Driving into work this morning, I was listening to NPR coverage of Pope Frances’ visit to DC. NPR had a number of reporters, chiming in about various aspects of the Popes visit. They also did a few “man on the street” type of segments where they interviewed people who had camped out to get a good spot to view the Papal motorcade.
No less than two of these people being interviewed mentioned “Christan Values under attack” with both referencing somehow that this was a “happening now” or immediate thing. Both were well spoken reasonable people, or so they seemed. I would not have pegged them as bat-shit crazy religious extremists.
But, why the emphasis on “under attack”?? What exactly is under attack? Do Catholics in general feel this way, or do Christians in general feel this way?
Full disclosure, I’m an atheist. I know that my lack of religion puts me in a huge minority in the US. And I am, at worst, “bothered”, by some of the ways in which Christianity seeps into the fibers of our country. No openly atheistic man or woman is going to occupy the White House any time soon. Every dollar I spend has a religious motto emblazoned on it. The state I live in gives you the option of a license plate with “in god we trust” featured on it. But I don’t feel like I am being “attacked” by anyone.
So, when US Christians say they are under attack, what do they mean?
Mostly that they can’t publicly hate gay people and that Walmart greeters don’t say Merry Christmas anymore. Basically that their viewpoints don’t dominate American society to the extent they used to.
As someone who considers himself a Christian, it’s my belief that “Christian values” have been under attack since sin entered the world. They’re no more under attack at this time than they were 20 or 200 or 2000 years ago. And they’re no more under attack here than they have been anywhere else on earth.
We live in a busted up world where shit happens every day and has happened every day for thousands upon thousands upon thousands upon thousands upon thousands…yada yada yada… of years.
So I imagine there are Christians out there who feel uniquely victimized. I am not one of those Christians, and there are plenty more like me. We just don’t make the news.
ETA: To answer your question: Life isn’t how they want it to be, so they feel victimized by it. And it’s the fault of everyone who isn’t like them (Democrats, protestants, Catholics, Muslims, athiests, college graduates, brown people, etc).
Other religions are getting to exercise their rights, just like Christians do, and that’s wrong, because American Jesus is the Way and the Light and they don’t want no furriners coming in and sayin’ heathen prayers in Islamic or something.
The headline on the News Nerd was almost too good to be true: “American Psychological Association to Classify Belief in God As a Mental Illness.” A study, the story beneath it read, had led the APA to conclude that “a strong and passionate belief in a deity or higher power, to the point where it impairs one’s ability to make conscientious decisions about common sense matters, will now be classified as a mental illness.” Faith’s recurrent lethality was adduced: “Every year thousands of people die after refusing life-saving treatment on religious grounds.” Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, said the article, refuse lifesaving transfusions (on account of biblical prohibitions against the drinking of blood).
Most gratifyingly, for a rationalist, the author quoted a certain Dr. Lillian Andrews, who opined that, “Religious belief and the angry God phenomenon has caused chaos, destruction, death, and wars for centuries. The time for evolving into a modern society and classifying these archaic beliefs as a mental disorder has been long overdue.”
Finally, I thought, the educated elite is beginning to awaken to the threat that accepting, without evidence, the truth of comprehensive propositions about our cosmos (that is, religion, in all its inglorious permutations), poses to the mental health of our society!
A “strong and passionate belief” in a (nonexistent) God does our world immeasurable harm: look no further than ISIS or al-Qaida. In fact, look no further than the damage religion causes to progressive causes of every sort (and thus to our psychological well-being) in the United States, from women’s reproductive rights to same-sex marriage to teaching science in schools to depriving federal coffers of $82.5 billion a year (in tax exemptions). Consider the enrichment of all sorts of faith-charlatans who thrive off the gullibility of millions of Americans. Recall the sick “purity movements” that allow meddlesome parents to ruin the lives of their daughters.
I could go on. In any case, it was to be expected that sooner or later psychologists would catch on to the quasi-psychotic elements (including detachment from reality, belief in spirits, hearing “the voice of the Lord, and so on) inherent in religion.
But no! I was wrong! The fine-print disclaimer at the foot of the News Nerd’s page ruthlessly dispelled my elation: The story, like the others the site publishes, was “for entertainment purposes only,” and “purely satirical.” In other words, a spoof. The hour was not nigh; psychologists were not yet ready to diagnose firm belief in God as what it is: an unhealthy delusion. Men in white jumpsuits won’t be forcing the faithful into straightjackets any time soon. Yet would that it were so!
Or perhaps it’s attempts to have the government attack Christians:
No. I am not arguing that it’s entirely confirmation bias at work. In fact, if you actually read my first post, you’ll see what I’m arguing. You will note, among other things, that I made no mention of “confirmation bias”. Therefore it will become obvious to you that I’m not saying anything about confirmation bias.
Those stories, to me, fall short of an attack on christian values. Actually your first two links do nothing except show that Christians get outraged when they have to follow the same laws as everyone else.
The third link is still not an attack, but it is problematic. I can see Christians saying here is someone being singled out because they are religious. But those same people would be singing a different tune if the “religious adviser” happened to be Muslim. Attack away would be the order of the day. So, to me, there should be no “spiritual adviser” role in a publicly funded state university. I’m not attacking Christians by saying that, am I? Christians are all for “prayer in school”, as long as it’s THEIR prayer.
