How can Christians support both?
- Thread starter bac
- Start date
The fact that you finally worked Archie Bunker into this thread is nothing short of amazing.
Of course your conclusion to the original post was obvious but I think there are some key things to note here.
First of all, Christians are a vast majority, not some persecuted minority struggling to be accepted.
Second of all, there are cases where a group is promoting a stereotype and must make efforts to rise above it. If Christians are stereotyped as intolerant, then every effort must be made to demonstrate tolerance. The same applies to any group and if it's not done, well, the stereotype will remain.
Third, the intolerance that I am discussing is actively & maliciously persecuting and hurting some groups in society. Finding someone to be smelly is a little different than finding it offensive that the Christian right thinks and openly announces that gays deserve to die.
Lastly, I haven't said you should pre-judge people or write them off because of a group they are a member of. I am discussing my observations of outspoken Christians but (especially being located at the moment right in the middle of the bible belt) every individual person should be judged on their merits. Just because I am outspoken about my disapproval of many of the traits of the conservative Christians doesn't mean I'm going to walk away from anyone who mentions God to me.
Your comments about lower standards and seeking out like-minded people have nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. I don't think I've demonstrated either of those things.
i'm simply asking for a list of freedoms that you as a legal and (i'm assuming) law abiding citizen of this country have lost during the tenure of the bush administration.
you're responding with endless diatribe when none is needed here.
and that's all the same stuff that's led me to ask this very simple question.
if all of whatever it is you're saying is true, then there has to be some kind of record of it.
what's been chiseled away ?
who's done it ?
what does it keep any of us from doing now that we couldn't do ten years ago ?
give up the hard facts man.
as hard as you're pushing your side of this, you really need more than just your typed out words and beliefs.
i can honestly see that you're trying to make valid points.
but you're just making hollow accusations full of the same ol' same ol' that flows freely in this section.
the press has free reign in this country at the moment.
they're saying whatever they want freely whether it's the truth or not. you really think the government has any true controll over them ?
when bill clements was governor of texas (long before georgie w.)
he was illegally taping phones at will.
and are you old enough to remember tricky dick nixon ?
give me names and cases of law abiding american citizens who are incarcerated in this country for absolutely no reason.
i'm trying very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to some kind of rational thought process.
but ya ain't makin it very easy.
it cracks me up when you can't come up with a substantial case to bolster your view points, and somebody dares question what words you do come up with.
ya start name calling and word changing.
all that does is take you right out of the game as far as someone to be taken seriously here.
Okay $tinkle, you can come on out of the closet...
Well for starters, try reading. Ohio listed "illegal wiretaps" as one of the freedoms lost. If you can find yourself to google, more can be read about the topic under the term "warrantless electronic surveillance."
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the right to unreasonable search and seizure a protected right under the Bill of Rights?
The senator here wants to see actual pieces of legislation. What he is failing to grasp is that the executive branch doesn't legislate. They do, however, set precedent.
Amazing how we went to war without declaring war. If you can't show me some legislation declaring war, well, we must not be having one.
I've decided it's going to be impossible to explain "rights" to someone that doesn't understand 6th grade civics.
To the first point, this is a very complicated issue and I don't think a simple "they need to change perceptions" will suffice. How exactly are most liberal and moderate Christians supposed to do this? Why should they be judged in a certain way because other people are spewing hateful crap? You say that you don't prejudge people (which I have no doubt is true), but you and ohio seem to be quick to defend those that are providing extremely overstated views of the intolerance and conservatism of Christians in general. I just refuse to adopt a principle that states that an individual becomes personally responsible for reversing a negative stereotype about an incredibly huge, incredibly diverse group they might belong to. Essentially, that is a justification for stereotypes. How does someone who might go to church once a week so they can sing a bit, hear some readings and have a cup of coffee with neighbors all of a sudden become charged for reversing a false stereotype that they had nothing to do in the first place?
Yes, people who are in a position of some power could do more- few would dispute that. However, it is wrong to allow someone's stereotype to live on freely simply because it seems understandable. Also, just because you don't hear or see the voices, doesn't mean they aren't there. Their lack of channels and possible refusal to get to the lowest common denominator (as in, refusal to be more obnoxious than the other side) isn't worthy of any blame.
