I think it’s a loaded phrasing. I spend more time pushing back against Christianity because it affects my life more. It’s not a double standard if there’s a specific reason for it.
If I run out of my house because it’s on fire, we don’t call that a “double standard” because Why don’t I always run out of my house?
So, No True Scotsman Christian?
True, but perceived reputation, even if it isn’t accurate or earned, is very powerful.
Especially when it is the default: I.e. stereotypes.
It seems odd to me, but this thread has made me think that the perception of persecution is a feature of some? most? Christianity. Not every joke, derogatory, comment, or factual observation is persecution, but it seems to be perceived that way. I really don’t think the Christ I believed in back in the day or the character/person portrayed in the Bible felt one key to the faith was excessive thin skin.
I think it’s beyond ridiculous for Christians to clutch their pearls about this stuff. They have no worries. No one is thinking about banning flights from Christian countries, accusing Christian politicians of wanting to institute Christian laws (though many are), or pumping the airwaves with how dangerous and radical they are. Even better and more to where this thread has wandered, accused them enmass of being theological murderers. It’s really been an eyeopener in tacit and not so tacit bigotry. But you know those poor Christians in the US are so put up on.
Yes, even though a lot of the really scary laws proposed these days are proposed by Christians for Christian reasons, a Christian politician is asked his views, and isn’t presumed to be “pushing a Christian agenda” just because he identified as Christian and attends a Christian Church.
In the US, “pushing a Christian agenda” is seen as a positive for many, to the point that it features heavily in many, many politician’s campaigns and public personae. Substitute any other religion (or indeed - or especially - atheism) in that phrase and pearls will be heavily clutched.
Say - weren’t we talking about double standards that people think are good?
Bingo
What on Earth? Is it Muslim-bashing to say that Al Qaeda is a Muslim terrorist group? Of course not! It’s a simple fact. And it’s a simple fact that the Klan is a Christian terrorist group.
What IS Islamophobic is people who imply that Al Qaeda’s murderous nuttery is an indictment of the ~2 billion Muslims who aren’t Al Qaeda. What IS Christianophobic is implying that the Klan’s murderous nuttery is an indictment of the ~2.4 billion Christans who aren’t Klan.
But there are terrible murderous nutjobs in any sufficiently large group, and terrible murderous nutjobs have a millennia-long tradition of twisting religions and ideologies to justify their murders.
This thread specifically has Islamophobic posts (“Make fun of Islam and you risk assassination!”) but I haven’t seen any specifically Christianophobic posts saying anything similar.
Perceived reputation that’s inaccurate and unearned is a fancy way to say “bigotry.” And I agree: bigotry is very powerful.
There’s a certain dishonesty - and I won’t call out posters by name, since this isn’t the Pit - but in the same way that some will claim that the actions of some define the rest of the members of a group, there will also be some who claim that there is no difference in amount of behaviors from a group. It’s like the gender debate, just because men and women are both capable of violence, doesn’t mean the amount of violence from the two is the same, nor does it mean both are to be equally feared.
So what you’re saying here is it’s ok to be extra afraid of Mulims because they are Muslims, and Muslims by and large are violent and evil. And that makes it fine to make laws, commercials, and derogatory comments against them. However, any criticism of Christianity is tarring all with the same brush, is a real problem in the western culture, and Christians are being persecuted.
Now I hope that isn’t what you’re saying but that is how that reads to me.
This is somewhat astonishing. Change the word “dishonesty” to “inconsistency,” and then quote the posts that are doing this.
I don’t know anyone who’s been inconsistent in this fashion, but @jasmine’s posts, for example, seem to indict Islam in general for the actions of a vanishingly small number of adherents.
So if I point out that right-wing Christians are by far the largest perpetrators of domestic terrorism in the US, what should we conclude from that?
There’s also a certain dishonesty in the way some - and I won’t call out posters by name since this isn’t the Pit - indicate that the vast double standard that favors Christians in America should be handwaved away as the status quo but any reactions to that double standard are themselves a double standard that should be condemned - again, without acknowledging the first double standard in the first place.
