Let’s say you are, say, a catholic. I would not hold you responsable for the **past **deeds of your group. I would try to get you to say, “My group has done a horrible number of things over the years, so many that it should be discredited.”, but you are not responsable for it’s past deeds. Not something you are likely to do, but that’s the way I feel.
However, if the group does something horrible in the future, you are responsable, since you have swelled the ranks of the group, loaned it your support, etc. I am also free to judge you because you have joined a group and are likely to be sympatheti to the goals of the group, which I believe are eeevilllll!
With any group, one has to ask - is it just a few bad apples or is the whole bushel screwed up? A classic example would be fraternities. All ritual BS and posteuring aside, a fraternity is simply a group of guys who decide live together and identify themselves as belong to the same social network. Like any group, it is the sum of the individuals. If one or a few of those individuals goes out and acts like an asshole while wearing his fraternity letters, it reflects on everyone who wears those letters. As a practical matter, most people are not going to call someone on every mistep. However if frequent asshole behavior is condoned or even encouraged, it is up to the individuals to decide if they want to be a part of the organization. If an organization gets reputation for being a bunch of assholes, basically the burden falls on you to explain why you would want to be identified with such a group.
So I guess the answer is “depends on the group and the action being judged”.
Agreed. But I’m talking about general association; not implicit guilt for bad deeds. You cannot think “christian” without at least considering that those who call themselves christians are more likely than not anti-gay.
Oh yes, I can! What you’re basing that presumption on is an observation, at a distance, regarding who speaks out on issues. It’s possible you’re right, but I’d need to see numbers regarding statistically valid surveys of all calling themselves Christian and what their attitudes towards gay people are.
In terms of general association, yes, you’re no doubt complicit in the principal goals and objectives of groups with which you choose to affiliate. But notice the series of disclaimers I suggested: if I support economic development benefitting the poor, but not the draining of wetlands, and join a group whose principal goal is to create new economic development initiatives benefitting the poor, which happens as item #38 on its list of 50 strategies to suggest easing of the wetlands laws to permit drainage of some wetlands to convert them into cropland, it cannot in fairness be said that I’m unprincipled in retaining my membership in that organization; that’s a minor and secondary strategy on their agenda, with which I happen to disagree.
Here I would disagree with you. The individual is 100% responsible for identifying with the group in the first place. The extent which one can effect the rest of the group would only be relevant, IMO, to the extent that they would change the group from within. If you don’t like the brand name, don’t wear the shirt.
I agree. Obviously every group is going to have some nutjobs. I don’t think the Catholic Church (any of them), to pick an example, have a name associated with molester-priests. Obviously this point is where the wiggling occurs. We can’t base our adoption of a label based on exceptions to the rule, and neither can we judge the merit of the label based on a few people who insist on only seeing the worst in a group. The public perception of a group is a social affair; there’s no bright-line test, IMO. Perhaps I would come across some folks who thought Catholics were supporting molestation because of the actions of a few, but in this case we can still feel comfortable in the name because the general perception of Catholicism, I dare say, is not one of molester-priests: they, and the people who find their minor existence overwhelming, are the exception.
I think this would speak of a person’s membership rather than their identification.
Hmm. The danger of this path is over-specialization. Presumably when one identifies oneself with a member of group, one does so because one wishes to say something about oneself. An eye too keen on recognizing groups-within-groups risks making the label quite meaningless. For example, I consider myself a fan of metaphysical idealism. That’s a broad label: it could mean a lot of things. But I must be prepared to accept that a not insignificant portion of people might accuse me of suggesting that reality is dependent on the mind because that is one particular facet of idealism. If I do not wish to accept this, then I think the proper thing to do is not identify myself with idealism at all and choose a more appropriate term.
If he wishes to avoid association, there is something Bricker could do. Don’t associate. He has absolute control over that, don’t you think?
But I don’t think anyone here really suggests that’s the case. True, I don’t believe anyone can deny that we could find persons who would make such an equivocation, but I think they are as much of the exception as Jerry Falwell is. Take Phelps as an example. How many people think Phelps represents Christianity? Probably a quantity roughly proportionate to the number of Christians which identify with him. The exceptions abound. And so long as a great number of Christians rally against bigotry, the exceptions will gain no foothold in the faith or in those that would use such people to characterize it.
