I Do Not Trust You, Part II

I was asked to make one of my wall comments into an actual blog post. It has been edited for flow but not for content.

It is not a far leap to keep two opposing things in your head, that is not what my point is in the first post. But then thinking about what Blake Burkhead said about holding two opposing viewpoints in one’s head did give me another insight as to why Christianists / Dominionists who post such statements as I analyzed in I Do Not Trust You cannot be trusted (or see below).

Let us separate the two thoug
hts and see where that leads us. We will begin by setting aside the statements of love, friendship, non-judging, non-condemning and non-bullying and just look at the other thought.

The first statements about being a Christian and believing in the Bible are an assertion of authority over the target of the statement. “God is on my side” would be a clearer statement and is meant to give weight to the non-support, in a way that is exempt from challenge or dissent, of people with an intrinsic quality and the civil right they have just achieved .

Then there is an admonition for the target not to behave in a certain fashion towards the speaker, not doing any name-calling and stereotyping. Notice the weasel phrase ‘those of us who stand for what we believe.’ Those of them who have already asserted their authority over the target now demand respect and obedience from the target based on the fact that God is on their side. There is also a ‘gas-lighting’ of the target, ‘is exactly what you don’t want done to you’ implies that the name-calling and stereotyping has not happened yet but will happen, justifiable so, in the future if the target issues any challenge or dissent to the authority that has been claimed.

Finally the threat. ‘We have a right to speak what we believe, same as you have the right to speak what you believe.’ It tries to sound fair but the speaker’s right is divinely granted by being a Christian and believing in the Bible and the target’s right is based solely on what the speaker is willing to grant. Now the supposed non-support is revealed as active opposition for they will exercise that right of speech from their position of authority.

Now the sentences about love, friendship, non-judging, non-condemning and non-bullying are seen in the correct light as emotional blackmail. The speaker separates the assertion of divine right from the threat of retribution with empty sentimentality. The statement, then, is not the holding of two opposing viewpoints but the logic of an abuser to its victim. 

“I have authority over you, granted by God, and I oppose not only your rights but your very being. You know I love you though if you cross me I will attack you as is my God-given right and it will be your own fault.”

I will never trust an abuser engaged in active threats.

 

  1. Yes, I am a Christian.
  2. I believe the Bible.
  3. I do not support homosexuality or “homosexual marriage.”
  4. Yes, I still love you.
  5. Yes, we are still friends.
  6. No, I am not judging you.
  7. No, I am not condemning you to hell.
  8. No, I will not let anyone bully you.
  9. But realize that name-calling and stereotyping those of us who stand for what we believe is exactly what you don’t want done to you.
  10. We have a right to speak what we believe, same as you have the right to speak what you believe.
This entry was posted in Essays, Musings. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *