If somebody is willing to think poorly of somebody because they refuse to break the molds others have given them, then that somebody is hardly worth worrying about. If they actually act in a negative manner as a result of their thinking, then it becomes a problem. However, the problem’s heart lies not with the object of derision, but with the derider.
Of course, this touches directly on one of the “problems.” The Religious Right is not simply some loose collection of people who happen to get publicity. They have spent the last 30 years deliberately organizing for the purpose of claiming political power. Those who are not of that vocal minority have not spent any equivalent period attempting to oppose that political power. There is one small faction with very rigid views and a whole constellation of groups in a bewildering variety of beliefs that would drive the good docter Venn to distraction. Among that wide variety of beliefs, the organized faction of the Religious Right can capture enough union sets with other groups (and, in the popular image, the groups themselves) to portray themselves as a majority. Against this, the OP is demanding that the unorganized groups, many of whom have had their messages co-opted by the Religious Right, should instantly band together to insist that their message be recognizedas unique.
That won’t happen, not because no group has ever actually attempted it, but because there is too much nuance required for their distinctions to be displayed on the media with sufficient clarity for the public to understand.
When Catholics oppose the death penalty, there is no effort by the media to show that they are in concert with a large group of mainstream Protestant denominations, but when Catholics oppose abortion, they are lumped in with Fundamentalists who generally endorse the DP while opposing abortion. The only way to change that sort of message would be to spend as much time and energy as the Religious Right in developing multiple media campaigns to get the message out. (And the Religious Right has a 30 year and multi-billion dollar head start.) And in order to present this message, all of the groups in opposition would need to sit down, sort out their positions on the Venn map, and figure out just what message they can agree on while opposing some aspects of the Religious Right with which they disagree but not appearing to contradict the Religious Right on the issues on which they agree.
Something similar happened among the Republicans with their Contract on America. They set out to create a message. They took the message in which they believed and took poll after poll to discover how that message could be framed to reach the largest number of people. Then they wrote up their contract and ran for office. Once they had won, they set out to enforce their contract, but then a funy thing happened. Many of the pieces of legislation they proposed were very popular positions among the electorate. However, several of their proposed laws were not. They had carefully crafted their promises to reach a majority, but in some cases, the laws they wanted to pass were not the laws they had promised to the electorate after tailoring them for popular consumption. In particular, several anti-conservation bills had to be withdrawn after the public, including a large number of Republicans who were not part of the inner circle objected. So a minority was able to drive through a series of changes, but were only brought up short when they expressly went against the collective will of the united majority. So far, the Religious Right has not yet run into the wall against which an absolute majority opposes them. (Do recall, however, the the presidential election was only decided by a few points; they are a sufficiently large minority to sway the ajority, but they do not yet make up a majority, themselves.)
I am not taking a position on how good or bad it is to be lumped together. (For one thing, however the discussion appears on the SDMB, the SDMB is hardly in step with the American public.) I am simply noting that changing public views (which would be different than changing SDMB views, in any case), is not merely a matter of “standing up to be counted.” There are a whole series of factors–time, money, differing positions–that need to be reckoned before any change even can take place.
Look, folks, what more do you want me to do? I have a full-time job which is going to spill over into my weekend, a fellow I’m rather madly in love with and would like to spend some time with and various and sorted day-to-day chores such as laundry and bill-paying which need to get done sometime. That church you’re complaining about me attending does prefer it if I put in an appearance sometimes, and the choir figures if I’m going to sing with them, I’d better turn up at rehearsals. The church I go to has been outspoken in its support of homosexual marriage and Bishop Robinson’s ordination. They’re also actively doing quite a bit of work on the frontlines of ministering to the needy.
As it is, I waste far too much time on this message board denying and defying those who would make my religion into something it’s not. If I get some more free time, there’s an animal shelter I haven’t volunteered at in far too long and, if I find some more somewhere, I’ll probably do something through my church. I’m not mediagenic; the local television station or newspaper’s not going to come knocking on my door. I’m a female, middle-aged computer programmer who’s just trying to do what she can.
You think what I see some of my fellow Christians doing doesn’t infuriate me? Come over to my apartment – I can show you a couple of broken chairs. You think I don’t hate what they’ve done to people in Christ’s name? Remember, I’ve seen the damage first hand.
The thing is, I’m just one, none-too-well-off person. If what I’m doing isn’t enough, I’m sorry. What are you doing to end hunger or poverty? I can see how overwhelming the odds I’m up against are. Should I just lay down and die? Remember, I’ve tried that and it didn’t take. If I quit Christianity because of the evil some Christians do, then that’s one less person fighting to change my faith and people’s impression of it from within.
