Love the Christian, hate Christianity

[Jodi]

FREYR:

There are other faiths besides (the many denominations of) Christianity.

Actually, there are very few denominations of mainstream Christianity that are more liberal than liberal Methodism.

Or investigate Atheism/agnosticism.

I have; I can ascribe to neither. My beliefs are not consistent with atheism or agnosticism. Or Wicca.

Jodi implied there was a LOT of fighting over this issue, so much, that if I were in here place, I would seriously consider leaving the organized Church.

Oh, FREYR, but you’re not in my place. I am not willing to give up all the positive things I derive from participating in my faith, nor withhold my support for all the positive things that they do, just because there are a few tenets I disagree with – especially when my church (I mean the congregation of the actual, physical church I attend) disagrees with them as well.

I would wonder how much I really had in common with the rest of the Church. But, I feel strongly about the issue, she may not.

It’s not that I don’t feel strongly about the issue; I do. It’s that I have so much in common with the church in spite of that issue. Do I feel strong enough about it to leave the church? Obviously not. Nor do the thousands of other people who believe that the best way to effect change in the church is to work from the inside.

One point I need to make again; I’m not interested in changing the theology (of the many denominations) of Christianity. What I’m against is the various denominations using their political and financial strength to pass into secular law their own brand of dogma, especially regarding homosexuality. Witness what the LDS and Catholic Church did with the referendum in California, outlawing same-sex marriage. They did the same thing in the November elections in Oklahoma and Nevada.

I would like one citations, please, of this being done by any of the following: Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, Unitarians, Lutherans, or African Methodist Episcopalians. That’s some 23 million people, by the way.

Yet, when this happens, the moderate and liberal voices of (the various denominations) Christianity are hardly heard. These groups often speak as if they represent all of Christianity but no moderate or liberal voices are heard in opposition.

Look, all I can do is speak; I can’t make people report what I say, or hear what I say. I mean, you didn’t even know there was a dust-up in the Methodists about this very issue, did you? Whose fault is that? Yours, theirs, or the media’s? Again, moderation doesn’t make the news.

Now can you see how the preception of (the various denominations of) Christianity can be considered is homophobic?

Now can you see how that perception doesn’t survive scrutiny in the light of day, and why it should be abandoned by those who know better?

AYNRANDLOVER:

First of all, the fact that I am asking you to explain your belief CONFIRMS the fact that I both:
1)recognize it as existing and 2)consider it worth understanding.

It does not, however, mean you will treat it respectfully, nor does it mean that I have a personal obligation to enlighten you when I doubt you would treat it respectfully. If you’re truly interested in learning about Methodism, I could recommend several excellent books.

I am sorry if asking you to explain yourself pisses you off.

Actually, it doesn’t so no worries.

I said “As a Christian . . .” to which you reply “As a who? Be careful, you don’t speak for all Christians!” which I find an odd rejoinder, since manifestly I am not speaking for anyone but myself by saying “as a Christian . . .” Are you so eager to post bon mots that you’re not checking to see if they’re warranted first?

Its that “room” in the middle, somewhere, where you live and I am wondering where that is and how you got there that it makes you believe you can use generalizations in arguing against generalizations, or how you can find it OK that only heterosexuals can have sex in the eyes of Jesus even though anyone can think about it, or how you can tell which passages to accept literally and which ones to interpret.

Blah blah blah. If you want to know more about moderate Christianity in general, or Methodism in particular, I would be happy to entertain such questions. But as I’ve already said, I have no intention of discussing the inticacies of my personal faith with you. It’s not germane to the larger discussion, and you have not given me any reason to contemplate sharing such information with you.

I would specifically like to address the quote from Matthew in which Jesus mentions adultery in the mind is the same as adultery in deed . . . .

Then you might want to start a thread on that.

Let me get this staight, I suggest that the term Christian is meaningless and suggest you make a new name. “No.”

It obviously is not meaningless. I have already defined it repeatedly as “a person who believes in the divinity of Christ and who [ideally] tries to follow His teachings.”

OK, then you assert the name is meaningless in the above quote because Christinas don’t even agree broadly on things.

But, of course, I never said this, and your saying I did does not make it so. What I said is that many different beliefs can fall under the broad canopy of “Christianity” as defined above.

Then, clearly, when we generalize about Christians we aren’t talking about you, right? No problem. We’re talking about those other Christians, which you can plainly see. Or is because you call yourself a Christian that you are allowed to discuss it?

I have no idea what this means.

