Clarification requested : "As a political group, Christians are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest."

[Max_S]

@Northern_Piper

One mod initially said that it was a broad-brush attack against Christians and close to hate speech and trolling, but ultimately two mods have said it’s okay, because TriPolar prefaced it with “As a political group”.

I’m afraid I don’t understand that distinction, because it is saying that it is okay to stereotype all Christians when they are acting in a political fashion. To me, it’s still a broad-brush attack on all Christians when they exercise political rights.

Here is the exchange, in isolation:

What_Exit exchange (click to show/hide)

#55:

@TriPolar

As a political group Christians are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest. The overt supporters of Trump among them were in it for the personal enrichment, the rest don’t make feelings known that clearly. They’ll be non-committal about supporting Trump and his ilk, stating only that they agree with his views on abortion and the economy. However, you won’t hear them object to anything until it carries a price with it.

#100:

@What_Exit

Modhat : I’m very close to a warning here. Broadbrush attacks against “Christians” is close to hate speech and close to trolling. Please stop.

(I’m not picking on you, I’m just the one responding to the flag) What Exit?

This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent record.

#101:

@TriPolar

What was the broad brush attack? I specified Christians as a political group, not all Christians as someone said and was noted for. I can certainly expand on what I mean by Christians as a political group if anyone is interested in discussing the subject.

#102:

@What_Exit

OK, fair enough. I and apparently others read that as an attack on all Christians. Maybe you should clarify what you mean by “Christians as a political group”.

I don’t think What_Exit admitted that TriPolar’s post #55, as written, is “okay”. TriPolar may not admit that he made a broad attack on all Christians, but has subsequently apologized for giving that impression. It’s a half-apology, and that seems to be enough for What_Exit to back off from “very close to a warning”.

There’s room to criticize What_Exit’s moderation or TriPolar’s actions, but without getting into any of that, I don’t think you are justified when you conclude that What_Exit (one of the “two mods”) thinks TriPolar’s post #55 is okay.

---

Part 2, Hari_Seldon’s note. The exchange, in isolation:

Hari_Seldon exchange (Click to show/hide)

#55:

@TriPolar

As a political group Christians are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest. The overt supporters of Trump among them were in it for the personal enrichment, the rest don’t make feelings known that clearly. They’ll be non-committal about supporting Trump and his ilk, stating only that they agree with his views on abortion and the economy. However, you won’t hear them object to anything until it carries a price with it.

#63:

@Wendell_Wagner

@TriPolar

As a political group Christians are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest.

You should realize that you’re talking about Christians today. You know, Christianity has been around for a while. You should realize that you’re talking about those who live in the U.S. There are a lot of countries in the world and only 4% of the world’s population are American. You should realize that you’re talking about those who are members of what are called “evangelical” churches, more specifically those who go to the large independent churches not affiliated to a denomination. You should realize that you’re talking about the white people within those churches, because if you look at similar churches with mostly black congregations, they aren’t nearly so right-wing. And even among the American churches today with mostly white congregations that are not affiliated with a denomination and which think of themselves as evangelicals, there isn’t quite as much universal political agreement as you might guess.

#64:

@TriPolar

I’m talking about people who strongly tie their politics and Christian identity.

#68:

@Wendell_Wagner

But that’s not what you wrote. You said that “. . . Christians are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest . . .” You didn’t limit it to Christians today, to Christians in the U.S., to members of evangelical churches which are often large churches unaffiliated with denominations, or to white members of such churches. And it’s not clear to me that people who seriously believe in the tenets of Christianity (even within all the distinctions I just made) are more likely to be right-wing than other people. Every denomination and church has a large proportion of members whose beliefs are, at best, very vague. Much about belonging to a church is about being with people whose sociopolitical beliefs you agree with and who you would like to hang out with socially. To defend any statement that Christian beliefs are truly more right-wing than left-wing, you’d have to examine Christian theological and moral beliefs. Perhaps the people who call themselves Christians and who espouse right-wing beliefs are more likely to be the ones who don’t really care about Christian theological and moral beliefs. Perhaps they are more likely to only belong to their churches for social purposes and because they have found in those churches fellow members in agreement with their political beliefs, which in truth they care about much more than theology.

#86:

@Hari_Seldon

@Wendell_Wagner

@TriPolar

I’m talking about people who strongly tie their politics and Christian identity.

But that’s not what you wrote. You said that “. . . Christians are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest . . .” You didn’t limit it to

Moderating:
What they actually wrote was “As a political group, Christians…” which definitely limits it. So you quoted him out of the context that clearly limited it to politicized Christians and then accused them of not limiting it. This is jerky behavior; please cease. No warning.

#94:

@Wendell_Wagner

Please, please, please, I’m not trying to troll you, but could you please explain to me the distinction you’re making. I honestly don’t understand it at all. The subject of the sentence didn’t change at all. Only the adverb changed. The sentence is talking about Christians. The adverb just makes it clear that it’s about the political views of Christians. It doesn’t limit the sentence to being about any particular group of Christians. It didn’t limit it to any one group of Christians. Please, please, please, please, please explain to me the distinction you’re making it. I honestly don’t understand what distinction you’re making. I can’t figure out what you’re talking about here. I’m utterly lost.

Of critical relevance is where Hari_Seldon wrote, referring to TriPolar’s post #55,

What they actually wrote was “As a political group, Christians…” which definitely limits it.

I can interpret TriPolar’s post in such a way that he only describes some Christians as sneaky/hypocritical/dishonest. In fact I did so when reading the thread - I mentally substituted “Evangelicals” or “Conservative Christians” for “Christians”. In the context of discussions about Christians and support of Donald Trump, I feel justified in my interpretation. The actual words TriPolar used, devoid of that context (and my personal grant of the benefit of the doubt), do not support my interpretation; but it is okay in context.

It turns out that my assumptions were wrong. TriPolar clarified in post #64 that he was not referring to Evangelical or Conservative Christians, but to any and all Christians “who strongly tie their politics and Christian identity”. There’s no easy way to defend Hari_Seldon’s mod note to Wendell_Wagner after post #64.

That being said, I would not necessarily classify TriPolar’s overall position as an unacceptable attack on or stereotype of Christians. I do not think his position should be verboten, provided it is on-topic in a debate: ‘People who strongly tie politics and Christian identity are sneaky, hypocritical, and dishonest.’ A while back I started a debate about whether religion should be a prominent force in politics, and I think TriPolar’s position would have been totally acceptable in that discussion, or as a spin-off discussion.

~Max