# Are Christians responsible for their labels? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 11, 2005, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-christians-responsible-for-their-labels/294000 "2005-03-11T11:23:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2005, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-christians-responsible-for-their-labels/294000/41 "2005-03-12T04:59:20Z")
WTF, **drgnrdr07**? > [@drgnrdr07](#): > > Being quiet about that would be nothing less than passive support for my leaders. Now, if Christians don’t like the labels that they are earning in this country they need to do something about it. All I seem to be reading from Xians on this board is how that is just a minority and it doesn’t represent them or their beliefs. You just said that Christians on this board are openly saying that the bigots and Bible-thumpers don’t represent them. Then you say that all Christians deserve to be lumped with the bigots and Bible-thumpers because they don’t openly say that these people don’t represent them. What the hell are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2005, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-christians-responsible-for-their-labels/294000/42 "2005-03-12T05:38:39Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > It’s a lot easier to just pass the buck or point fingers or say that it’s somebody else’s responsibility or lump all your enemies into one convenient group. It’s hard to accept that we are all surrounded by people who don’t think exactly like us and can’t be so easily simplified and defined. But, tough. That’s the cost of living in a free society. If you don’t support and fight for tolerance for everyone, then you run the risk of ending up in a society that’s intolerant of you. And you’re absolutely right, which is why I may disagree with certain groups and beleifs, but I defend their rights. OTOH, do you honestly think that applies to the dominant religion in this country? Christian is the default setting for belief; it’s the norm; it is the Done Thing. Christians don’t need tolerance because they (I use “they” and not “you” to avoid the obvious misunderstandings) run the country. They are immune from persecution because they own the courts and every branch of government. That’s one of the reasons these threads become so frustrating; not only do they run everything, they slap down dissent as well. If one crticizes any aspect of Christianity, one is labeled a “bigot.” It’s tiring. Hell, one can’t even discuss theology without someone personalizing it–“How can you talk about free will, I’m a Calvinist, you generalizing son of a bitch!” ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2005, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-christians-responsible-for-their-labels/294000/43 "2005-03-12T05:53:18Z")
No, **gobear** , you’ve got it all wrong. The liberals are in power, and Christians are being mercilessly persecuted. They’re in danger of being utterly destroyed, beaten down, and erased from history. God has been purged from the schools. The history books have been revised to hide the fact that the Founding Fathers were evangelical Christians, and that this country’s laws were founded on the Bible. Babies are being murdered every day because teachers aren’t required to force their students to pledge oaths to “one nation under God” every morning. The liberal media prevents the Christian message from being broadcast on radio and TV, or printed in the press. Why, God-fearing judges aren’t even allowed to put up monuments to Biblical law in the lobbies of their courthouses. Meanwhile, activist judges are attacking the Biblical institution of marriage. Wake up, **gobear**. If people like you and me don’t fight for the rights of Christians to impose their religious beliefs on others, especially the young, they’re gonna all die off! Heck, you probably care more about saving some silly animal species than putting Christ back in His rightful place as the Lord of nations. Boy, it’s obvious you’ve really been duped by Satan. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![SolGrundy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbce88/32.png) [@SolGrundy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SolGrundy)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2005, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-christians-responsible-for-their-labels/294000/44 "2005-03-12T07:27:50Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > And you’re absolutely right, which is why I may disagree with certain groups and beleifs, but I defend their rights. OTOH, do you honestly think that applies to the dominant religion in this country? Christian is the default setting for belief; it’s the norm; it is the Done Thing. Christians don’t need tolerance because they (I use “they” and not “you” to avoid the obvious misunderstandings) run the country. They are immune from persecution because they own the courts and every branch of government. That’s one of the reasons these threads become so frustrating; not only do they run everything, they slap down dissent as well. If one crticizes any aspect of Christianity, one is labeled a “bigot.” It’s tiring. Hell, one can’t even discuss theology without someone personalizing it–“How can you talk about free will, I’m a Calvinist, you