To those who’d tell me it’s not enough, fuck you! I’m doing all I can. If you don’t like it, that’s your problem, not mine. Meanwhile, I’ve got a database which looks like it’s been attacked by a herd of kittend on catnip to unsnarl.
CJ
Hey, folks, while I haven’t read the thread yet and don’t have anything to say on the OP at the moment, can we all lay off starting Pit threads about attitudes toward christianity for a while? It seems to me like tearing at an open wound.
Its religion, not politics. My personal interpretation of Christianity is that my total responcibility to my relationship with God is that I monitor my actions. I have no right, on any religious grounds, to attempt to derail how anyone else worships. I don’t tell my Wiccan friends they are going to hell, (which would be silly as I don’t believe in hell, and if they are my friends they hold themselves to as good a rule of behavior as I do, so they wouldn’t be in trouble come any fictional Judgement) and its Falwell’s responcibility to monitor his own actions. (I think he’s stupid, but if that’s how he sees his path, he has just as much a right to ignore how I would rather he behave as I have to ignore him)
Then again, it took me a few years to decide to wear a tiny cross because I debated if it was too flashy and pushy about putting my religion in other’s faces.
For someone who is just not evangelical at all - why would I be evangelical to anyone - Christian or no? Why should I change the essence of how I worship my God because some people might think I am something I’m not? People who want to judge me by the actions of an idiot, without discussion and without observing how I act, are really not worth it for me to correct. Just as I should not have to carry around copies of my test scores/qualifications to prove to every random person on the street that I am an intelligent blonde, I don’t see the need to loudly exclaim what a good Christian I am. My actions will do enough to justify both to anyone who cares to look.
Umm, I could show you pictures of rallies like that, right here in Topeka. The problem is, they aren’t as “fun” for the news to cover, so they don’t make it on TV. We have a local hot air ballonist that, for a while, carried and anti-Fred message on his balloon. One church, persecuted by the WBC, made up it’s own signs and for month stood in front of their own church to show real “witnessing.” Just recently I attended two rallies in Topeka, against an ordinance sponsored by the WBC. Lots more people than a Phelps clan showoff, but did the TV come. Noooooo! I could go on.
So, Scott, next time you assume you know something about Topeka(that town they are in), make sure you get your facts straight.
And a loud AMEN to that!
I do my part in every way possible to me with my limited resources. My parish church does likewise, to the extent of getting people like Barbara Harris, Naomi Tutu, and Jack Spong to speak regularly and publicizing it.
I remember commenting sardonically to Peggy, the President of our Urban Mission, and Pam, our Executive Director, that if they wanted to get decent publicity in the daily paper (whose editor/publisher was a strong financial supporter of us, but also with an eye to what sold papers) for what we were doing, the best way was for them to have a pre-staged screaming match catfight about Mission policy at noon in the middle of downtown; that would be news, while helping the hungry, tutoring people to get their G.E.D., running a thrift store, and finding ex-convicts jobs was not. (They didn’t take me up on it, though! ;)) Same thing applies here. Between a celebration recognizing the 25th anniversary of a gay couple who do volunteer work with troubled kids and some pastor calling Spongebob Squarepants a product of the Worldwide Homosexual Atheist Conspiracy, guess which one gets the big press coverage?
<Bolding added.>
What? I consulted with the Uncyclopedia first. Isn’t it a good source of knowledge? 
Careful, Siege, you’re gonna get yourself bumped off “The List”!
Before: I think Christians are fascist sheeple who blindly submit to authority and whose beliefs are equivalent to thinking a magic pink unicorn fairy controls the universe. Oh, except for Polycarp and Seige.
After: I think Christians are fascist sheeple who blindly submit to authority and whose beliefs are equivalent to thinking a magic pink unicorn fairy controls the universe. Oh, except for Polycarp.
I’d also like to hear what am I supposed to do as a Catholic about the voices chosen by certain fundie sects.
I have no right to impose my choice of leadership upon a church that I am not a communicant with. I can criticize, but that’s no less than what I do - and according to those presenting the arguments here, not enough.
I’m trying, as a lay person, to work within my church to show support for several ‘liberal’ ideas, ranging from full ordination for women, to allowing more priests to marry, to changing the position on birth control. I support various activities in my parish, including a charity offering a hand to refugees in our community with furnishings, and other needed items.
Now, one thing that has been done locally, a charismatic priest in a local parish recently fomented a schism. The actual reasons for this are varied, and I can only infer some of them, since I am not a member of the parish, nor of the revisionist church that evolved from it. However, some of the issues involved included things that I support, such as full ordination, and marriage for clergy, and equal rights for homosexuals. Our bishop was forced to make the ultimatum to the priest that he either stop going beyond the limits allowed by the diocese (Which are rather liberal compared to many American diocese, let alone practices on other continents.) or leave. Unfortunately, the priest chose to leave. Part of the fall-out from this has been that our bishop’s prestige and influence within the Church has fallen, which means, as he had supported moving on all these issues, if not as quickly as many would like, that he is now less able to politic for these issues that I support. Change comes slowly to the Church, and schisms make it even slower. So, in addition to having the need to work only in the community of which I’m a member, I am limited by how quickly I can expect change to happen.
