Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Terrorized Americans (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Terrorized Americans
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The disconnect may be that I don't just base my conclusion on what they say but what they do. It is undeniable that the left despises Christianity. It is doing anything it can to eliminate Christmas terminology, gets apoplectic that the most minor sign of Christianity would be in a public space and ridicule them for "clinging to their bibles" etc. etc etc. You know this, we all know this. We see it constantly.

But we also see the was the left supports Islam. They worry about a largely nonexistent backslash to the point the attorney general threaten to prosecute negative comments, they refuse over and over again to call Islamic terrorism when it's obvious, they insist it's a great religion of peace.

The difference is incredible. It's obvious and undeniable(although you're obviously trying to).

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Case in point, NASA Was directed by Obama to have, as one of its top three priorities, Muslim outreach to make Muslims "feel good". Could you imagine a similar directive regarding Christianity?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The left despises Christianity" - no, but it does despise establishment of religion, push back against the religious right (duh), etc. Again, you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by certain Christians with hatred of Christianity. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

The Obama/NASA thing is also a good example. You have one guy who says something that is frankly pretty weird (it doesn't make sense), which the White House officially denies with a clarification that does make some sense, and you're pretending the original misstatement is evidence of a liberal love affair with Islam. Even if Obama said that (he didn't, it's laughable), that would be Obama, not "liberals".

Here you are, providing a perfect example of what I was talking about - just running with ridiculous talking points, ignoring contradictory facts, and using the fact that I'm pointing this out to you as evidence for your stupid talking points.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
"The left despises Christianity" - no, but it does despise establishment of religion, push back against the religious right (duh), etc. Again, you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by certain Christians with hatred of Christianity.

I think it would be more accurate if you inverted your statement to read "you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by Christianity with hatred of Christians." In my experience when a liberal has serious problems with Christianity it tends to revolve around historical practices of Christianity and not around specific actions by current Christians. I've heard exchanges dozens of times where when asked what Christianity does wrong the answer comes back as "the crusades! the inquisition! Galileo!" I've never, not one single time ever, heard someone say they disapprove of what some particular 20th century Christian has done and as a result has a problem with Christianity. What's happening is not generalization from individual actions to the religion as a whole - the objection begins with the religion as a whole and bypasses the particulars of what any given Christian or denomination has done for the last 50 years. Most examples I hear about how bad the Church is come from a long time ago, and more often than not in such discussions the issue of denomination doesn't even come up. It's just "Christianity."
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The vast majority of the left in the US, in fact, _are_ Christians and instead make an effort to practice their faith in more positive ways.

I have to tell you that I have trouble believing this. There's probably a difference in demographics in big cities versus smaller towns or rural areas, but overall I don't get the sense that liberals living in big cities are practicing Christians in the vast majority. Cultural Christians, for sure, but you mention practicing their faith and I don't know about that.
What, exactly, are your criteria for "practicing Christians?
quote:


kmbboots, you're right that it's not quite fair to compare how liberals speak about domestic Christians versus Muslims in other countries. However I would suggest to you that the political ramifications of the American partnership with Saudi Arabia make it so that you need to think twice about why the establishment isn't interested in pushing anti-Wahhabist rhetoric. Maybe even think three times about it. What do you think are the odds that certain social media technicians would permit an anti-Saudi trending meme to start on Facebook, for instance, when the government had no intention of jeopardizing their relationship with Saudi Arabia?

Well, sure. But that isn't the left.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
"The left despises Christianity" - no, but it does despise establishment of religion, push back against the religious right (duh), etc. Again, you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by certain Christians with hatred of Christianity.

I think it would be more accurate if you inverted your statement to read "you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by Christianity with hatred of Christians." In my experience when a liberal has serious problems with Christianity it tends to revolve around historical practices of Christianity and not around specific actions by current Christians. I've heard exchanges dozens of times where when asked what Christianity does wrong the answer comes back as "the crusades! the inquisition! Galileo!" I've never, not one single time ever, heard someone say they disapprove of what some particular 20th century Christian has done and as a result has a problem with Christianity. What's happening is not generalization from individual actions to the religion as a whole - the objection begins with the religion as a whole and bypasses the particulars of what any given Christian or denomination has done for the last 50 years. Most examples I hear about how bad the Church is come from a long time ago, and more often than not in such discussions the issue of denomination doesn't even come up. It's just "Christianity."
Either you are surrounded by a very narrow group or you aren't paying attention.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Christianity is used as justification for similar acts in similar countries.
Why don't you go ahead and back that whopper up.
Uganda.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
kmboots are you saying that using the crusades isn't THE most vastly common example for most people arguing the "Christianity is bad too" point?