4th link. It’s really simple. Get religion out of public schools. Its separation of church and state, pure and simple. From the judges ruling in your linked story:
Is separation of church and state an attack on Christians? Cause that’s all this is.
Just because the people breaking the law happen to be Christians doesn’t mean Christianity is under attack.
Organization that promotes a religion-free society sends a letter asking a college to get rid of their religious chaplain? Stop the presses! Or, wait, don’t. What’s the problem here?
A public school is fined for giving time to a specific religion? Somehow I think many of these “persecuted” Christians would be thanking God for laws that restrict Muslims from passing out Qurans on public school grounds or opening up a school event with an Islamic prayer. But these laws aren’t just in place for non-Christians. They’re in place for everyone.
Some Christians have been claiming that “the separation of Church & State” is, in fact, an attack on Christianity for years now. They will also claim that Christian school prayers should be permitted because they’re just ceremonial, not religious, and also that excluding prayers from other religions should be acceptable because America is Christian country.
Mind you, not all Christians see things that way, but it’s hardly new territory.
In the OP you asked why two people interviewed fell that Christian values were under attack". If some Christians believe that they have a religious duty to assist the homeless, and if the government threatens fines or arrests for people who help the homeless, then it makes sense that those people would feel their values are under attack. You may decide that it’s not an attack “to me”, but not everyone on this planet agrees with your interpretation of everything.
How do you know that?
It sure seems to me like you are. Currently almost all universities take public funds, and a great many have chaplains and other religious positions, which are held by practitioners of many religions. These chaplains and ministers service the religious needs of students and the entire university community. If you say “there should be no ‘spiritual adviser’ role in a publicly funded state university”, you’re basically saying that all these people should be fired, and no one on campus should meet the religious needs of students and the entire university. How could that not be interpreted as an attack on all religious believers including Christians.
That’s just part of it. I think it’s mainly that we used to allow much more influence of religion in public life back in the day, such as prayer in schools not that long ago, and now we interpret the 1st amendment more strictly than we used to. Of course, it was always the Christian religion that was allowed to seep into the public sphere, so it’s obvious that it’s going to that religion that is “under attack”.
Many of us argue that this is a good thing, but some see it as a bad thing. They think the country was a “Christian country” before, where Christianity had a special place, and now it’s turning more secular (as well as acknowledging other religions as silenus notes).
It also doesn’t help that many in the Republican party pander to this attitude and that it’s all over Right Wing Talk Radio.
Some Christians feel that abortions and same-sex marriages are violations of Christian belief. So the fact that the government is legalizing these things feels like an attack on Christianity to them.
The counter-argument is that nobody, Christian or otherwise, is required to have an abortion or a same-sex marriage. So anyone who believes these things are wrong can simply choose to not do them.
I don’t support the argument that people being allowed to make decisions I disagree with is an attack against me. But some people feel otherwise.
It’s hard not to feel “under attack” or “victimized” when your wold-view fallacy becomes more obvious to each succeeding generation. That seed of doubt you’ve been lied to all along by people you trust must be painful.
Silly you, I never said others should believe what I believe. But I do think we should all agree that no one is exempt from obeying the law. Set up their feeding events inside their church, not in a public space where it is prohibited.
Because Auburn is in fucking Alabama.
I know we give the need for a chaplain or the like a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” on campus, in government, and in other public institutions. But seriously,
?? WTF?
First off, meet whatever religious needs the students have by having churches in the community. They don’t have to be on campus. Secondly, why does “the university” even have a religious need at all? A university is an institution of higher learning, “it” has no religious belief that needs serving.
The first article is based on a piece of satire. You know that, I assume, since the Salon guy said so in the piece you were quoting. The APA is not going to label religious belief a disorder. In fact, I would assume that a fair number of APA members have religious beliefs. So the only thing you’ve got here is some troll on Salon doesn’t like religion. (Not Christianity, religion in general.) So what? (Also, as an aside, I find my Facebook experience much improved since I blocked any articles from Salon from appearing on it.)
2 and 3 involve people being arrested for civilly disobeying laws against feeding the homeless. These are wonderful people and I admire their civil disobedience in the face of these horrible laws. However, they are being prosecuted for disobeying the laws, not for merely being Christian. Jews, Muslims and Atheists would also be arrested for the same acts. I would be willing to bet a fair amount of money that many of those who passed these anti-homeless laws show up faithfully for Church every Sunday.
4 and 5 involve lawsuits against government imposition of religion. They are not attacking Christianity, they are defending people who don’t want to participate in a religious ritual they might not agree with. Both plaintiffs openly state that they are fine with football players and legislators meeting for prayer on their own. Nowhere is there an attack on Christianity or on Christian values.
What’s your point? If a law outlaws an activity that many Christians view as a religious duty, then it’s perfectly reasonable to view that law as an attack on Christianity. If that same activity is viewed by many Muslims as a religious duty, it would also be reasonable to view the same law as an attack on Muslims.
Suppose that there were a law which made it illegal or prohibitively difficult to follow the kosher laws while making food. This law would apply equally to all people, yet the law could reasonably be described as an attack against Jews, could it not? Any law that prevents many Jews from practicing their religion could reasonably be described as an attack against Jews, regardless of the fact that it applies equally to all people.