Yes, a majority of the citizens of the United States are Christians. But do “Fundamentalist Christians” really count as a majority? It seems to me that if they did our country would look a whole lot different. Fundamentalists are a whole different flavor of Christian.
Of course, I also have spent all my time in the States living in big cities on the East Coast, so I’m sure my view is somewhat lopsided. What do you think?
DANGEROSA –
You don’t have to prove a pattern to prove discrimination, although it is obviously a dandy way to do so, if one exists. It’s harder to dispute the evidence of systematic (or systemic) discrimination than it is other types of evidence, but the existence of a pattern is not a prerequisite to the filing of a discrimination claim or suit. It seems to me that YO would have had every right to file a discrimination claim, just based on the disparate treatment she received from what other, similarly situated employees received, had she choses to pursue the matter. (Disparate treatment is not the same as a pattern.)
A real lawyer (Jodi, you still there) can correct me if I’m wrong. This is what I’ve been told when I tried to file a EEOC claim (not religious discrimation, but the pattern of discrimination).
And, without wading into the larger debate, you can put me in the category of people who have noticed a greater willingness in our society to freely be dismissive or derisive of Christianity than of other religions. My impression is that people who would not exorciate followers of a more exotic or “trendy” faith strangely have no trouble being contemptuous of Christianity. I really think it’s an example of “familiarity breeds contempt.”
Minty, you forgot to mention that the current President of the United States of America joined that lawsuit back when he was Governor of Texas.
Anyone care to guess which side he was on?
This seems like as good a point as any to bring up the fact that “persecuted majority” syndrome is one of the big features of fascism (and, more broadly, of propaganda in general.) Hitler (to use the obvious example) tried to make the gentile majority in Germany feel like they were threatened by the Jews, which were one of the most powerless minorities of that time and place. Part and parcel of this sort of thinking is the idea that the minority villain is overwhelmingly dangerous, but at the same time comically weak and harmless. Thus the “perfidious Jew” was claimed to be a cancer eating at the heart of Germany which threatened to put an end to the Aryan “race,” but at the same time the Nazis presented the Jews as a race of weaklings who were no match for the manly, strong ubermensch. You could see the same sort of thinking at work during the Gulf War: George Bush rather ludicrously referred to Saddam Hussein as “the New Hitler,” and “the most dangerous man on Earth” (or whatever his stupid phrase was,) but during the war Schwarzkopf et al. would give press conferences in which they would chuckle over how Saddam must be pretty stupid to think that he could stand up to the good ole U.S. of A. Mysteriously, Saddam was so dangerous that he had to be stopped at all costs, but was also so comically weak that his antiaircraft guns were too antiquated to score a single hit (as I remember, this was because they simply couldn’t fire high enough to hit US planes.)
The Santa Fe story reveals a number of other troubling aspects of fascism, none of which are unexpected. Most notable is the “if you’re not for us, you’re against us” logic by which anyone protesting the actions of Christians is automatically labelled a lesbian atheist Satanist. As I remember, the same sort of thing was present at the HUAC hearings: all innocent, patriotic Americans were expected to go along with the HUAC hearings, and if anyone protested their grotesque tactics, they were treated as a proven Communist.
FoG, you talk a lot about how the Christians in these incidents weren’t real Christians, and that real Christians stand up against that sort of thing. The problem with your logic is that you yourself have been asked whether you support or condemn the freakish bigotry of Barr, Bush (Sr. and Jr.) and Robertson, but we have been unable to get much of a reply from you. Would you care to quit evading the question? Are the Bushes, Barr, and Robertson real Christians or not?
-Ben
Ah, yes, the classic fiction of Randy… who?
I got to thinking about this- I mean, I consider myself to be pretty familiar with African-American fiction, and I have never heard of Randy Alcorn. If I were going to suggest a book on what life is like from a Black man’s perspective, I’d suggest Invisible Man, Native Son, Black Boy, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, something like that.
So why did FoG suggest Randy Alcorn, instead of one of the classics?