And I am under no obligation to even listen to any arguments you put forth.

You obviously are not. But the subject of this thread is whether it is appropriate for people (such as yourself) who know or ought to know that the term “Christianity” encompasses people of myriad beliefs on myriad issues (such as homosexuality), do right in speaking as if all Christians believe the same things – to wit, the beliefs held by fundamentalist Christians. If you can explain to me why my personal religious beliefs are relevant to such a discussion, perhaps we can revisit the topic.

But If I were to say that Methodists don’t support homosexuality, would I be wrong?

Yes, you would be, because a very large number of Methodists do support homosexuality, or rather the full admission of homosexuals into the church. Not just indiviuals, either, but whole churches. If you said the National Methodist Convention does not support homosexuality, you’d be right. If you said that Methodist churches in the South did not, you’d probably be right. If you said that Methodist churches in San Francisco did not, you’d be wrong.

Here’s an important distinction: I am not quick to cry out that statement. The notion of stereotypes–ready?–is that they are a general case and do not apply to any one specific person. I know its hard to NOT take stereotypes personally, and some USE them that way, but I do it every day. I’ve done it in this very thread, and millions of others where people make a general case. I know it doesn’t apply to me, no one is specifically accusing me of anything, the end.

Huh. So if a person makes a stereotypical statement that impugns not only you, but thousands of people like you, you don’t take it personally if no one is specifically accusing me of anything? Interesting. Because for me, you see, if I hear, “Americans are warmongering baby-killers!” or “Women are as stupid as lobotomized rhesus monkeys!” or “Christians are bigots!” I do feel obliged to speak up. Not because someone has specifically accused me of something, but because by keeping silent I assent to the characterization. This I refuse to do.

I truly don’t know what Christians think at all, apart from their apparent inability to use the bible to defend themselves.

More to the point, you apparently don’t really care. Again, which denomination of Christianity are you interested in? I can recommend some excellent books.

I am expected in every other thread in the world to back up my assertations, cite cite cite. I give you a cite, and you disregard it. OK, its OT, I knew that would cause a problem.

So you acknowledge that I did not, in fact, disregard it.

So I quote the NT. Now we resort to interpreting that passage literally, not figuratively, in that it LITERALLY is the act, not the desire, which is bad.

“Resort” to literal interpretation? This amuses me. In my world, literal interpretation is the first step, not the last. If you can read it literally and it jibes with what you know and understand, then you stop there. If not, you move on. Just like reading any other book.

But you say yourself you are not a bible literalist. Can you, perhaps for a moment, see my frustration in trying to understand this? Perhaps???

Actually, no I can’t. Surely you can see that refusing to be categorized as a Bible literalist does not mean that I always insist on reading the Bible as metaphor. I have already told you – I read and study the Bible just like I read and study any other document, using my brain and whatever references materials might assist me in arriving at an interpretation that makes sense to me. What’s so hard about this? I’ve already explained this, what? twice? I doubt I’ll be willing to invest the time to explain it again.

[JTR]

Love the Christian, hate Christianity?

One problem with this whole LTC/HC argument is that it’s hard to determine what the numbers are on either side. Jodi seems to imply that only fundamentalists are particularly anti-gay, while Esprix seems to think that the majority or even the vast majority of Christians are anti-gay to one degree or another. So there’s disagreement over whether or not Esprix is casting too wide a net when he professes a dislike for Christianity as a whole.

I think that this debate needs a litmus test to establish the pro-gay or anti-gay sentiments of the various denominations. Then it would become much clearer just how much of Christianity as a religion is anti-gay.

(By the way, I’m obviously using “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” as simplistic shorthand. Mainly I’m thinking in terms of “pro-gay” as a sentiment whereby gays and lesbians should have all the same rights, privileges, and eventually acceptance as straights; “anti-gay” would be the sentiment that they should not.)

In other words, I think that this debate needs a benchmark so that measurements can be made. Personally, I tend to use the issue of gay marriage as a litmus test for pro-gay versus anti-gay sentiment. I spelled out why this issue is particularly important to gays and lesbians in the “Mormons and gays – again” thread, on page 3. Here’s a link to the thread—look for a single message posted by me about halfway down the page:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=41980&pagenumber=2

If I use gay marriage as a benchmark, then I would say that the large majority of Christians are anti-gay (at least, as I use the term). There are a couple small protestant denominations that are on the record as supporting gay marriages, the Reform Jewish denomination is moving in that direction (but hasn’t quite gotten there, last I heard), and of course there is the Metropolitan Community Church and some other small groups that specifically address gay and lesbian religious issues. But pretty much all the mainline Christian denominations are on the record as opposing gay marriages outright.