And that this position is not in itself also a double standard.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. Most Christians and Muslims are nonviolent, statistically, but there is still a difference in intimidation level in terms of events of retaliation. What was the Christian equivalent of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, Samuel Paty beheading, Jyllands-Posten retaliation attack on European embassies causing many deaths, Innocence of Muslims video protest attack that led to many deaths, Lars Vilks cartoon attacks, anti-Quran-burning protest attacks that killed many, Terry Jones Quran burning that led to deaths, Theo van Gogh stabbing?
Can there be any doubt that burning a Quran in London or Paris would be likelier to lead to violence than burning a Bible?
Agreed. The figure I’ve seen is over 2 billion Muslims. If even 1% of them were terrorists, we’d have 20,000,000 terrorists running amok. I also saw this: Muslim Terrorism and Big Media Coverage
Out of 136 terror attacks in the U.S. over a span of 10 years the authors studied, Muslims committed on average 12.5 percent of the attacks, yet received more than half of the news coverage.
This study doesn’t surprise me at all, though I can’t personally vouch for the quality of it. My theory is that, once they took down the twin towers, they achieved permanent rock star status in the media as well as in the eyes of many Americans.
I just can’t write off an entire religion for the acts of a very few. I find little difference between Christianity or Islam when it come to a history of violence. Christiaity has had it’s time of violence. It comes and goes like the tide. I suppose for the most part the violent tide has abated some (there is the possibility they will turn to violence once more see pete hegseth and his ilk with power) for Christianity as far as physical violence goes. However their propensity for verbal, political machination, and emmotional violence is pretty strong. Islam is also a younger religion, perhaps they need to go through the same growing pains Christianity went through before they make their violence more mental than physical.
So are ya’ll suggesting that it’s alright to persecute non-Christians 'cause some of them are violent?
Not persecute, but at least, hold to the same standard. If we have no hesitation in calling out Christianity for something, we should have no hesitation about doing so for any other religion too.
Also, there is an incredibly powerful itch/urge in the minds of many progressives to counterbalance, for lack of a better term. This urge sometimes shows up in the form of, “the authorities haven’t released the identity of the attacker yet but I really hope it’s a white Christian instead of an Arab Muslim” or comments of that sort.
There’s no apples-to-apples comparison between Islamic violence and Christian violence; but there may be an apples-to-pumpkins comparison. If you want to see killings motivated by Christian religious fervor, start with the Iran War, under the leadership of Pete Hegseth.
Ask yourself which would make you feel more worried that religious fanatics will successful order your death: being a Koran-burner in the United States, or being an oil worker in Iran?
We tend to dismiss the latter, because we Dopers aren’t the affected groups. But Christian nationalists and other extremist Christian groups cause tremendous bloodshed around the world.
As I say, it’s a shift from the original topic. If the topic was: are people hesitant to criticize Islam?, I’d give a qualified “yes” – in some parts of the world. (And the same is true of Hinduism, Christianity etc, though I could concede that Islam is a bigger problem in more places). That’s not the same thing as claiming unfair treatment against Christians specifically.
Especially given the outsize influence of Christianity in countries like the US. We shouldn’t expect equal quantity of criticism and it’s not a big issue if Islam is somehow getting a pass (I don’t think it is, not in America).
Hmmm, I have no problem holding anyone accountable for violence they have perpetrated. What I have a problem with in this thread is the absolute certainty that Muslims are inherently violent and should be feared enmass. I often wish when there has been political violence that it turns out to be someone of the in group. Any time it’s someone of the out group it just perpetuates the stereotype. It doesn’t matter much though because most will rationalize someone in the in group doing violence that kid - don’t recall his name who murdered people at a protest and got away with it. Hell he’s an f’n hero to people on the right.
So even if violence is committed in the name of Christianity it’ll be excused if not celebrated - at least by some.