Three guesses…
BTW, here’s a review for one of Alcorn’s books from Amazon:
So, FoG, I take it you haven’t read much by William S. Burroughs? (Not online, at any rate- your ISP would probably run away shrieking and join a convent…)
-Ben
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
**
Yosimitebabe I don’t think anyone could or would even attempt to defend someone dumping on you for at work for being a Christian. While I admit to having done my share of “Christian Baiting” if they are intrusive, I don’t even know of anyone that would just dump on a Christian for being one.
Best Regards.
Testy.
Well, minty green’s post seems to confirm the sorts of thing my Maroni Catholic comrade recounted to me on this subject.
Sad, it would appear this case is not an exception but rather the extreme.
I am really glad to hear that, and to be honest, I wouldn’t think you the type to dump on any old Christian like that…
However, some people DO. I remember a co-worker doing his darndest trying to get a rise out of me, by saying totally sacreligious things. Bear in mind, I was always low-key about religion, not preachy. I hung out with the resident Pagan at work. But this guy tried his best to offend me, because he knew I was Christian. I just laughed him off, telling him, “I know what you’re trying to do, it won’t work.” (That only made him froth at the mouth more! I am sure he was hoping he’d get me to damn his soul to hell. All I did was laugh at him!)
And I remember the (for lack of a better word) “militant atheists” who cornered me at a party once, and fed me a rather long sermon about how Christianity made no sense. (This after I was stupid enough to mention that I was a low-key Christian who “wasn’t into judging anyone”.) For that - I got an aggressive anti-Christian sermon. I could go on! Don’t get me started on the people I’ve encountered on message boards!
No, these people are not as plentiful as the obnoxious Fundie type, but they DO exist.
I didn’t mention it because he was not a member of the Santa Fe Christian community that was doing the harassing, so it wasn’t really relevant to the post. For the record, I think Dubya had an amicus brief filed on his behalf at the Supreme Court, but he did not play an active role in the litigation (aside from vocally supporting the school district in its fight for prayer before football games). And considering that the persecution of dissenters was not well known when the case went to the big court, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was unaware of it.
Did you read the question? Nothing about your situation, whiule unfortunate, was “organized discrimination” any more than some random guy holding up a liquor store is “organized crime.”
I prefer the term “institutionalized discrimination,” of which in several cases was shown to happen against people who were not Christian - or not the righ6t kind of Christian, it seems - by a GROUP of Christians.
What happened to you and to FoGgy is NOT organized, institutionalized or anything other than an asshole boss. Period.
Asshole bosses come in all sizes and flavors. It doesn’t surprise me that an asshole boss might not be fond of someone because they are taking time off of work and to mock the reasons. Why? Because he’s an ASSHOLE by that very definition.
Asshole boss =/= persecution.
Asshole boss = asshole boss.
**Ben wrote:
This seems like as good a point as any to bring up the fact that “persecuted majority” syndrome is one of the big features of fascism (and, more broadly, of propaganda in general.) Hitler (to use the obvious example) tried to make the gentile majority in Germany feel like they were threatened by the Jews, which were one of the most powerless minorities of that time and place.**
Ben, while I agree with your points, this comparision of Christianity to fascism goes too far, I think. While there are some Fundies out there who might take it that far, this is certainly not the view of the majority of Christians.
Please, Freyr. I never said it was the view of the majority of Christians, and I never made a “comparison of Christianity to fascism.”
-Ben
I don’t if any more examples are needed, but I know of another show that would show the characters as having faith.
I enjoyed Facts of Life when I was a kid and off the top of my head I can remember that at least four episodes dealt with faith or presented religion in some form.
Jo is inspired by a friend of Blair and decides to be a nun. There is a discussion of the many ways to show faith.
Natalie’s father dies and is given a Jewish funeral. (Note: this may be considered just a show of tradition rather than faith)
Jo is asked about her cross necklace by an interviewer. Jo discusses her faith and how important it is to her.
Blair’s mother is having a difficult labor. Mrs. Garrett and Blair discuss faith and Blair asks Mrs. G to pray for her mother. Mrs. G says she already has.
Also, the movie Driving Miss Daisy shows Hoke taking Miss Daisy to synagogue.
I also seem to recall in the movie Corrina, Corrina Whoopi Goldberg takes the little girl to church and the girl is shown singing in the choir. Though, I’m not entirely certain on that since it’s been a while since I saw the film.
I also have to agree with the examples of the Simpsons. Ned Flanders usually gets presented as sympathetic character.