generalizing son of a bitch!” Yes, I honestly think it applies to _every_ religion or lack thereof in this country, whether it has dozens of members or millions. That’s where it gets difficult. Grouping people only gets you so far before you have to take a step back and really examine what the labels mean. **Miller** said the best thing about tolerance I’ve ever seen written here or just about anywhere, and I’m not just saying that because he’s my boyfriend. He said basically that even if there were only one religion, one race, one sexual orientation, one nation, and one political party, we’d still find something to use as justification for mistreating each other. No matter who you are or what you say, there will always be someone who disagrees with you. Even if one doesn’t accept Christ as the literal Son of God, one would be very hard-pressed to say that He didn’t teach an awful lot of good things – and look what happened to Him. The difficulty is finding how to support that disagreement instead of trying to eliminate it. Never forget that Christianity _started_ as a small sect of oppressed people. The reason you all see it today as the ruling force, the dominant religion (in the west only, remember, not in the world), is only partly because Christ had a lot of good ideas. It’s also because people subverted Christ’s message and used it to gain power. “The Norm” is meaningless. Numbers are meaningless. Market share, and ratings, and seats in office are meaningless. They all change. But right and wrong never change. Taking a message of love and dismissing it, turning it into a message of hate and power, is wrong. It’s wrong when self-proclaimed Christians do it; it’s wrong when anyone else does it. One can’t fight the people who doing wrong by using the same tactics they do – any victory gained that way will be short-lived at best. Christians do need and deserve tolerance, just as every human being needs and deserves tolerance. Christians aren’t immune from persecution; our government is still based on the separation of church and state, and not even any true political party is immune from persecution, else there’d be no debate. We aren’t in a dictatorship; that’s either paranoia or hyperbole talking. If we were truly in a society that didn’t rely on a mandate from the people, then the government wouldn’t even make the token effort it does to hide its actions. We are in a society of individuals. Unfortunately, it’s individuals who tend to be apathetic, or lazy, or fearful, and they attack the most obvious targets instead of staying true to the message. If everyone just took a step back and looked at the basic message and decided _for himself_ to do the right thing, no matter if he were alone or part of the majority, no matter whether he was doing it out of love for his fellow man or fear of Hell or just because it made sense, then he would _become_ part of the majority. Good luck to you. ---
**Author:** ![lel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8797f3/32.png) [@lel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lel)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2005, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-christians-responsible-for-their-labels/294000/45 "2005-03-12T07:44:04Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > If one crticizes any aspect of Christianity, one is labeled a “bigot.” It’s tiring. Hell, one can’t even discuss theology without someone personalizing it–“How can you talk about free will, I’m a Calvinist, you generalizing son of a bitch!” Can you happen to point out where this bigot labeling is coming from so that those Christians who are so inclined not to call others bigots can cease such? Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2005, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-christians-responsible-for-their-labels/294000/46 "2005-03-12T09:47:14Z")
Some denominations, such as United Church of Canada, are not particularly offensive, for they support equal rights for all. Unfortunately, most denominations are opposed to equal rights for all – specifically many American religious right denominations with their hatred for gays, and the Roman Catholic Church with its hatred for gays, opposition to birth control, and second class treatment of women. A non-offensive denomination does not deserve the perjorative label “Christian”, but as long as the label is perjorative, then it behooves such a denomination to make significant efforts to take back the label and change the label’s connotation such that it ceases to be a perjorative. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-christians-responsible-for-their-labels/294000/47 "2005-03-12T15:06:43Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > Yes, I honestly think it applies to _every_ religion or lack thereof in this country, whether it has dozens of members or millions. That’s where it gets difficult. Grouping people only gets you so far before you have to take a step back and really examine what the labels mean. > > **Miller** said the best thing about tolerance I’ve ever seen written here or just about anywhere, and I’m not just saying that because he’s my boyfriend. He said basically that even if there were only one religion, one race, one sexual orientation, one nation, and one political party, we’d still find something to use as justification for mistreating each other. No matter who you are or what you say, there will always be someone who disagrees with you. Even if one doesn’t accept Christ as the literal Son of God, one would be very hard-pressed to say that He didn’t teach an awful lot of good things – and look what happened to Him. > > The difficulty is finding how to support that disagreement instead of trying to eliminate it. Never forget that Christianity _started_ as a small sect of oppressed people. The reason you all see it today as the ruling force, the dominant religion (in the west only, remember, not in the world), is only partly because Christ had a lot of good ideas. It’s also because people subverted Christ’s message and used it to gain power. “The Norm” is meaningless. Numbers are meaningless. Market share, and ratings, and seats in office are meaningless. They all change. But right and wrong never change. Taking a message of love and dismissing it, turning it into a message of hate and power, is wrong. It’s wrong when self-proclaimed Christians do it; it’s wrong when anyone else does it. One can’t fight the people who doing wrong by using the same tactics they do – any victory gained that way will be short-lived at best. > > Christians do need and deserve tolerance, just as every human being needs and deserves tolerance. Christians aren’t immune from persecution; our government is still based on the separation of church and state, and not even any true political party is immune from persecution, else there’d be no debate. We aren’t in a dictatorship; that’s either paranoia or hyperbole talking. If we were truly in a society that didn’t rely on a mandate from the people, then the government wouldn’t even make the token effort it does to hide its actions. We are in a society of individuals. Unfortunately, it’s individuals who tend to be apathetic, or lazy, or fearful, and they attack the most obvious targets instead of staying true to the message. > > If everyone just took a step back and looked at the basic message and decided _for himself_ to do the right thing, no matter if he were alone or part of the majority, no matter whether he was doing it out of love for his fellow man or fear of Hell or just because it made sense, then he would _become_ part of the majority. > > Good luck to you. Beautiful! Thank you, **Sol**! ---
**Author:** ![Kythereia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e8c25b/32.png) [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2005, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-christians-responsible-for-their-labels/294000/48 "2005-03-12T18:49:29Z")
> [@Freejooky](#): > > If things continue down this current path, with affluent, Republican “Christians” and legitimate followers of Christ diverging, I envision a new denomination or even a schism within Christianity as a whole - maybe a new “Protest-ant” movement or something of the sort, in which people like myself organize and officially split off from the corrupt, anti-Christ behemoth that “Christianity” has become. Neo-Protestantism. I like it! Now who gets to nail the 93 theses to the door of a church? _snogs **Sol Grundy** _ ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-christians-responsible-for-their-labels/294000/49 "2005-03-12T18:59:16Z")
> [@SolGrundy](#): > > Christians aren’t immune from persecution; our government is still based on the separation of church and state, and not even any true political party is immune from persecution, else there’d be no debate. By making this a compound sentence, you seem to be suggesting that SOCAS is persecution. Is that what you mean to imply? ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2005, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-christians-responsible-for-their-labels/294000/50 "2005-03-12T19:04:48Z")
> [@Freejooky](#): > > If things continue down this current path, with affluent, Republican “Christians” and legitimate followers of Christ diverging, I envision a new denomination or even a schism within Christianity as a whole - maybe a new “Protest-ant” movement or something of the sort, in which people like myself organize and officially split off from the corrupt, anti-Christ behemoth that “Christianity” has become. It’s been done. Heck, it’s what Jesus tried to do in the first place. He came to Jerusalem when the big issue was the relationship of the Temple to Rome. Surprisingly, that was not his concern. Instead, he said in effect, “Don’t worry about Rome… the Temple is corrupt.” It’s my opinion that this was the sin that lost him all support and paved the way for his cruxifiction. (Not that this was the cause of the cruxificion, which appears to have been come about, ironically, from charges of sedition – but after what he’d been saying about the Temple, there was no one with any power willing to intercede for him.) Buddha tried to do this, and eventually his tradition had to be purified by the Zen movement, which took a similar stance against the entrenched, bloated, codified Buddhism of its day as Buddha had taken against the Hindu establishment of his. When it comes to religion, sucess = failure. Emily Dickinson was right – better to observe the Sabbath by staying home. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-christians-responsible-for-their-labels/294000.md?page=2)