought, as even Stalin recast World War 2 as the "Second Patriotic War." We've all seen Hugo Chavez running around in a Venezuelan flag shirt.

Same with "militarism." It's somewhat hard to name a leftist government with a leader who avoids prancing around in a military uniform. And those tank and missile parades in the Soviet Union... Militarism is no indicator of right-wingedness either.

The left-right spectrum must reflect the degrees of government power vs. economic and individual freedom, more government on the left, less government on the right.

The Nazis were left-wing by miles.

The_Editrix said...

Yes I agree. I said so. You don't need to convince me. All I said is that it is wise to consider certain differences nevertheless. Europe, and certainly Germany, are not just a smaller version of America, although I have yet to come across an American who does NOT think so.