But if a Christian takes no responsibility for the label, she should not be surprised should she one day find herself associated with those she had rallied against. It was her label, her ideals to defend, and if she finds it taken away from her against her efforts to the contrary (like your #1) then she should find another means of identifying herself. The meaning imparted by a label is not created or assigned by her.
No.
There is way in hell do I do this, and I really doubt that Kalhoun does either. You seem to be assuming that people believe all christian are homophobes because of a few outspoken individuals who are both homophobes and christians. That is not the case. My belief that christians are homophobes is that they hold up a book as being “the good book”. That book contains the following:
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Romans 1:26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.
Blah, blah, blah, misinterpreted. Blah, not written by god, but inspired by him. Blah.
Should read:
But if a Christian takes no responsibility for the label, she should not be surprised should she one day find herself associated with those she had failed to rally against.
I’m not basing it solely on the guy who stands on the soap box preaching his brand of anti-gay christianity. I base it on personal conversations I’ve had with many, many christians over my nearly 50 years. But you’re right. Stats, if they could be believed, would be beneficial in this argument.
All I’m saying is that you shouldn’t be surprised when people associate you with the loudest, most in-your-face christians who spew hate. That is the picture of christianity in America today. Accurate or not, that voice is louder than the kind voice of christianity you and yours embrace. Of course you are judged individually in a one-on-one situation. But under that broad, nondescript umbrella, you will be lumped in with the flavor du jour, so to speak.
“Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong.”
Lincoln got it right. For instance, the KKK exists to promote bigotry. That’s it’s raison d’etre, and if Joe Inbred tells me he belongs to the KKK, I assume he’s a bigot, because I can’t imagine why else he joined it. OTOH, if Poly believes Jesus Christ is the son of God who died for our sins, what’s he supposed to call himself? Buddhist? Should he avoid labels entirely, and state in detail what he believes? That would be more accurate, but accuracy isn’t everything. If someone asks me why I don’t have a Christmas tree, it’s a lot easier to say, “I’m Jewish” than to give a detailed theological lecture, and if I did the latter they’d probably think I was kind of nutty.
I think there’s a subtle error in your logic, Scott, but I’m not sure where.
I’m seeing that same rhetorical trick that I decried in my thread being used here. People are defending Christianity on grounds that all its members have in common, really, is their belief in its core precepts: That Jesus Christ died for their sins, etc. These people then maintain that you can’t criticize Christians as a whole because all they really have in common is those core precepts – which is true even if some subgroup that’s loud and offensive is reallyu leading Christians as a whole. As is usual with large organizations, the core precepts are so vague and inoffensive. So you can’t criticize Christians as a whole for anything, ever, even if you have good evidence that as a group they’re leading your society straight to, well … hell.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy this notion. There is no way you can gussy it up and have it make sense, because it doesn’t.
Yes. Elaboration: about 5,000 posts of mine in six years worth of threads here, quite available to you via the search function. Please forgive me if I don’t waste my online time explaining it yet again.
You aren’t listening. I said:
“I should assume that christians believe the teaching of a book they venerate, until I am told otherwise, individual by individual.”
It is quite clear you do not believe in every jot and tittle of the bible. However, until I find otherwise, I am free to assume that every christian I meet is a horrible person, due to the fact they hold to a book of philosophy with some quite harmful contents. You have proven that you are not a horrible person, so it’s on to the next christian.
Congratulations. You have just come onto a Web site dedicated to fighting ignorance and espoused a world view based on assumptions, prejudice and stereotyping.
This is an interesting thread, and I am not sure how I feel about this just yet. As I have discussed in other freemason threads, I have joined freemasonry, and for the most part, I am not so against being held accountable for the organization’s actions. The thing I resent being held accountable for are the PERCEIVED misdeeds of the organization.
You are welcome. :rolleyes: However, that still doesn’t answer my question. I am not prejudiced towards black people, irish people, or gay people. However, none of those groups have a book explaining the postitions they need to hold to be a member of that group. Christians do. Now, a good answer would be “It’s not nice to judge others, regardless of what books that advocate the postion of some but not all of their beliefs.” However, I am hoping someone can come up with a better one.
The Bible is large and inconsistent book that can be interpreted many different ways. There are passages that say you should love everyone, but it isn’t safe to assume that all Christians do that either.