Did you read any of my posts? I did not imply that what I experienced was “organized”. I have stated that several times. I have said that claiming persecution against Christians was “organized” wouldn’t fly, since there are SO many Christians out there.
Yes, my boss was an asshole. But it was more than that. She had an anti-religious motivation behind her behavior. After all, it was a part time job, so almost everyone who took the job would have other obligations, and would not be available 24/7 days. I wrote on my job application that I was “not available” on Sundays (and was hired with that understanding.) The boss didn’t pester other employees about not working particular days, because they had reasons that she approved of (school, kids.) But my “reason” was not “good enough” for her - it was church. She flat-out told me that. And it didn’t matter that I was hired with the understanding that I was not available Sundays. This is the real crux of the matter for me. I was HIRED with that understanding. No reasons were given, no reasons required, it was no one’s business what I was doing on Sundays - only that I was not available. And this was a-OK when I was hired.
I have explained this several times on this thread because some people have mused that perhaps her motivations were not anti-religious. I don’t think my facts back that up. I think she was an asshole, and also clearly anti-religious. But no, her behavior is not evidence of some big “organized” thing against religion - and I never claimed that.
Silly me. I posted my examples of faith forgetting that FoG’s main concern was about presentations of Christian faith, not faith in general. Which then means my examples of Jewish faith are invalid. Also, I seem to reall him complaining that most Christian representtations are of Catholics, so another two of my examples are invalid. That just leaves two that show or could show examples of Protestant faith.
Yosemitebabe said:
I would like to add that the boss in question doesn’t have to be on some big “anti-religion” campaign in order for the case to religious discrimination. The boss was an asshole. We have established this…in about a million glorious posts full of the word “asshole” (no complaints…I love the word). Say, for example, Yosemitebabe’s reason for taking Sundays off was because it was her “quality time” with her kids. Chances are this asshole boss wouldn’t have liked that either.
However, regardless of whatever other reasons the boss might have found to harrass a particular employee, in this case the basis was religious. The boss clearly felt that time taken off work for religious purposes was a waste of time and “silly.” And that amounts to religious discrimination, albeit light discrimination (“Light discrimination! Seventy percent less spiteful than regular discrimination! Try it today!”)
Am I making any sense?
Light sense.
Buttheads* come in all shapes, sizes, and ideologies. By definition, anyone who harasses somebody somebody else due to religion is a butthead. But that that’s defining away the problem every bit as much as when FoG dismisses harassers as non-Christian. The pertinent question here is whether buttheads persecute Christians or non-Christians at higher rates.
*Censored for the sake of FoG’s ISP.
I know, I know…I have been hijacking. Sorry. It just seemed like a more interesting argument.
And I totally forgot that all the “ah*s” were rendering those posts unviewable to FoG…sorry to exclude you, guy, it wasn’t deliberate.
Nah, you’re on topic as far as I’m concerned. I was just disagreeing with you. 
??? Yes, that would be OK with her! I have been repeating several that times! She said that if I had kids, or a class, she would consider that a good enough reason to not work on a Sunday. Just not CHURCH. Church was not a good enough reason. But kids - that’s a good enough reason. Classes, that’s a good enough reason. Just not church. Church church church. I am sorry to sound a little exasperated, but I feel like I am repeating myself waaaay too much!
Yes, you make sense. It was religious discrimination. Yes, I am obviously still pissed about it, but it has not destroyed my life, or anything! I think the thing that irked me the most was:
I was hired with the understanding that I was unavailable Sundays. The reasons for not being unavailable were no one’s business, and no one needs to “pass judgment” as to whether the reasons are “good enough”. Either hire me with that stipulation, or don’t hire me. But if I am hired with that stipulation, I expect it to be honored.
The boss passes judgement as to what is a “good enough” reason for honoring a day off. Kids are important, education is important. Religion is not imporant.
I ought to start a new thread about this, because other bosses do this (but not necessarily with an anti-religions bent.) They want you to work on your day off, or overtime, and they try to make you feel guilty for your leisure time, and your private life. They’ll imply that the thing you are looking forward to doing on your weekend isn’t “important enough”. So could you work your weekend? ARGGHHHH!! Getting off on a hijack there…