You might be projecting a bit, because the group that would begin with that example reflexively is hardly a narrow one.

Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I've never, not one single time ever, heard someone say they disapprove of what some particular 20th century Christian has done and as a result has a problem with Christianity."

You all have "heard" me complain about the actions of particular 20th (and 21st) century Christians here. And I am Christian!

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm sure you're right. Anecdotes like these are always good food for thought, but I was responding to Pyr's statement that the vast majority of liberals are practicing Christians. I'm sure many of them are...I'd be skeptical of 'majority' even but it could technically be true...but 'vast majority'? That really sounds wrong to me.
The vast majority of people in the US are Christians. The small segment that aren't, even if you assume that they're 100% liberals, ignoring Libertarians, Objectivists, etc... aren't enough to make up the majority of liberals put together.

There is absolutely a faction of atheists, pagans, and other smal beliefs taht are actively anti-Christian and tend to be more visible in online and intellectual crowds, but they're a distinct minority of the people in the US, and it's more an indication of the circles that you tend to run in than their actual prevalence that makes them seem like they're everywhere.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Armanda Marcotte says it best here:

quote:
It’s time to say it straight: Just because conservatives believe there’s some kind of global battle between Christianity and Islam doesn’t mean that liberals have to agree, much less that they take the “Islam” side of that equation. On the contrary, most liberals see fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam as categorically the same and categorically illiberal in their shared opposition to feminism and modernity...

What liberals object to is the conservative tendency to erase all distinctions between the relatively few Muslims around the world who have violent views and the majority of Muslims who, whether they are conservative or not, do not agree with ISIS or Al Qaeda’s distortion of Islam. Imagine how Christians would feel if liberals blamed Christianity, categorically, for the attack on Planned Parenthood. They would be angry and they would have a right to be. After all, a lot of Christians are liberal and believe abortion is a perfectly acceptable choice. And many others may disapprove of abortion, but they think it should be legal and they generally support Planned Parenthood’s overall reproductive health care mission. There are even some Christians who are anti-choice but disapprove of the heated rhetoric that fueled this attack. Just as it’s important to maintain these distinctions when talking about Christianity, it’s equally important to keep these distinctions in mind when talking about Islam.

There’s nothing in that logic that suggests that liberals have some secret googly-eyes for demagoguing radical Muslim fundamentalists, anymore than we love Pat Robertson. On the contrary, we tend to see them as basically the same kind of misogynist, homophobic authoritarians who hide behind God to get their way. To suggest otherwise is not just dishonest, but irresponsible, since it can hinder the very diplomatic efforts we need to keep people alive.

You should read the whole essay, Rafi. It pretty well spells it out for you.

If you want to see how Liberals feel about Muslims killing gays or other atrocities in Muslim countries, start a thread on it. Personally, I'll be dancing a jig when those ISIS cockroaches finally get their due. (And believe me, their due ain't pretty. [Mad] )

But if you want to use the atrocities of a minority of Muslim to support some jihad against all of Islam, well, we're going to point out that Christianity ain't so squeekly clean using the same criteria. Because Christianity is composed of the same thing as Islam--people, that come in a variety of moral and ethical stances. And religion doesn't change that substantially.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My very narrow group includes exactly zero people who have a negative view of Christianity yet give Islam a pass.

The hypocritical views regarding religious criticism rest exclusively with my religious right (Christian) leaning acquaintances.

The liberal's brand of hypocrisy instead takes the form of anti-religious bigotry wearing the mask of an anti-bigotry crusade.

Then I have more moderate acquaintances who trend more towards disinterest than any particularly enlightened view.

Contrary to the anti-Christian liberal meme, I think the only defense Islam as a religion of peace I've encountered has come from moderate Christians in my group (and never from the liberal anti-Christian crowd). Possibly a view based on, "They came for the Islamists and I said nothing..." theme.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ScottF:
kmboots are you saying that using the crusades isn't THE most vastly common example for most people arguing the "Christianity is bad too" point?