As for the political issues - you people do realize that, as a Catholic, many of these fundamentalist CE’s do not accept that I am Christian, right? I vote based on my concience, which is influenced by Church teaching. I do not support, nor do I give support to, organizations that produce the theocratic politicians that are being mentioned here.
And, as has been reiterated again and again, if I call up the local paper, and news people and point out that I’m not represented by the frothing at the mouth idiot they just quoted, they’ll smile, nod, and tell me they know that - but never mention it on the air or in print.
Colibri, do you believe the Pope speaks for the Church? Not for every believer, individually, but for the Catholic Church, Inc., as an institution? If so, when he calls gay marriage part of the Ideology of Evil, is it unfair to say that the Catholic Church does so as well? I understand that individual Catholics and dioceses disagree with him, but they do not convey the same authority as the Pope, do they?
People love the religious right. The American people are delighted to sit and let themselves be identified with mouth foaming hate spewers, and they certainly care more about the accrual of secular power than actually trying to live their lives in conformance with even their own religious standards. School prayer is a perfect example. You have to decide in advance that the government is the best agent to teach your children to worship God. That means your politics are more important to you than your religion, or your children. And that is a very popular position.
Americans love thought control, by the government. The seek it out, and try to create it. Because they believe that they are in the majority and the thoughts being controlled will be some other person’s thoughts. It’s stupid, but it’s real common. People don’t want to be told what to believe; they want someone to tell you what to believe. They just aren’t quite smart enough to realize it won’t work that way.
Politicans are the least principled of all the whores of history. They are willing to do anything, just as long as the purse jingles loudly enough. The coin is power. And you can never underestimate how far someone will go to get it. And the second most unprincipled whore in all creation is the press. “If it’ll sell, that’s what we tell. Truth is what we make it.” The quiet voice, speaking of the message that love is the answer gets ten seconds of airtime, if the speaker gets run over by a tank. The tank gets twenty seconds.
But I can’t stop that. I am not a politician. I am not even a church politician. I don’t belong to a church. The problem here is not Christianity; it’s particularism in a pluralist society with too much money, and too few responsibilities. Plutocracy is always a default state, because the wealthy can afford to buy whatever currently brings power. And in this case, they are selling the message, and getting more money to accrue more power. You can’t fight that with power.
I am responsible for the things I say, and the things I do. In matters of social action, I am responsible to society, and the law. In my heart, I am responsible to the Lord, and must choose if those authorities are out of accord. I have chosen. I pay the price, every day. I hardly notice the price, because it is in a coin I do not value. I am not under the delusion that I could run the world better than it staggers around now. I am a pragmatic anarchist who realized in time that the world would crush me like a bug, if I actually happened to find a way to eliminate government.
So, I try to live as I think Christ would want me to live. I can’t change you. You can change you.
Tris
gobear, I know you were asking Colibri, but I’ll answer, too.
He does. And yes, at the moment, that is the official view of the Catholic Church. That doesn’t mean that I agree, nor that I don’t want to see that change. FWIW, one reason that John Paul II has been refusing to retire is because he’s so afraid of what actions the next pope will take. Change does happen. But not quickly.
And, I don’t mean to offend you, but for harmful Church policies - I’d like to see the Church’s edict against the use of condoms to be changed first. It’s a smaller change, and one that is going to be more easily accepted. Not to say I want to ignore the rights of gays - just where I’d place priorities.
Although I don’t like generalizations about Christians because they are not accurate, I am more concerned about being than about explaining that I’m being.
I won’t fight fire with fire when peaceful waters are my usual nature – with an occasional storm at sea thrown in for good measure.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t take a stand on issues or play an active role.
Maybe the people who are labelling might want to consider either being very, very specific or not labelling altogether. The choice is theirs to make.
Pax
No, Christians aren’t responsible for their labels. The people who feel the need to assign labels are responsible for them.
Christianity is a religion, not a political party. People misappropriate that religion for political gain, they have done so for thousands of years, and they will most likely continue to do so. The religion itself still exists, and it’s still valid, and it’s still pretty straightforward: accept Christ as your savior, and live life according to his teachings. My only responsibility as a Christian is to do my best to live up to that, and spread the word and clear up misconceptions where it’s appropriate. (Or, as it’s called on the SDMB, “whining.”)
