Congregants At Historic Slave-Owning Church Do Everything But Self-Flagellate In White Guilt Pilgrimage 23%

By Derek VanBuskirk0%

6/22/2026, 10:59:31 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and In-Group Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 26.2% saturation with 128 hits. Analysis detected 1,134 faulty-reasoning hits from 488 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.3% and a BS Rank of 23% (16,907 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.20% of the article peer group.

Congregants of a predominantly white Virginia church took part in a black-led “slave trail” walking tour through Richmond to confront their congregation’s history of slave ownership. 
An article from the Religion News Service (RNS) detailed the “historical and spiritual pilgrimage” that took place June 13, interviewing members of St. 
Paul’s Episcopal Church and a neighboring “nonwhite majority” congregation that participated in the event. 
(RELATED: Democrat Senator From One Of America’s Whitest States Does African Dance For Juneteenth) 
The church’s website says that “nearly all” of the congregants at St. 
Paul’s were enslavers, and that it had been attended by many leading Confederate figures. 
Jerry Gilbert, a co-chair of the pilgrimage, told RNS that members of St. 
Philip’s Episcopal Church  a congregation founded by enslaved and freed blacks  were invited to join the tour because “white privilege is very blind to seeing all of the aspects of a situation when race is involved.” 
The daylong retreat, called “Walking With the Enslaved: The Church’s Role in Slavery Pilgrimage,” began with an introductory session at St. 
Philip’s before approximately 20 participants set out to explore Richmond and the church’s historical ties to slavery. 
One stop took the group to Capitol Hill, where St. 
Paul’s is located and where participants were told that many leaders of Virginia’s slave trade were affiliated with Episcopal and Presbyterian churches. 
The group was later asked to consider how Christians had reconciled their faith with support for slavery before joining in a prayer asking God to “enlighten the eyes of our hearts.” 
The pilgrimage concluded at the Shockoe Bottom African Burial Ground, built around the site of a former slave jail and now overshadowed by Interstate 95. 
One guide, Glyn Hughes, described the interstate’s construction as “infrastructural violence” and a reminder of continued harm against black Richmonders. 
Hughes said the project severed the historically black Jackson Ward neighborhood from Sixth Mount Zion Baptist Church in 1958. 
Melton’s wife, Monica, told RNS that a moment of silence at the burial ground led her to reflect on a recent U.S. 
Supreme Court ruling that race could not be used as the basis for drawing congressional maps in Louisiana. 
She said the decision left her concerned about the political power of black voters and asking herself, “Where is my voice? 
Like, my political voice.” 
(RELATED: Supreme Court Strikes Down Institutionalized Racism) 
Renee Munford, a descendant of slaves who joined the pilgrimage, told RNS she had been “bitter towards the whole reconciliation thing” after witnessing failed attempts at racial reconciliation in the past. 
But after taking part in the walk, Munford said she found herself thinking less about those disappointments and more about the participants’ willingness to engage with the experience. 
“You’ve got these white people that are interested enough to take out time on their Saturday and go through this process with us,” she said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.8%Derek VanBuskirk: 4.2%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Derek VanBuskirk: 2.8%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic11.5%This article: 8.2%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic8.2%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.7%Derek VanBuskirk: 9.4%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect22.7%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.8%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.2%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.9%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias9.2%This article: 4.3%Derek VanBuskirk: 3.0%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias4.3%This article: 21.1%Derek VanBuskirk: 7.5%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias21.1%This article: 5.1%Derek VanBuskirk: 2.1%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.3%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 18.4%Derek VanBuskirk: 3.3%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias18.4%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 3.7%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Derek VanBuskirk: 2.2%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.7%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.1%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.7%Derek VanBuskirk: 7.7%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority11.7%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 2.5%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 3.2%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 7.7%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization8.0%This article: 2.9%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring2.9%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 26.2%Derek VanBuskirk: 7.6%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion26.2%This article: 14.1%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.8%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question14.1%This article: 8.4%Derek VanBuskirk: 3.7%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.4%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 1.2%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.1%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.4%Derek VanBuskirk: 2.8%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal6.4%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.2%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.9%Derek VanBuskirk: 4.4%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.9%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.8%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.3%Derek VanBuskirk: 5.6%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote12.3%This article: 7.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 2.3%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection7.0%This article: 10.5%Derek VanBuskirk: 8.5%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice10.5%This article: 6.4%Derek VanBuskirk: 3.6%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination6.4%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.6%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 6.8%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Derek VanBuskirk: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

488 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers45%attributed speech267writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJerry Gilbert • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJerry Gilbert • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageGlyn Hughes • 20 words • 0.0% coverageGlyn Hughes • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMonica Melton • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMonica Melton • 21 words • 100.0% coverageMonica Melton • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageRenee Munford • 31 words • 0.0% coverageRenee Munford • 28 words • 0.0% coverageRenee Munford • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jerry Gilbert

75%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words23% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Unattributed Quote+66.3 ptsWriter: 8.2%Jerry Gilbert: 74.5%74.5%Biased Writer Voice-19.1 ptsWriter: 19.1%Jerry Gilbert: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-11.6 ptsWriter: 11.6%Jerry Gilbert: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%Jerry Gilbert: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.