I'd go with kids today, in the US that are being disowned and kicked out of their homes on religious grounds because their parents reject their sexual identity/orientation.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
quote:
Christianity is used as justification for similar acts in similar countries.
Why don't you go ahead and back that whopper up.
Uganda.
And .....
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And...what? Why do I need to provide an "and"?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
"I've never, not one single time ever, heard someone say they disapprove of what some particular 20th century Christian has done and as a result has a problem with Christianity."

You all have "heard" me complain about the actions of particular 20th (and 21st) century Christians here. And I am Christian!

Right, but I'm speaking more of people who have a problem with Christianity in general, which I assume isn't you. Conscientious objection to particular acts or views of Christians is something I've definitely heard from Christians, but rarely from non-Christians, precisely because they are ignorant of details like that. They tend to be
uninterested in learning about particular Christian thinkers or policies other than the broad strokes they hear in the media.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The vast majority of people in the US are Christians. The small segment that aren't, even if you assume that they're 100% liberals, ignoring Libertarians, Objectivists, etc... aren't enough to make up the majority of liberals put together.

There is absolutely a faction of atheists, pagans, and other smal beliefs taht are actively anti-Christian and tend to be more visible in online and intellectual crowds, but they're a distinct minority of the people in the US, and it's more an indication of the circles that you tend to run in than their actual prevalence that makes them seem like they're everywhere.

Ok, but what you said specifically was that the vast majority of liberals are Christians who practice their faith. This can't mean anything other than active faith and a practice that goes along with it. I won't say that categorically must include going to Church, although Christians I know tend to view people who cease going to Church as not being practising during periods where they aren't going. But certainly to be called 'practicing' even casually means at the very least to think of living 'in the name of God' or some such. If you're talking about people who vaguely believe in God and try to live like good people this is not what is meant by any usage of "practicing Christians". As I said before, it's probably true that the vast majority of American liberals are cultural Christians, and maybe even a majority of those would say they believe in God, but saying that the vast majority (80%? 90%) are practicing Christians seem to me almost certainly inaccurate.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
"I've never, not one single time ever, heard someone say they disapprove of what some particular 20th century Christian has done and as a result has a problem with Christianity."

You all have "heard" me complain about the actions of particular 20th (and 21st) century Christians here. And I am Christian!

Right, but I'm speaking more of people who have a problem with Christianity in general, which I assume isn't you. Conscientious objection to particular acts or views of Christians is something I've definitely heard from Christians, but rarely from non-Christians, precisely because they are ignorant of details like that. They tend to be
uninterested in learning about particular Christian thinkers or policies other than the broad strokes they hear in the media.

I have all sorts of problems with Christianity as some people practice and understand it.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know what you mean by "living 'in the name of God' or some such".

http://religion.answers.wikia.com/wiki/What_is_a_practicing_christian

This will give you an idea of what Pyrtolin likely meant and what most people would understand him to have meant.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
"The left despises Christianity" - no, but it does despise establishment of religion, push back against the religious right (duh), etc. Again, you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by certain Christians with hatred of Christianity.

I think it would be more accurate if you inverted your statement to read "you're conflating criticism of specific actions or overreaches by Christianity with hatred of Christians."
Um, no, because Rafi was talking about people he thinks "despise Christianity", not "despise Christians". And I'm not assigning those overreaches to "Christianity", but to certain Christians.

Are you sure you know what I'm trying to say?


quote:
In my experience when a liberal has serious problems with Christianity it tends to revolve around historical practices of Christianity and not around specific actions by current Christians. I've heard exchanges dozens of times where when asked what Christianity does wrong the answer comes back as "the crusades! the inquisition! Galileo!" I've never, not one single time ever, heard someone say they disapprove of what some particular 20th century Christian has done and as a result has a problem with Christianity. What's happening is not generalization from individual actions to the religion as a whole - the objection begins with the religion as a whole and bypasses the particulars of what any given Christian or denomination has done for the last 50 years. Most examples I hear about how bad the Church is come from a long time ago, and more often than not in such discussions the issue of denomination doesn't even come up. It's just "Christianity."
OK, so you're now talking about criticism of (or really, just recognition of) historical atrocities done in the name of Christianity or by Christians. That's a talking point that often comes up when people claim that Islam is more fundamentally violent than Christianity, yes.

But Rafi was making a claim about how liberals view Christianity vs. Islam, and specifically claiming that they "despise Christianity". I don't think awareness and condemnation of historical atrocities equates to current despisement, but I suppose that might not be immediately obvious.