My point before was not to stress the apathy of Christians, but that many probably see conservative Christian voices as having so little to do with their own, so far removed from their own existence, that they don't bother to respond in similar fashion. Some people don't see the big picture, but many other Christians think that these people are just as nuts and any group of lefty atheists might. If someone gives white people a bad name, I don't respond much to it because whoever did that is probably not me. I shake my head and move on- just like everyone else.
Funny timing, I just gizoogled a good article about the signing statements used by the current administration.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
It's disturbing to think just how far future Presidents may attempt to push their powers. Is this situation a Pandora's Box, or is it something that can be reversed in our lifetimes?
assembly:
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=144&a=1878
due process/search and seizure:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070323_i_was_against_presidential_privilege_before_i_was_for_it/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800824.html
press:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/011012.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0108-04.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/26/INGAKMHOCV1.DTL
You'll note that some of those links are liberal pubs, some are conservative. Even, gasp, some conservatives recognize that the pendulum of power has swung too far and it's going to hit them in the balls when their boy is no longer in power.
Now before you point out that I'm using the free press to point out that the press isn't free, let me ask you, if some thug just broke into your car and is revving it in the driveway, do you actually need him to drive away to know your car is getting stolen?
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=144&a=1878
due process/search and seizure:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070323_i_was_against_presidential_privilege_before_i_was_for_it/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800824.html
press:
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/011012.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0108-04.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/26/INGAKMHOCV1.DTL
You'll note that some of those links are liberal pubs, some are conservative. Even, gasp, some conservatives recognize that the pendulum of power has swung too far and it's going to hit them in the balls when their boy is no longer in power.
Now before you point out that I'm using the free press to point out that the press isn't free, let me ask you, if some thug just broke into your car and is revving it in the driveway, do you actually need him to drive away to know your car is getting stolen?
Explanation, not justification. And the stereotype won't go anywhere if the people being stereotyped continue to be be silent in the background while those that perpetuate it are loud, clear and visible. It's not right, but it is reality.
Just remember that for every example, there's a counter-example. I've met more than a few idiots in my day, but I've met many loving people who have gotten comfort, inspiration and kindness from Christianity.
I don't feel comfortable making generalizations about millions of people, no matter how many I've met. Plus, I'm not sure how many churches you've been to, but most aren't exactly sitting their members down and beating into their heads the evil of gays and the greatness of the current president.
In any case, I have a problem with negative stereotypes of Christians for two reasons: first, because I know many good people who claim that name and, two, because it's a gateway to unproductive and unreasonable thought. I've met a lot of people so turned away from the idea of Christianity, or religion as a whole, that they come to think of the entire system as worthless, ultra-conservative, hateful nonsense. I believe that Christianity has an amazing innate power to transform whole groups of people- it recognizes the individual as a basic and free entity with intrinsic worth and carries hope, acceptance and compassion as its principal components.
It was only a few decades ago that the prevailing theory in religious studies was that religion was dying in the developed world- that secularization had taken hold and wasn't letting go. How quickly things have changed in the US. It wasn't too long before that that religion was a progressive force in this country. Many important social movements were, in much of their core, religions in nature. Again, how quickly some things have changed. Christianity, at its very beginning struggled against the oppressive powers of the day. Things changed before, they can change again.
In any case, it's not going away anytime soon, so you might as well work with it rather than against it.
JRogers,
I'm in agreement with you that there are good Christians, and there have been times when Christianity was a wonderful positive force in this country. The kindest, most genuinely good couple I know are devout, but very private, Christians. It is the religion of Martin Luther King, the religion of Abraham Lincoln. But that is not the force that is operating today at least on a relatively significant scale, and the Christians of that tradition have an OBLIGATION to bring it back to that. It is not my obligation to recognize they are hiding under the blankets, while millions of people in my country are oppressed in the name of Christianity.
I'm in agreement with you that there are good Christians, and there have been times when Christianity was a wonderful positive force in this country. The kindest, most genuinely good couple I know are devout, but very private, Christians. It is the religion of Martin Luther King, the religion of Abraham Lincoln. But that is not the force that is operating today at least on a relatively significant scale, and the Christians of that tradition have an OBLIGATION to bring it back to that. It is not my obligation to recognize they are hiding under the blankets, while millions of people in my country are oppressed in the name of Christianity.
I disagree, whilst it may be understandable it would not be fair. It would be a conclusion reached on inadequate and limited evidence.
With regard to BV's statements he is judging all Christians by the actions of certain particularly visible examples; they may be a small minority, the size of which he cannot tell.