And a large majority of individual Christians are against gay marriage as well. Witness the legislative defeats in numerous states in the U.S. where gay partnership initiatives (which isn’t even gay marriage) are voted on. As well as some recent successful ballot initiatives specifically prohibiting gay marriage, as well as the signing of the “Defense of Marriage Act” a few years back.

Thus, at least on this issue, I believe Esprix’s arguments have merit. If the large majority of Christian churches won’t support equal rights such as the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, then I personally think that he has some reason to profess some discontent with Christianity as a whole. Christianity traditionally has denied gays equal legal rights in our society (as have Judaism and all the other major religions), and even today only small inroads have been made in this area in Christianity.

I recognize that some of the other posters may disagree with my setting equal rights and gay marriage as the benchmark for gauging pro-gay vs. anti-gay sentiment in Christian churches. But I would argue that SOME kind of measurable benchmark has to be established if this debate is to be addressed properly.

Oh well. That’s my input. Have a good night!

[SisterCoyote]

Jodi, one quick thing - Unitarians are not all Christians. Although Unitarian Universalism has its roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, Christian UUs are a dwindling number, I am given to understand.

While we’re clarifying… I haven’t anything else to argue with in this discussion.

[JTR]

Oops! I reviewed the link and noticed that I posted multiple messages on that page. Just read the one message posted at 10-14-2000, 6:36 pm.

[erislover]

JTR, that is the best thing I’ve read yet in this thread.

Jodi, I’m currently reading books on Game Theory, Economics, and philosophy in an attempt to understand other people’s arguments, so pick one book and I’ll stack it on the list.

[Jodi]

JTR:

I think that this debate needs a litmus test to establish the pro-gay or anti-gay sentiments of the various denominations. Then it would become much clearer just how much of Christianity as a religion is anti-gay.

The problem with this is that it is very difficult to impute the beliefs of even entire churches to all their members – a majority, yes, but that leaves room for significant minorities. The National Methodist Conference is anti-gay; many Methodist churches (and many more individual Methodists) are not. It’s there for a problem that is more difficult to quantify than it initially seems.

To my mind, it’s like electing the President. (Okay, not in this election, but usually.) Some people vote one way and some people vote the other, but in the end we have a person who we have agreed will speak for all of us for the time being. So of us don’t agree with him, but there he is – the president of all of us. If that president is an strict isolationist, then is it accurate to say that America is an isolationist country? What if 49% of the people are opposed to isolationism? More to the point, is it fair for you to say Americans are isolationists, even when you know very well that isn’t so?

If I use gay marriage as a benchmark, then I would say that the large majority of Christians are anti-gay (at least, as I use the term).

How “large” is a large majority? There are thousands – millions – of Christians who do not believe this. If you are personally aware of the existence of a large minority, don’t you have some obligation to refrain from speaking as if that opposition does not exist?

If the large majority of Christian churches won’t support equal rights such as the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, then I personally think that he has some reason to profess some discontent with Christianity as a whole.

Why does this follow? Why does a concern with some (or even most) lead to proper criticism of all? I fail to see why this would follow. Again, we are not talking about a statistically insignificant minority of Christians who support gay rights; we are talking about millions of people. What percentage of people have to disagree before you are no longer being intellectually honest by ascribing a belief to “all” of them?

DOGSBODY:

Unitarians are not all Christians. Although Unitarian Universalism has its roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, Christian UUs are a dwindling number, I am given to understand.

My understanding (for which I will gladly take correction) is that while Unitarian Universalists are not Christians per se, old-style Unitarians are. There is, I believe, a difference.

AYNRANDLOVER:

Jodi, I’m currently reading books on Game Theory, Economics, and philosophy in an attempt to understand other people’s arguments, so pick one book and I’ll stack it on the list.

Well, if you want to know about Methodism, I suggest the Methodist Book of Discipline, of which I believe the 1996 edition is the most recent. It’s a statement of belief, though, not of argument.