The reason Rafi thinks liberals hate Christianity is that liberals criticize things that Christians have done recently or propose to do now, not because of the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. Today's Christianity is not the Christianity of the middle ages, thank goodness. And he thinks liberals have a blind spot for Islam because liberals respond to anti-Muslim prejudice.

The reasons why these patterns exist are pretty simple, they've been explained (even in this thread), and don't amount to preferring Islam over Christianity. The article WS linked explains it quite well.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ok, but what you said specifically was that the vast majority of liberals are Christians who practice their faith.
No, I said that they practice their faith in more productive ways. Even if that means that they just keep it to themselves and don't go hitting other people over the head with it, which, sad to say, is more productive than many are at the moment.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is surely the most beautiful man I'll see today:

http://www.fox4beaumont.com/community/features/community-news/stories/local-imam-says-he-forced-resign-because-he-agrees-trump-muslim-immigration-1932.shtml

"... "I think any future candidates, presidents who do not support the fact that we need to be more safe and more cautious about whom to bring into this country, whether a Muslim or not," Dr. Alsayyed said. His comments he said had nothing to do with politics, but the former Imam said Trump's comments are in line with the Islamic religion. "The text of the holy Qur'an says the loss of one life is equivalent to killing the whole mankind," he said. His viewpoint, in part, shifting after lingering questions about the backgrounds of the couple responsible for the mass shooting in San Bernardino. "But the way it happens when you see this mass shooting and you see some people coming with such a very peaceful background and all of the sudden the intelligences themselves, the agencies are not able to figure out what's happening, why all of a sudden this guy or this girl or that lady open fire and kill 15 people, because American Muslims are not doing their job in the country. So we need to stop, we need to stop taking new ones until we fix the existing situation," Dr. Alsayyed said. The religious leader said there is a problem with some American Muslims seeing a conflict between following their religious beliefs and their patriotism to the U.S., and an issue differentiating the religious community and its political role. He said the two should not mix..."

One good thing among many about this Muslim and his position is that it means that not everyone who agrees with Trump is necessarily a racist Islamophobe. They can't be. He certainly isn't.


Obviously the sad thing is that he was forced out which means that apparently most Muslims are not willing to admit there is a problem which is of course the necessary first step toward finding a solution.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I refer to history of Christendom in response to particular allegations about the nature of Islam. Especially when Islam is made out to be inherently more violent and less tolerant than Christianity.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
One good thing among many about this Muslim and his position is that it means that not everyone who agrees with Trump is necessarily a racist Islamophobe. They can't be. He certainly isn't.
How does that follow? Not taht it's necessarily true or false, but the're no reason that he can't be biased.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just like black people can't be racist against other blacks. It's like a law or something.

He's no former Muslim apostate after all. He's a Muslim imam. How can he hate Muslims.

He may fear some of them. After all, we are told all the time that the people Muslims kill most are other Muslims. That doesn't make him an Islamophobe though because if he was really that afraid of Islam would he convert out of it?

Oh yeah.. he gets the death fatwa if he does that. I guess you might have a point.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just like black people can't be racist against other blacks. It's like a law or something.
That's totally not how it works.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just like black people can't be racist against other blacks.
They absolutely can be. Their color doesn't prevent them from buying into racial prejudices about themselves and even reinforcing and perpetuating stereotypes and discrimination.

quote:
He's no former Muslim apostate after all. He's a Muslim imam. How can he hate Muslims.
He can be influenced by, but into, and repeat prejudicial statements, even from the inside. Especially since he's in a position of power and authority that will give what he says more credibility among those who hear it.

quote:
That doesn't make him an Islamophobe though because if he was really that afraid of Islam would he convert out of it?
Why would he change his beliefs just because he shares prejudices about other believers of the same thing? That misunderstands the nature of religious belief.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I have all sorts of problems with Christianity as some people practice and understand it.

Right, and the specificity with which you describe these problems isn't present in the kinds of people I'm talking about. They don't even tend to specify which denomination troubles them, but more often reference "Christianity" or sometimes even 'religion' as inherently being a problem.

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I don't know what you mean by "living 'in the name of God' or some such".

http://religion.answers.wikia.com/wiki/What_is_a_practicing_christian

This will give you an idea of what Pyrtolin likely meant and what most people would understand him to have meant.

