The Christian Right Has Ceded All Moral High Ground

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee speaks during the Iowa Agriculture Summit, Saturday, March 7, 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

When I was a kid, I was exposed to two diametrically opposed versions of Christianity.  From my father’s family, I learned about the kind, loving God.  From my mother’s, the fire-and-brimstone, hateful, terrifying God.

Guess to which one I was drawn?

I assert most unhesitatingly, that the religion of the south is a mere covering for the most horrid crimes–a justifier of the most appalling barbarity, a sanctifier of the most hateful frauds–and a dark shelter under, which the darkest, foulest, grossest, and most infernal deeds of slaveholders find the strongest protection. Were I to be again reduced to the chains of slavery, next to that enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall me. For of all slaveholders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst. I have ever found them the meanest and basest, the most cruel and cowardly, of all others. -Frederick Douglass

Christianity was often used as a reason to support slavery, and, as the almost-200-year-old Frederick Douglass (of whom we expect many great things going forward) can attest, the “religious slaveholders are the worst.”  Sounds like Douglass knows Jason Rapert!


Today, much like in the run up to the Civil War, right-wing Christianity is about power over those who are in the weakest positions, such as the poor, immigrants, and women.  There is nothing “Christian” about today’s Christian right, and I never want to have another right-wing alleged Christian preach to me that I should follow their moral high-ground.

Let’s think of the children, shall we?

The Christian right (CR) loves to think of themselves as the savior of unborn fetuses, but this is little more than a disguised powerplay by the CR over women.  If there was never another abortion in the history of man-kind, I couldn’t be happier.  In fact, abortions are at a low point because of improved, non-religious sex education. However, the CR and people like Rapert want to outlaw abortion, thus making the lives of those coping with unplanned, unwanted pregnancies much more difficult.  That’ll help the children, right?

And in case you didn’t think it was about power, here’s a quote from an Oklahoma lawmaker this week:

I believe one of the breakdowns in our society is that we have excluded the man out of all of these types of decisions. I understand that they feel like that is their body. I feel like it is a separate — what I call them is, is you’re a “host.” And you know when you enter into a relationship, you’re going to be that host and so, you know, if you pre-know that, then take all precautions and don’t get pregnant. So that’s where I’m at. I’m like, hey, your body is your body and be responsible with it. But after you’re irresponsible then don’t claim, well, I can just go and do this with another body, when you’re the host and you invited that in.

Get that, women?  You are a HOST, not a human being.

So, the CR has forced you to bring a child you don’t want into the world.  I’m sure they’ll be more than happy to help, right?

Well, no.  If you’re a working-class woman, the CR wants nothing more than to take away your healthcare (if it’s not employer based) and any other social-safety-net benefits.  I think this (not so) hilarious cartoon sums up the hypocrisy nicely:

Again, this is about power, not lives.

So, you’ve been forced to bring a baby to term, and now you have difficulties keeping it fed and well-cared for?  At least they’ll get a fantastic public education, so their lives can be made better than yours, right?  Well, your new Secretary of Education, Betsy “Grizzly” DeVos, who bought her way into a cabinet-level position, abhors public education.

The CR cares so very deeply about the children.

The CR only cares about power and, most of all, keeping their tribe in power.  After all, why else would they willingly vote for a lying (sin), cheating (sin), narcissistic sociopath (not a sin, but perhaps it was on the dropped tablet)?  It’s not because the Christian right believes in their religion as much as it believes in power over the “other.”  The Christian right is utterly bereft of class, credibility, or real, actual Christianity.

The early challenger for word of the year is applicable here: the Christian right, those that voted for Donald Trump, are Pharisees.  From now on, they should be treated as such, by which I mean with utter contempt.



  1. Thank you for putting my thoughts in a manner befitting a discussion. I am pro-choice – I am not pro-murder, pro-abortion, or anti-god. I believe that a woman has the right to decide what to do with her body. I’m not in the mood for the “keep her legs shut”, “should’ve thought of that before you got yourself pregnant” or “don’t have sex if you’re not ready for a baby” moral attitudes that prevail when this topic arises. Not every decision regarding abortion is about the “inconvenience” of being pregnant. There are physical and economical reasons not to have a child. Pro-life appears to stop at the moment of birth. After that, forget about the woman, forget about the baby – she had it – it’s hers to deal with the consequences. I have seen women make heartbreaking decisions to abort and also heartbreaking decisions about carrying to term – but – it was their choice. The religious right cries for the life of the unborn, but not the life of the living. They shout peace and godliness as they insult, demean, and humiliate women entering a facility having made that decision. The laws have become insulting to anyone who actually reads them. Mandatory waiting periods, ultrasounds, paperwork acknowledging the current state of the fetus, paperwork acknowledging that they are ending a life, disallowing the abortion pill, and the newest insult, legislating away a woman’s right to privacy by allowing government officials to receive and review their consent forms. This is not about the unborn, this is 100% about controlling >50% of the population. I do not critique a person’s moral positions, but I don’t believe their moral positions should decide what is moral for others.

  2. Excellent! Here is another look at the same issue.
    From 2014. . .
    “Shalom is God’s design for creation and redemption. … God hates sin not just because it violates his law but, more substantively, because it violates shalom, because it breaks the peace, because it interferes with the way things are supposed to be…
    Sin, then, is any agential evil for which some person (or group of persons) is to blame. In short, sin is culpable shalom-breaking.”
    When we lose sight of shalom, sin is reduced to a collection of seemingly-arbitrary violations of moral rules.
    As I understand it, the Gospel seems much more concerned with changing the heart from which sin flows than conforming external behaviors to certain moral rules. Sin can’t simply be avoided; it must be slowly rooted from every corner of our hearts where it seeks to disrupt love between neighbor and neighbor, between Creator and created.”–Micah Murray

  3. It was all smoke and mirrors. They never showed any true moral high ground and what they did do, Jesus certainly would not have done.

Comments are closed.