[Jodi]

I think the following link illustrates much better than I could how over-simplistic and misleading it is to say “Methodists [just to use my own church as an example] are anti-gay.” This link (From religioustolerance.org, an excellent on-line moderate-religion resource) sets out the Methodist party line on this issue and explains its history:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_umc.htm#book

You will note that despite declaring “the practice of homosexuality” as “incompatible with Christian teachings,” the Methodist church simultaneously proclaims:

"Equal Rights Regardless of Sexual Orientation -– Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for homosexual persons. We see a clear issue of simple justice in protecting their rightful claims where they have shared material resources, pensions, guardian relationships, mutual powers of attorney, and other such lawful claims typically attendant to contractual relationships that involve shared contributions, responsibilities, and liabilities, and equal protection before the law.

So is the Nationl Methodist Conference anti-homosexual? It seems to me that the issue is too complex to be disposed of with a simple yes-or-no answer.

[Guinastasia]

*Originally posted by Esprix *

We’re not talking about smoking, we’re talking about love. To say, “You’re ok - it’s the very core of your being that I don’t like,” sounds just as stupid when someone says it as when I type it.
Esprix

Esprix-I could turn that on it’s head, and use that very same argument for the hole LTC/HTC thing. Many people consider their faith the very foundation of who they are and how they live. They may also consider it the very core of their being.

[JTR]

Jodi:

The Methodist church gets kudos for being way out in front in advocating equal civil rights for gays and lesbians. But because it is out in front of the rest, it is by definition not representative of the rest.

Besides, the policy point that you quoted doesn’t say a word about marriage. It does appear to express support for legal recognition of partnership arrangements, but that’s not quite the same as marriage or equal civil rights. In addition, it’s full of legalese with plenty of room for retreat. For example: “Certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons…” What exactly does “certain…rights” mean? Only certain rights? Some rights? All rights? Equal rights? Again, the body of the statement appears to pertain largely to partnership arrangements. As such, it’s hard to parse the beginning of the statement.

In other words, the Methodist policy point is pretty mushy and incomplete in many ways. Furthermore, as you yourself are well aware, gays and lesbians are certainly second-class citizens within the Methodist church itself. (Which is fine, by the way. No church should be forced to accept homosexuals as equals. The topic under discussion is civil rights, not private policy of churches.)

But I think it needs to be stressed that goodwill and support aren’t the same as equal civil rights. In many ways, convicted felons have more civil rights than gays and lesbians do. Hell, I wouldn’t even think of denying my own personal worst enemy his full range of civil rights. Disagree though we may, my enemy can still count on my support for civil rights that are equal in scope to mine. In fact, if someone tried to take them away from him, I would fight on his behalf to get them restored. But most Christians (and many people of other faiths as well) claim to “love” homosexuals, and yet see no problem with denying them equal civil rights. That mushy Methodist church statement on domestic partnerships is ahead of the curve, but it still doesn’t speak the three words of love that even my worst enemy can expect to hear from me: “Equal civil rights.”

Again, you and the Methodist church deserve kudos. I genuinely don’t mean to belittle the strides taken by that particular Protestant denomination. I understand that progress is usually achieved in stages and by degrees. But there’s still a long way to go. Only one state in America has managed to pass even a domestic partnership arrangement law, and the first gay marriage law is probably still many years in the future. And I consider it an axiom that conventional religious prohibitions against homosexuality provide the convenient and comfortable rationalization for that clear majority of average voters who deny their gay and lesbian fellow citizens their equal civil rights by voting against these initiatives at the ballot box.

Thanks for responding, though, Jodi. I don’t doubt that you are a person of goodwill and good conscience, and I’m genuinely grateful for what the Methodist Church has accomplished thus far, and for being willing to face the issue head on. Mainly I just differ with you on our perceptions of Christianity vis-a-vis gay rights. I realize it’s a gross generalization, but I tend to agree with Esprix that the Christian religion as a whole has more blood on its hands than the average Christian realizes. That’s not an indictment of any individual Christian (remember–love the Christian…), but certainly the individual Christians could be doing more to rectify a long-standing inequity that traditionally arises from (and is largely justified by and rationalized with) religious beliefs.

[JTR]

*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**Esprix-I could turn that on it’s head, and use that very same argument for the hole LTC/HTC thing. Many people consider their faith the very foundation of who they are and how they live. They may also consider it the very core of their being. **

I think that was Esprix’s point–that his sexual orientation is just as much intrinsic to him as Christianity probably is to Christians. Hence his determination to turn the Christian LTS/HTS formula on its head so that Christians would see how harmful the formula is.

Anyway, that’s the way I read it.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

JTr: I am afraid that that “gay marriage” benchmark will not do. You do not have to be anti-gay to think that marriage should be between a man & wife. Heck- some gays think that. Many radical groups, including some of the Gay ones- have this odd idea- “if you do not agree 100% with our agenda you are our enemy”. Wrong. There is such a thing as being “neutral”.