Hehe, I had just read that page prior to making my previous post [Wink]

I think I was broad enough in my definition when I included not only Church-goers but also people who pray or vaguely assign to their actions or thoughts something to do with 'in the name of God.' I'm pretty sure someone who doesn't consciously think of it as acting in the name of Jesus can't be considered to be a practicing Christian, even though they can be a good cultural Christian.

quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Um, no, because Rafi was talking about people he thinks "despise Christianity", not "despise Christians". And I'm not assigning those overreaches to "Christianity", but to certain Christians.

Are you sure you know what I'm trying to say?

I can't, of course, be sure of what you're trying to say, but I do my best to read it accurately. One thing I will say is that I don't equate how you, personally, evaluate facts with how I see most people I encounter in life doing it. You are far more conscientious in your claims and try to be more rigorous in knowing what you're talking about. This is not anything close to standard if you're taking a cross-section of the average population. I never said these were great scholars who talk like this, although many of them are 'educated', whatever that means.

The reason I tried to separate Christianity from Christians is not because of how I think you separate historical atrocities from modern Christian people, but rather because I see anti-Christian sentiment nowadays that frequently takes the form of impugning the sins of Christendom's past onto acts by modern day Christians. This is the thing which I think is both irrational and also self-serving since it allows someone to endorse their chosen lifestyle by means of negating someone else's.

I hear a lot of talk of 'Christianity is all about guilt' and 'it makes people repressed and messes them up' and such generalizations, but in terms of criticizing specific acts by the Church or prominent Christians you tend to devolve back to pointing at extremes, often historical ones. If it's not the crusades or the Inquisition you'll get comments about the Westboro Baptist Church or crazy evangelicals who mouth off. Quite frankly I think a large proportion of anti-Christian sentiment has strictly to do with views on sexuality, and more specifically with Christian denominations that don't believe in sex before marriage. The prohibition on fornication offends a vast amount of people who want to have their sex and eat it too, and I don't think anything other than literally recanting on this topic could change people's minds away from thinking that the Church is sexually oppressive and hateful.

[ December 11, 2015, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure what's worse, that lack of a sense of humor that makes, "It's like a law or something." NOT an obvious tongue in cheek comment, or that the preceding comment was seen as something cherry may say and mean literally.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I have all sorts of problems with Christianity as some people practice and understand it.

Right, and the specificity with which you describe these problems isn't present in the kinds of people I'm talking about. They don't even tend to specify which denomination troubles them, but more often reference "Christianity" or sometimes even 'religion' as inherently being a problem.
Yes. Goodness knows we wouldn't want people to generalize about our religion.
quote:

The reason I tried to separate Christianity from Christians is not because of how I think you separate historical atrocities from modern Christian people, but rather because I see anti-Christian sentiment nowadays that frequently takes the form of impugning the sins of Christendom's past onto acts by modern day Christians.

I think that this argument comes up when people are trying to paint Christianity as a religion that is always peaceful and benevolent and Islam as always violent and evil.
quote:

I hear a lot of talk of 'Christianity is all about guilt' and 'it makes people repressed and messes them up' and such generalizations, but in terms of criticizing specific acts by the Church or prominent Christians you tend to devolve back to pointing at extremes, often historical ones. If it's not the crusades or the Inquisition you'll get comments about the Westboro Baptist Church or crazy evangelicals who mouth off.
[quote] Who, sadly, have a lot of political power these days. And have a lot of access to media which makes them quite loud.
[quote]Quite frankly I think a large proportion of anti-Christian sentiment has strictly to do with views on sexuality, and more specifically with Christian denominations that don't believe in sex before marriage. The prohibition on fornication offends a vast amount of people who want to have their sex and eat it too, and I don't think anything other than literally recanting on this topic could change people's minds away from thinking that the Church is sexually oppressive and hateful.

You mean that they would have to stop having sexually oppressive and hateful views (like boiling down people who have problems with the sexual views of some religions as just people who "want to have their sex and eat it too" for example) before people will stop thinking of them as sexually oppressive and hateful?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:

The reason I tried to separate Christianity from Christians is not because of how I think you separate historical atrocities from modern Christian people, but rather because I see anti-Christian sentiment nowadays that frequently takes the form of impugning the sins of Christendom's past onto acts by modern day Christians. [/qb]

I think that this argument comes up when people are trying to paint Christianity as a religion that is always peaceful and benevolent and Islam as always violent and evil.
It's true it has come up in this context recently, but there are many discussions non involving Islam where the same point is made. You can find this in debates between atheists and Christians (there are hoards of debates like this), but it also comes up in casual conversation as well. In terms of casual conversation most instances I've heard of comparing Christianity as a whole to specific atrocities don't involve any comparison with Islam but are made a stand-alone arguments that frequently are more anti-religious in general than anything else since Christianity is the biggest game in town in America.