I live in the UK where we have no dangerous spiders and very few venomous snakes (only the adder which could not kill a healthy adult human) - if I then deduce that I cannot be harmed by any spider or snake in the world it is a flawed conclusion.
Bull. It's easy to tell the size. Just look at the state proposals to make sure that gay couples get screwed over. This is not a small minority. It's a small loud group that voices the concerns of the majority. Same as with Islam.
I'm sure most Christians think that their fellow churchgoers are nice, reasonable and tolerant people. And you know what? Most of them are, as long as an issue personally affects them. How do I know this? Experience. Ancedotal? Sure. Payback for years of having Protestant dogma and bull**** shoved down my throat? Perhaps.
I'm also sure that most Saudi men don't consider themselves to be especially repressive towards women...
You miss my point entirely. The point was that you cannot judge a group of people upon acquaintance with a small minority of that group. As a principle.
I see. Well, as far as I can tell it was mostly people voting with their bible and their ignorance that put our current heinous leader back into office. He has certainly been well supported by the religious right. There is constant Christian-driven state and federal legislation regarding a variety of topics aimed at pushing religion down the throats of anyone and everyone. Gay marriage. Abstinence education. Prayer in schools. Creationism. Abortion.
If this is a small minority then the remaining majority of Christians are being spoken for and are not doing anything about it which is just as bad. I suspect that is not the case, though, since outspoken leaders of a community are put there with the support of the community.
You're one thoughtful Yankee......I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. Thanks!!
Missed this post the first time around. You have a lot of good points but unfortunately, the more radical and outspoken among the Christians are doing so much damage in the name of religion that it damages the very core of your belief system.
I agree with your points, and truly it is not the quiet practicing Christians that I have any beef with whatsoever. There are some wonderful churches that have been a cornerstone of their community. I went to such a church for two years and the pastor was one of the fairest, most knowledgeable people I have ever met and his only goal in life was to spread a message that he found to be inspiring. Whatever my disagreements with some of his values were, they were far overshadowed by his good nature and his refusal to shove his beliefs down the throat of everyone around him. His church contributed every spare dime to the community and to those who needed it. Absolutely the epitome of good Christian values the teachings of Jesus.
When a vocal majority of the group is dragging the group's name through the mud, though, you must either take the name back or find a different name. Clearly the tolerance and reasonable approach that you and many good people demonstrate is not being taught en masse, or there would be an equally vocal group fighting the intolerance and hate. That group isn't being heard.
I am not arguing with Christianity as it would exist in an ideal society or as it exists in pleasant pockets across the country. I am arguing with what is clearly a general application of Christianity in our society. Vocal leaders aren't heard without supporters.
look rosie, there is not a single instance of one of our citizens being put to death by the state for being gay.
just b/c a segment of our culture possesses ignorance & fear, leading to hatred for gays does not equate to forming as a matter of policy absolute subjugation & criminalization of homosexuals. so, no: this is nothing quite like islam.
Yes, excellent point. Aside from the general characterizations you provided earlier (which, admittedly, are no more or less valid than my own general characterizations), your thoughts are very close to mine.
I've said a few times that more could be done, so I agree there- I just think that this is a very difficult proposition. This would not just require a rethinking of strategy, but a cultural shift among moderate and liberal religious groups.
For example, the more liberal denominations are not as active/aggressive when it comes to finding new members (I am thinking of many small and mainline denominations). People in these denominations are generally less comfortable with the idea of religion as something you press onto others and drag into the public square in front of millions. In a certain way, many of these groups would have to violate some of their generally accepted cultural principles in order to speak out on other principles. Simply, some people may have to come dangerously close to becoming what they dislike. Add to that the established channels of communication that conservative denominations have (which liberal ones generally lack for various reasons, some historical, some cultural/philisophical) and the proposition becomes more difficult. I realize you never said it'd be easy, but I just want to be clear on the reasons. I don't chalk it up to laziness or total apathy.
And, as a side note, I don't consider myself a Christian. =
So, you agree that the sentiment is the same, but it's merely the degree that is different?
That's comforting.
no it isn't nearly the same.
that's precisely why the degree is different.
Well, the way it looks to me is that Christians don't have the courage of their convictions. After all, the Bible does say that state execution of homosexuals is A-OK, doesn't it?
I call dibs on flipping the switch on Haggard!
wow BV has saved me from so much posting in this thread...lol...D