Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
The scandal of sub-scandalous ‘controversial’ racism

The scandal of sub-scandalous ‘controversial’ racism

Last updated on: August 16, 2020 at 6:35 pm by Fred Clark

The scandal of sub-scandalous ‘controversial’ racism 2020-08-16T18:35:01-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Remember Alabama state Rep. Will Dismukes? He’s the Republican lawmaker who lost his day job as a Southern Baptist pastor due to being at the center of “a biblically based process to mitigate controversy surrounding this issue.” (What issue? Well, the whole point of mitigating controversy is to avoid saying.)

And now he’s back in the news due to a legally based process to mitigate controversy surrounding another issue. “Alabama state Rep. Will Dismukes arrested for theft,” Alabama.com reports:

Alabama State Rep. Will Dismukes, R-Prattville, who last week came under fire for attending a birthday party for the Ku Klux Klan’s first leader, has been charged in connection with a theft at a business where Dismukes worked.

Montgomery County District Attorney Daryl Bailey made the announcement of the first-degree theft of property charge at a press conference this afternoon.

Bailey said his office launched an investigation after a May 20 complaint from the owners of Weiss Flooring about alleged theft of a large sum of money by an employee.

… Bailey did not disclose the amount of the alleged theft but said the charge of first-degree theft applies to amounts exceeding $2,500.

“I will tell you that the alleged amount is a lot more than that,” Bailey said.

Bailey said the time frame of the alleged theft was 2016-2018.

If convicted of the crime, a felony, Dismukes would automatically be removed from office.

Announcing to the world that you’re a Neo-Confederate, Neo-“Redemptionist” white supremacist who celebrates the Klan and traffics in vile racist imagery is one thing. Felony embezzlement is another. The former is flagrantly immoral, but it’s not against any official rules. It’s not a violation of any professional code of ethics and it’s not against the law. That’s why Dismukes was able to shrug off calls for his resignation after his guest-speaker gig at the Klan picnic.

Critics say that some people claim religious-right figures come under fire when controversy is thrust upon them.

But felony embezzlement is against the law and, thus, is also a violation of ethics rules for state legislators in Alabama. That can’t be shrugged off or stonewalled. And it means the fuzzy language and fuzzy morality of “controversial-ism” and PR-spin (“a biblically based process to mitigate controversy surrounding this issue”) won’t be able to smother the fall-out from actual criminal charges. Dismukes’ attorney is still trying that approach — spewing word-clouds of squid ink that rival the fuzziness of those Alabama Baptist officials:

Attorney Trey Norman said he has not asked Dismukes, 30, if he is going to resign his seat in the Alabama House of Representatives. But Norman does not expect that to happen.

“Will is young and is learning some hard lessons,” Norman said. “But he’s a very convicted man. He’s very convicted in his faith and he’s very convicted in his character. He’s very convicted in his heritage. And Will’s not a person who’s going to shy away from the tough questions to satisfy folks. And that upsets a lot of people. And I understand that. Especially in these times. … He’s a fighter.”

I don’t quite know what “not … going to shy away from the tough questions” is supposed to mean there, but it’s less mystifying than whatever “especially in these times” could possibly mean. (I’ve tried, but I can’t conjure up any possible meaning there that isn’t every bit as Neo-Confederate and ugly as Dismukes’ own “convictions in his heritage.”)

The embezzlement charges may seem more serious — more disqualifying — than “coming under fire” for celebrating a Klan picnic. After all, felony theft is the trifecta: it’s immoral and illegal and an ethical violation. Being a white supremacist who endorses the violent reversal of the first and second Reconstructions, by contrast, is immoral, but not illegal or technically even “unethical.”

We could argue that Dismukes’ white supremacy is more gravely immoral than his (alleged) skimming from his former employer. I mean, yes, “Thou shalt not steal” is one of the Ten Commandments, but the sin of white supremacy is a violation of all of them — of the whole of the law and the prophets as distilled into the Great Commandment and the second, which is like unto it. The thief on the cross was saved. A white supremacist is a blasphemer and “a liar” who “does not know God” and “cannot know God.”

But the main difference between the dual and dueling scandals that Dismukes has brought on himself is that the criminal charges involve undisputed immorality while the toxic white supremacy, sadly, involves disputed morality.