quote:
You mean that they would have to stop having sexually oppressive and hateful views (like boiling down people who have problems with the sexual views of some religions as just people who "want to have their sex and eat it too" for example) before people will stop thinking of them as sexually oppressive and hateful?
You may think I'm referring to hot topics such as people against gay marriage and so forth, which many react to by calling those views hateful. But actually I was referring to basic notion of fornication in and of itself. I suppose you may not subscribe to the existence of such a thing (in other words 'sex is sex' and the presence of marriage or not is irrelevant) but I'm not sure it's reasonable to call the belief in such a thing as fornication being wrong to automatically be hateful and oppressive. I mean, it's entirely reasonable to say belief in those things is incorrect, but like any kind of ascetic belief some self-denial is required, and I don't think that makes it by definition hateful. My point was that some people in America view the entire notion of abstinence as hateful, a la 'you're just making these people sexually repressed.'
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was trying to think of an example of blacks being racist or negrophobic against other blacks and then I remembered Jesse Jackson saying “There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

So I suppose I may have been mistaken. Not the first time. Probably not the last. Unless D.W. is correct about it being somewhat tongue in cheek...

So if Jesse Jackson is racist against blacks and this imam is Islamophobic and racist against Muslims (yeah I know it's not a race but that doesn't stop liberals from saying it amounts to the same thing), then what does that mean when it comes to judging, let's say white people, who may share some of the same sentiments?

It doesn't provide them any cover at all?

Just on a side but related note as far as Islamophobia also being racism, wouldn't that mean that the white person if they were racist would be more accepting of Muslims who happened to be white, like converts? If they hate/fear those white convert Muslims even more than the Arabic and black ones then does that make them less racist or at least maybe more racist against white people than blacks and Arabs? Or does trying to think about this too much just lead to more confusion?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So what you are looking for is "cover" for your racism?
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you're of the opinion that Islamophobia is racism then?

Is that always or just sometimes?

Like what about the Arab ex-Muslims who are under the threat of an active death fatwa for converting from Islam to Christianity?

Are they racists even though they are also Arabs or are they Islamophobes or both?

Just did an internet search on this out of curiosity and this is one of the first things that popped up and caught my attention:

http://formermuslimsunited.org/apostasy-from-islam/

"Ms. Al Imam’s incredible courage was on display in an internet chat room, where she announced that she is not afraid, will stand up for the human rights of apostates and refused to leave her homeland, Egypt. This was immediately followed by attacks and calls for death of the 36 year-old graduate of Al Azhar Islamic University. Egyptian media not only reported the threat but actually participated in the attacks. Ms. Al Imam was literally lured by a TV station ‘Al Mihwar’ with the pretext of inviting her for an interview. Upon arrival to the studio she was told the show she was to appear on was cancelled. She was then taken forcibly to a room where she was held against her will for hours inside the studio. She was assaulted, threatened and insulted by several people. She was able to escape, and went to her internet chat room telling the world what happened and said she will demand protection from the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Such actions are common not only against apostates but also against Arab reformists, journalists, intellectuals and feminists who are critical of the oppression of Sharia. They are often intimidated, threatened or even killed for the slightest independent views using the apostasy card to keep them quiet. Journalist Farag Foda, accused of apostasy for advocating women’s rights, was gunned down in 1991 in front of his home in Cairo."

--------------------------------------

First it's good they have this support group type thing going on.

Second, Ms. Al Imam says she is not afraid so would that mean she's not an Islamophobe? Then is she just a racist? So what's going on there?

I suppose to put the question in a more answerable form, is everyone who disagrees with Islam an Islamophobe and racist?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are talking as if Islam is one thing. It is not - any more than Christianity is one thing. I am a church-going, "practicing" Catholic but I disagree with much of current Catholic doctrine and much of how Christianity is practiced. That hardly makes me a Christian-o-phobe.

Some Muslims are scary; most are not. American Muslims raise more than $100,000 for families of San Bernardino shooting victims

Some Christians are scary Lord's Resistance Army; most are not.