My responsibility as an American is to vote against cases of religious belief encroaching into politics, along with any other policy that violates the principles of the country and of equality. And that’s the responsibility of every American, Christian or not.
And those who are so desperate to have a single, simple enemy to target that they insist on assigning labels and telling people who don’t fit into their preconceived notions that their beliefs or meaningless or that they should call themselves something else – they have a responsibility too. Their responsibility is to stop being such fucking jackasses.
Thank you.
Why would that offend me? I agree with you. The ban on condoms affects many, many more people than do the strictures against gays.
And I really liked Sol Grundy’s post-yes, I understood the bit aimed at me–and I agree with him. But don’t tell him that.
Firstly I think all members of a Democratic government do have an extremely important responsibility to oppose their leaders and actively work for new leadership if they don’t like what said leaders are doing. It’s not a great wrong to fail at this responsibility, but it is a fault as a citizen.
As a Catholic my situation is somewhat different. Many of the Protestant churches are somewhat democratic in nature, the Catholic church is not. It is not appropriate for me to call for the removal of the Pope, for example. Now, I am perfectly comfortable denouncing Catholic leaders that have committed crimes, for example the pedophiles that were on the news so much a few years ago.
Doctrinally as a layman I don’t have the authority to openly argue doctrine with Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope et al. That is not my appropriate place. After the Second Vatican Council there is more “openness” in terms of doctrine these days, and exegesis is more permitted. However I would still find it highly inappropriate to write an article in the local newspaper denouncing the particular ideas held by my local parish priest.
I think it is highly unfair to group the Protestants together. They are so extremely fractured, and the belief difference between one sect to the next can be extreme. For example I’d say Quakers, Episcopalians, Methodists et al. don’t see a need to denounce Rev. Falwell or a responsibility to denounce Rev. Falwell anymore than I feel a responsibility to do so. I think Rev. Falwell is a demagogue but he has nothing to do with my religious life, he is not a religious leader to me. It would be like me calling for Paul Martin to step down in Canada. Certainly I have a right to offer up an opinion like that but it isn’t my responsibility as I’m not a Canadian citizen, just as I’m not a Protestant and am especially not a Protestant within the same denomination as Rev. Falwell.
As for the labels that Christians have in this country, no, we are not responsible. People who give those labels are responsible. There is a large segment of the atheist population that hates Christianity, that feels Christianity is nothing but a relic of the past and worse than that a cancer on society. For these people no label they give us is going to be built out of understanding or logic. It is going to be given out of hate, misunderstanding, and outright bigotry of the worst kind.
It is very unfortunate that some Christians hate their fellow man. No one should be hated in such a manner, it goes against all the teachings of Christ. Whatever your denomination may believe in regards to homosexuality the official doctrine of no major Christian group that I’m aware of says, “hate homosexuals.” I do think some leaders try to spread a message of hate, and members of the congregations in those instances have a divine responsibility to not only oppose their leaders’ publicly but to outright eject them from the denomination.
However, a huge percentage of the United States is nominally Christian. It is highly inappropriate and indeed bigoted and narrow minded to take the actions of a few and apply it to a group of 2 billion.
Sorry to disappoint, but that wasn’t directed at you.
That post was in response to the dozens if not hundreds of threads I’ve read on the SDMB over the years. And whether they start from genuine witnessing, or a slander against Christianity, or something as innocuous as a statement of personal faith, they always end the same way, with the basic sentiment from the OP. “Sure, there are Good Ones, like Polycarp, but aren’t you all Christians complicit in the horrible things done in the name of your religion?”
And it’s distressing that people don’t seem to immediately recognize that the answer is no. We are all complicit in the horrible things that people do to each other, whatever basis they use to try and justify it. We’re all equally responsible for making sure that relgious belief doesn’t enter into education or the political or judicial process, just as we’re all equally responsible for making sure that politics and education don’t infringe on people’s personal religious beliefs.
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.
I’m afraid I’m used to some people I know IRL who want, and insist on all changes happening immediately. I have gotten so used to that reaction, I anticipate it from everyone. Which is just as wrong as the tarring of all Christians with the actions of an obstreperous minority.
My apologies.
As soon as some Christians denounce Falwell, another set of people will rush in to say how Christians are fighting each other and they can’t be unified. You’re really damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
In the US anyway, Christianity is quite individualistic, and the train of thought goes that each person is responsible for their own relationship with Jesus, to use the evangelical phrase. So, each one worries about himself and pays no mind to those who claim to speak for large groups with a loud, obnoxious voice.
Among the need for Christianity to be peaceful, the individualistic nature of Christianity, and the tendency of the media to cover the more outlandish statements, I’m not quite sure how Christians would go about denouncing the more outlandish of their group.