Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

[Adrift]

But, but, but... Southern Baptists are BAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaadddddd!!!!!

The only reason I can see him bringing them up over and over and over again is because they're currently the largest Protestant denomination in the US (as though that had anything to do with them splitting initially), and maybe because he think it'll somehow stick in your craw for being a member of the SBC? I don't know. It's weird.

[Cow Poke]

The only reason I can see him bringing them up over and over and over again is because they're currently the largest Protestant denomination in the US (as though that had anything to do with them splitting initially), and maybe because he think it'll somehow stick in your craw for being a member of the SBC? I don't know. It's weird.

Personally, I think he's driven by hate. He's an anti-Christian bigot. He's pro-homosexual and pro-abortion, and many (most?) Evangelical Christians believe both of those practices are wrong. He has to find some justification for his hatred, so he's living in the past.

But, I also don't really know, and agree it's weird.

[Sparko]

People have responded to Tassman on this so often, and so thoroughly that I'm surprised anyone bothers engaging him anymore. I'd be surprised if there hasn't been a month that he hasn't posted some sort of screed against "Evangelicals" and specifically "Southern Baptists" and their connection to slavery. He's obsessed with this argument. And that argument was destroyed well before TWeb's crash.

At it's founding in 1845, the SBC had 350,000 members, approx. 130,000 of whom were black. The growth of the SBC was slow until the turn of the century.



Perhaps ironically, the largest denomination in the slave-holding South was the Methodist Episcopal Church, which also split over slavery, with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South claiming in 1859 511,601 whites and 197,000 blacks (mostly slaves) and 4,200 Native Americans. And contrary to Tassman's repeated claims, 19th century Evangelicals often spearheaded abolitionist movements. The Evangelical/Fundamentalist movement that he likely has in mind in his diatribes didn't really take root until the early 20th century.

Well since Tassman said that morality is just a function of society, he has no real argument against slavery to begin with. It just happened to be what society thought was OK back then, so it wasn't wrong or immoral at all.

[Cow Poke]

Well since Tassman said that morality is just a function of society, he has no real argument against slavery to begin with. It just happened to be what society thought was OK back then, so it wasn't wrong or immoral at all.

Yes, and the notion that Southern Baptists, in particular, were doing it "because the Bible...." is also nutty.

[rogue06]

FIFY n/c

[rogue06]

People have responded to Tassman on this so often, and so thoroughly that I'm surprised anyone bothers engaging him anymore. I'd be surprised if there hasn't been a month that he hasn't posted some sort of screed against "Evangelicals" and specifically "Southern Baptists" and their connection to slavery. He's obsessed with this argument. And that argument was destroyed well before TWeb's crash.

At it's founding in 1845, the SBC had 350,000 members, approx. 130,000 of whom were black. The growth of the SBC was slow until the turn of the century.



Perhaps ironically, the largest denomination in the slave-holding South was the Methodist Episcopal Church, which also split over slavery, with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South claiming in 1859 511,601 whites and 197,000 blacks (mostly slaves) and 4,200 Native Americans. And contrary to Tassman's repeated claims, 19th century Evangelicals often spearheaded abolitionist movements. The Evangelical/Fundamentalist movement that he likely has in mind in his diatribes didn't really take root until the early 20th century.

Why did you have to go and confuse things with those gollblasted fact thingies. It's so much simpler when you can make evidence-free assertions.

[rogue06]

Personally, I think he's driven by hate. He's an anti-Christian bigot. He's pro-homosexual and pro-abortion, and many (most?) Evangelical Christians believe both of those practices are wrong. He has to find some justification for his hatred, so he's living in the past.

But, I also don't really know, and agree it's weird.

Yeah, the RCC is strongly against abortion and repeatedly expresses disapproval of gay marriage so it seems to be something more than just his hatred for Christians in general.

[Tassman]

So what - he raised big bucks, goofus!

Other than being homosexual, what are his qualifications for running the country?

Being homosexual is no more are qualification for running the country than being a serial womanizer and genital-grabbing sexual aggressor and liar like Trump.

OTOH, unlike Trump, Buttigieg is well-educated, highly intelligent and a veteran who served a seven-month tour as a counterintelligence officer in Afghanistan. Plus he's experienced in government at the municipal level. In short he's well qualified to run the country, unlike the immoral buffoon who's there now.

[Tassman]

wow, how many of us do you think were alive in the 1800's Tassy? Same ones huh?

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...ryId=112329862

It took them long enough to realize the error of their ways.

[Terraceth]

That's nonsense. Perhaps they had not formally renounced it until then, but that doesn't mean it was "officially" in favor of segregation up until that point. Or can you point to any official statements of the church in the 1990-1994 range (when you claim they had the official position of being in favor of segregation) that state a preference for segregation?

[JonathanL]

That's nonsense. Perhaps they had not formally renounced it until then, but that doesn't mean it was "officially" in favor of segregation up until that point. Or can you point to any official statements of the church in the 1990-1994 range (when you claim they had the official position of being in favor of segregation) that state a preference for segregation?

This is Tassman we're talking about, of course he can't.

[Tassman]

That's nonsense. Perhaps they had not formally renounced it until then, but that doesn't mean it was "officially" in favor of segregation up until that point.

If not then the SBC would have done well to alter its official position long before 1995, given that Martin Luther King Jr. was leading the civil rights movement in the US from the mid-1950s. And that the Civil Rights Act came into force in 1964, i.e. 30 years before the SCB finally got its act together and formally renounced its racism.

[Adrift]

That's nonsense. Perhaps they had not formally renounced it until then, but that doesn't mean it was "officially" in favor of segregation up until that point. Or can you point to any official statements of the church in the 1990-1994 range (when you claim they had the official position of being in favor of segregation) that state a preference for segregation?

[rogue06]

The calls for his resignation are from his constituents who likely know him the best whereas the big bucks comes from those who know little about him but they are enamoured by the fact that he's openly gay.

[rogue06]

And to add that MLK Jr. He helped form the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference -- something that should be kept in mind when Tas or little jimmy bring up the Civil Rights movement.