“Theft is illegal” is an undisputed factual statement. There isn’t a “both sides” escape clause if you’re convicted of felony theft.

“White supremacy is immoral” is also a factual statement, but this fact remains disputed and denied and rejected by millions of people. It’s treated as a partisan claim — as a matter of political disagreement, which is why newspaper reports about it tend to fall back into the mushy vagueness of passive-voice statements (“came under fire,” “drew criticism”) or fuzzifying attributions like “some say” or “critics claim.” Those tortured phrases give equal weight to “both sides” of the dispute, thereby legitimizing both sides and affirming that the morality or immorality of white supremacy is — officially and objectively — in dispute, undetermined, and unclear. (We might say that such language suggests the morality/immorality of white supremacy is “subjective,” except that the weird passive-voice constructs it uses create sentences that have no subjects.)

My previous post about Dismukes having “controversy” mysteriously fall upon him was spurred by dismay and anger at the way that this same tortured language of moral indifference has been adopted and employed by the religious press and even by church leaders. His embrace of white supremacy, Baptist leaders and Christianity Today said, created “controversy,” but whether or not it was immoral they were unable or unwilling to say.*

This is dismaying, in part, because it seems that the church and the religious press have subcontracted morality out to the legal system and to professional codes of ethics. They’ve accepted a false hierarchy that says immoral isn’t as bad as unethical which isn’t as bad as illegal. That’s nonsense, of course, that leads to all sorts of moral absurdities, such as the notion that the hideous neighbor-haters pouring drinks on lunch-counter demonstrators were somehow morally upright while the criminals violating the laws segregating those lunch counters were immoral. Or that defiant outlaws like Oney Judge, Harriet Tubman, Corrie Ten Boom, or John Lewis were criminals and, therefore, immoral.**

What the sad case of Will Dismukes clarifies for us is that disputed immorality isn’t treated as a scandal. It’s merely a “controversy.” Elected officials and religious leaders can follow a “process to mitigate controversy,” but a full-on scandal — or a criminal conviction for felony theft — is another matter.

Which brings us to the recent travails of Jerry Falwell Jr., who is now on hiatus from his former posts as president and chancellor of culture-war institution Liberty University.

Falwell has a long, long track record of grossly immoral behavior, most of which has been far worse than the vulgar foolishness that may ultimately have cost him his job. But he didn’t face any consequences for that previous immorality because it was disputed — disputed, especially, within the community of Liberty and its right-wing, Christian nationalist supporters. Most of that earlier harmful and hateful behavior was thus treated as merely “controversial.” It didn’t become a scandal until Falwell crossed into immoral behavior that was not a disputed matter within his community.

The saga of this scandal is all so strange and many-layered, and has been the focus of so much insightful commentary, that we’ll have to return to the subject of Jerry’s Yacht Party when time allows later this week. Stay tuned.

* Dismukes’ church ousted him as pastor, explicitly, because he had become “controversial.” That was a firing offense, but apparently being a white supremacist was not. This is even more disturbing given that Dismukes became the small Southern Baptist church’s pastor after serving for several years as its youth pastor.

Since his time as that church’s youth pastor overlaps with the time during which he allegedly was skimming thousands of dollars from his other employer, the church may want to take a closer look at its own finances during those years.

If he’s convicted of this theft, I imagine the church will have some kind of special session with the young people he’d served as youth pastor to discuss what it means for them to have been pastored all that time by a felon, and to make sure that those young people weren’t misled to believe the same immoral ideas that led their youth pastor astray. It would be nice to think the church would also address what it means for those young people to have been pastored all those years by a white supremacist, but I doubt that will happen.

** This moral confusion might be cleared up if these folks would just accept that Letter From a Birmingham Jail is scriptural canon:

One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

But then again maybe not, as even their closed canon already includes enough prison epistles that you’d think Christians wouldn’t be so confused on this point.

Previous Post

August 15, 2020

Together we'll have hell to pay

Next Post

August 19, 2020 'Keanu hands' should be taught in seminary

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Seek the Lord, all you humble of the land. Seek righteousness, seek what else?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Peace Humility Mercy Justice