Now, my Church will perform gay marriages- but, that does not make it more ‘anti-gay’ than many other liberal denominations.

No- the benchmark of whether a Church is anti-gay must be only that it condemns homosexuality. That is “anti-gay”. You might say that a Church which performs gay marriages is PRO-gay. But there are neutrals. Esprix does not demand every Church agree with him 100%, he just wants them to stop hating him. And in that he is right.

[Duke]

*Originally posted by Freyr *
**My only response is: the next time a politician or religious leader makes proclaimations about how homosexuality is against “Christian” values or pro-GLBT legistion is an affront to “Christianity” (without the qualifying modifier), you all will be writing letters to him/her taking him/her to task on this issue just as you’ve done with me. **

Freyr: Many of us Christians do just this. I have in the past sent letters to leaders of my (former) churches taking them to task for their stance on gay rights. And there are also those of us (Methodists) who have been campaigning, as Jodi mentioned, for a change of the church leadership’s stance on homosexuality.

It is not only the fundamentalists who can be bothered to write letters! Christians who support gay rights can (and do) write as well.

I still have not heard an answer or a discussion to this point I raised earlier in the thread: where do gay and lesbian Christians fit in this “the Church is obviously anti-gay” stance? Are they all mistaken, or do they have a point in that the Christian Church is not necessarily, and does not need to be, anti-gay?

[JTR]

*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
**JTr: I am afraid that that “gay marriage” benchmark will not do. You do not have to be anti-gay to think that marriage should be between a man & wife. Heck- some gays think that. Many radical groups, including some of the Gay ones- have this odd idea- “if you do not agree 100% with our agenda you are our enemy”. Wrong. There is such a thing as being “neutral”.

Now, my Church will perform gay marriages- but, that does not make it more ‘anti-gay’ than many other liberal denominations.

No- the benchmark of whether a Church is anti-gay must be only that it condemns homosexuality. That is “anti-gay”. You might say that a Church which performs gay marriages is PRO-gay. But there are neutrals. Esprix does not demand every Church agree with him 100%, he just wants them to stop hating him. And in that he is right. **

Hi, Daniel. Thanks for the response. I would like to make three comments about your post.

1. Concerning your statements about the Church performing gay marriages: You have misrepresented my position. At no time have I suggested that gays and lesbians are owed Church marriages. Just civil marriages. Please reread my post on the subject in the “Gays and the Mormon Church thread” (the link is in my post from last night).

2. Concerning gays who don’t want marriage rights: For purposes of this particular debate (anti-gay attitudes of Christianity), I see that largely as a technicality.

It’s true that portions of the gay community are willing to forgo marriage altogether in favor of setting up the institution of “Domestic Partnership Agreements.” However, I have seen model DPAs drafted by the gay community which attempt to address all the hundreds of legal rights denied to gays and lesbians under the status quo at the local, state, national, and international level, and they are monstrous legal documents, many pages long.

As far as I’m concerned, agitating for DPAs and agitating for the right to marry are two different means to the same end. If you are genuinely willing to grant gays and lesbians an ironclad meaningful DPA (and not just a mushy statement of support like the Methodist church statement), then I’ll happily stop my agitation for gay marriage.

3. Concerning your statement that the Church need only stop “condemning homosexuality” in order to cease being anti-gay: If the church really does stop “condemning homosexuality,” then what basis will the Church have for continued discrimination against gays (denying them Church marriages and positions within the Church as preachers)?

In a way, you’re offering more than I’m asking. Here’s my position: The Church is free to discriminate against gays within the Church. But it should drop its opposition to equal rights for gays in the CIVIL arena. Here’s your position: The Church should stop condemning homosexuality. If the Church truly ceases to condemn homosexuality, then presumably the Church will have no basis to discriminate against gays either in the Church or in the civil arena.

In other words, I’m willing to consider other benchmarks for measuring the anti-gay attitudes of the Church. But if ceasing to condemn homosexuality is to be used as the benchmark, then you will have to define precisely what that is going to mean if and when it ever happens. After all, it’s exactly the Church’s condemnation of homosexuality which leads to the denial of equal civil rights for gays and lesbians.

[JTR]

Hi, Duke. I hope you don’t mind my jumping into your discussion with Freyr just to make one quick point.

