White Christianity, the First Amendment, and the intolerant barber

Last updated on: December 15, 2020 at 6:03 pm by Fred Clark

White Christianity, the First Amendment, and the intolerant barber 2020-12-15T18:03:44-05:00 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.

“One might be tempted to dismiss this argument as ridiculous and the plaintiffs as fringe figures,” Charles McCrary writes at Religion & Politics. You might think that refers to something directly related to the “Kraken” variant of Q-Anon that has been losing court battles coast-to-coast ever since Joe Biden’s massive victory in the 2020 presidential election. But the “Kraken” kraziness of the coup klutz plan has the endorsement of the sitting president and a majority of Republican representatives in the House, so while it’s ridiculous, it’s hardly “fringe.”

And the case McCrary is discussing — “Black Lives Matter and the Color of the Public Square” — is only indirectly related to that. He’s talking about the motley team — a street preacher, a disbarred-lawyer/DJ, and a bull-rider-turned-lobbyist — that tried this summer to sue the city of Washington, DC, claiming that its Black Lives Matter plaza violated the First Amendment’s prohibition against the establishment of state-sponsored religion. As McCrary writes:

They seem like a wacky bunch, and their lawsuit is certainly “colorful.” But their claim that Black Lives Matter (BLM) is part of “the religion of Secular Humanism” — and their tactic, to combat “secular humanism” by alleging an Establishment Clause violation — is not novel. In fact, they are participating in a tradition that is decades old. And in some cases, similar legal arguments have had some success.

The tactic isn’t so much a legal “argument” as an antinomy. Like, “The barber shaves all those and only those who do not shave themselves. So who shaves the barber?” That’s fun wordplay — creating paradoxical categories by using words like “all” and “only” — but it takes a particular form of sophomoric stuntedness to mistake Shaving the Intolerant Barber for having said anything meaningful about the world. Those arguing that by refusing to establish their preferred religious sect the state is thereby establishing an official religion of secularism are making the same annoying non-argument as someone who says, “Oh yeah? Well if God is all-powerful, can God make a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it? No? Then in your face, believer — there is no God!”

Such people seem to be as incapable of learning as they are of thinking. Answer not such fools according to their folly, lest you also wind up swallowing your own tail and calling it dinner. Just send them all off to their own space somewhere else where they can congratulate one another over the fact that their intolerance has, indeed, rendered them intolerable.

There is one variant of this self-inflicted word-game posing as an Establishment Clause argument that I am still waiting to see. Someday, some addled sectarian will argue that the Establishment Clause itself violates the Establishment Clause because it is pervasively Baptist — that the insistence on non-sectarian legal pluralism itself constitutes an establishment not of “secular humanism” but of Baptist doctrine. (I don’t want to see such a rock-too-heavy-for-God-to-lift argument succeed, of course, but I’d love to see someone make it just to watch Al Mohler’s head explode.)

McCrary does yeoman’s work summarizing the various theological strains that fed into the tortured claim that any non-sectarian government lacking an established state church is therefore a sectarian government establishing the religion of “secularism.” Some of those strains are smart and interesting — if ultimately, still, unworkable — such as the Reformed/Kuyperian school that feeds this stuff. Some of those strains are just bonkers and dumb — such as the white nationalist, Southern Gothic ravings of R.J. Rushdoony and the “Reconstructionist” nonsense he spawned. (McCrary also mentions Francis Schaeffer, whom he correctly positions closer to the bonkers Rushdoony end of that spectrum.)

The problem that all of these ideologies run into when trying to make their Establishment Clause argument is that it isn’t an Establishment Clause argument at all. It’s a Free Exercise argument. What they’re all saying is that their particular sectarian beliefs require the full acquiescence and support of government — that it is impossible for them to freely exercise their own religion unless that religion is officially established. This produces the illogical logic of what I’ve called the “persecuted hegemon”:

Once you believe that your faith requires cultural dominance, and that it deserves it, then any threat to that dominance — even just the unwelcome reminder of the existence of alternative points of view — is perceived as a threat, as a kind of persecution. Thus, for example, Hannukah is perceived as a threat to, and an attack on, Christmas.

The persecuted hegemon is thus an oxymoronic creature driven by an oxymoronic principle: non-reciprocal justice. For these folks, turnabout is never fair play, turnabout is merely backwards. Thus when others respond to them in kind, or even simply remind them of the Golden Rule, they take offense, as though this constitutes an injustice toward them.

… This points to the key confusion of the persecuted hegemons. They are unable to distinguish between challenges to their hegemony — to their privilege — and threats to their faith itself. … Your freedom threatens my freedom to live in a world in which people like you are not free to do the sorts of things you might do with your freedom.

What’s particularly interesting about the case McCrary discusses is the plaintiffs’ unexamined presumption that their religious faith is directly attacked by the assertion that “Black Lives Matter.” They see that staggeringly modest assertion as a direct refutation of their religion. They are white Christians and here is an official government agency directly attacking the essential crux of their faith.

For their religion, their sect, any legal recognition of the humanity of Black folks is anathema and so they — accurately — perceive the post-Reconstruction Constitution as a threat to their religious mandate to establish white hegemony. Allowing Black Lives to matter, like allowing Black Americans to vote — or even accepting “Black Americans” as a legitimate category and not an oxymoron — is perceived by these white Christians as an intolerable restriction on the free exercise of their religion, which forbids them to live in any society permitting such things.

McCrary nods in the direction of something he comes just shy of saying outright: The white religious right’s obsession with its bogeyman of “secular humanism” is a white-supremacist backlash against Brown v. Board of Ed and all that followed it. While the free-exercise religious demand of white supremacy is not usually as explicit and all-consuming in most arguments against “secular humanism” as it is in this case, that demand and motivation is never absent.

And so, as I said, this oddball fringe case that got smacked down in court is not wholly unrelated to the Kraken conspiracism now dominating the Republican Party. Street preachers railing against “secular humanism” are saying the same thing that Donald Trump is saying when he rails against “election fraud.” They’re both saying that Black people are not “real” Americans and that their votes, voices, and lives should not matter.

It turns out the question is never really “Who shaves the barber?” It’s “Who is my neighbor?” And if there’s one thing Jesus taught, it’s that you never want to be the guy asking that question.

Previous Post

December 14, 2020

White Christianity and the Second Redemption

Next Post

December 17, 2020 Five years ago

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

What Christian tradition is noted for its belief in nonresistance and simple living?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Episcopalian Anglican Amish Methodist