Being afraid of all of either because of the actions of some is racist.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scifi:

That article doesn't seem very accurate to me. The totality of Christian practice and belief isn't really exclusively defined by the Nicene creed--in spite of what certain institutional authorities may claim.
quote:
All Christians believe that Jesus Died on the Cross and was Ressurected on the Third Day (Easter).
This kind of statement simply isn't true. There are plenty of people who consider themselves Christian who don't believe in the resurrection.

This is from the Wikipedia entry on Reverend John Shelby Spong, of the Unity Church (which considers itself Christian, regardless of its non-compliance with Nicea):
quote:
A prominent theme in Spong's writing is that the popular and literal interpretations of Christian scripture are not sustainable and do not speak honestly to the situation of modern Christian communities. He believes in a more nuanced approach to scripture, informed by scholarship and compassion, which can be consistent with both Christian tradition and contemporary understandings of the universe. He believes that theism has lost credibility as a valid conception of God's nature. He states that he is a Christian because he believes that Jesus Christ fully expressed the presence of a God of compassion and selfless love and that this is the meaning of the early Christian proclamation, "Jesus is Lord" (Spong, 1994 and Spong, 1991). Elaborating on this last idea he affirms that Jesus was adopted by God as his son, (Born of a Woman 1992), and he says that this would be the way God was fully incarnated in Jesus Christ.[1] He rejects the historical truth claims of some Christian doctrines, such as the Virgin Birth (Spong, 1992) and the bodily resurrection of Jesus (Spong, 1994). In 2000, Spong was a critic of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church's declaration Dominus Iesus, because it reaffirmed the Catholic doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church and, perhaps even more importantly, that Jesus Christ is the one and only savior for humanity.[8]
(This isn't to imply concord with Fenring's construction of Christian practice, obviously. Neither Fenring's notion of Christian practice, nor his observations regarding the criticism of Christianity seem accurate to me...)

[ December 11, 2015, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You don't think that to practice Christianity requires one of either going to Church, believing in Christ, or thinking of one's actions as having supernatural consequences?

[ December 11, 2015, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it requires going to church. I think it certainly implies believing in Christ, but I don't think it requires believing in the literal veracity of all elements of a specific narrative of Christ (eg Christ was resurrected on the Third Day). I think it does necessarily imply knowingly trying to follow the teachings of Christ, but I think that there is room for disagreement about exactly what those are (ie I don't think one has to accept the canonicity of the New Testament in order to be Christian).

edited to respond to edit of third criterion:

I don't believe that a belief in the supernatural is necessary.

[ December 11, 2015, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That sounds more like a Christian philosophy or mindset than a religion.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps it does, based on your conception of the meaning of the term "religion." But following the same logic, we might claim that a substantial subset of Buddhism sounds more like a philosophy or a mindset than a religion.

Do note that I already cited the teachings of a prominent leader of a self-defined "Christian sect" in support of my view...

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SP, I agree with you that defining exactly which dogmas should be counted as 'Christian' should not be required in assessing whether someone is a practicing Christian or not. In a sense the term can be casual and still mean something, since a given person will likely know whether he/she is actively pursuing the faith or not. That being said I think the criteria I offered are extremely liberal on this score and don't require any denominational categorization for them to be true. I don't see how someone can be a Christian if they don't accept Christ as God, for instance. Like JoshCrow said, that would be a regular old thinker who believes that Christ was a wise man, but that's not a Christian. The Muslims believe that Christ was even a prophet and a wise one at that, but they're obviously not Christians purely on the basis of admiring his teachings.

I think there are many cultural Christians who believe in God to varying degrees, some more as agnostics and some who definitely believe in a deity, but it's another thing altogether to believe specifically in Christ as God, since that carries with it all sorts of specificities that go beyond merely recognizing the existence of the divine. It gets into eschatology, relationship with God, salvation, and all that. I wouldn't really be surprised to learn that the vast majority of American liberals believe in God in some sense, but I sincerely doubt the vast majority of them accept Christ as their savior. This is perhaps even more basic than the standard of whether they go to Church, although the Catholics do have a term for people who believe in Christ but have stopped praying and going to Church - lapsed Catholic. It just means they've put their faith on hold for a time, not that they aren't Christians. But in Roman Catholic parlance I think 'lapsed Catholic' is roughly synonymous with a non-practicing Christian. Maybe kmbboots can explain how American Catholics describe this sort of thing (my knowledge of Catholicism is almost exclusively about Roman Catholicism, as I'm sad to say I haven't had a chance to read the books kmbboots recommended to me a while back [but I will eventually]).

[ December 12, 2015, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1