*Originally posted by Duke *
**…I still have not heard an answer or a discussion to this point I raised earlier in the thread: where do gay and lesbian Christians fit in this “the Church is obviously anti-gay” stance? Are they all mistaken, or do they have a point in that the Christian Church is not necessarily, and does not need to be, anti-gay? **

I think I’ve attempted to address this to some extent. Christianity has traditionally been anti-gay. In recent decades, individual churches and denominations have become less rigidly anti-gay. Indeed, some so-called “gay churches” have arisen (for example, the Metropolitan Community Church).

But those remain exceptions to the rule. And exceptions to the rule do not prove that the rule doesn’t exist. Does Christianity need to be anti-gay? No. But is Christianity currently anti-gay? Yes, as measured by the number of mainline denominations that refuse to address obvious and enormous civil rights inequities that exist for gays and lesbians–inequities that are usually sustained and rationalized with the aid of religious prohibitions against homosexuality.

Having said that, I welcome your support for gay rights and your efforts to exert influence on your Church leadership. Ultimately, this is where the battle will be fought and won. No politician can impose equal rights for gays on an unwilling population. There has to be grass roots support and pressure from below. Please don’t misinterpret my taking the opposite side of this debate as disdain for the positive efforts you have made and are making on behalf of gays and lesbians.

All the best!

[P.S. for everyone: I’m done posting for the present. I’ll check back later tonight to read all dissenting opinions.]

[Jodi]

JTR:

The Methodist church gets kudos for being way out in front in advocating equal civil rights for gays and lesbians. But because it is out in front of the rest, it is by definition not representative of the rest.

With respect, the whole point of this thread is that there is no single Christian church that is representative of the rest. If you disagree, then which church would you propose is “representative of the rest”?

Besides, the policy point that you quoted doesn’t say a word about marriage.

I realize that. But then, I didn’t post it in relation to the issue of marriage per se, but merely to show that it is difficult to categorize this particular church as “pro-gay” or “anti-gay,” even within the church itself.

In other words, the Methodist policy point is pretty mushy and incomplete in many ways.

Again, I didn’t post it to asset that the Methodist position is perfect and cannot be improved. I posted it only to show how this church defies the stereotyping we’re speaking of – and if it cannot be easily done to a church, how can it be done to an entire religion?

Again, you and the Methodist church deserve kudos.

Well, thanks. I think if the national church deserves kudos, it is for openly and honestly tackling the issue and wrestling with it. And though I don’t personally think they reached the correct decision, I hope the official church position will change in the future.

Thanks for responding, though, Jodi. I don’t doubt that you are a person of goodwill and good conscience . . .

Thanks.

I realize it’s a gross generalization, but I tend to agree with Esprix that the Christian religion as a whole has more blood on its hands than the average Christian realizes.

And this is what discourages me. How can you simultaneously admit it is a gross (over)generalization, and in the same breath say you agree with it? You acknowledge that it doesn’t apply, and then you attempt to apply it. I don’t understand this.

Certainly the individual Christians could be doing more to rectify a long-standing inequity that traditionally arises from (and is largely justified by and rationalized with) religious beliefs.

What more could we be doing? Be more vocal? I fail to see how much more vocal the people on the pro-gay side of the Methodist debate could be than to submit to arrest for their beliefs. The only other suggestion made in this thread is that if I don’t agree with every single tenet of my faith, I should leave my church – as if that would be an emotionally easy thing to do, or as if I have the obligation to cede my denomination, much less my whole religion, to those who would use it to promote hate instead of tolerance. I hear a lot “you should do more,” but I don’t hear much on what more I should do.

Anyway, thanks for such a sensitive and respectful reply. Those can be in short supply around here when the subject of religion comes up.

[erislover]

All generalizations are "over"generalizations if you feel attacked by them. I don’t want to get back into this, but clearly only positive generalizations are allowed by your standard. This is reprehensible, and positive generalizations can do just as much harm as negative ones…perhaps more so.

The generalizations I use are not created to impose morality on a group that I already feel a certain way about. They are created in light of personal observations. I then use those observations to find out how I feel about that group. The goal of this is the same as abstraction in any other form of data-gathering. We find multiple instances of the same case. We correlate similarities and disregard differences. We make a general case/abstraction/stereotype/whatever. From there is a matter of preference, but it is entirely valid and oft-practiced to make such a general case. In fact, psychologists do it with even smaller groups than I do, and try to apply it to a larger segment of the population! [sub]jeez, did I just use psychology to make a point? ::shudder::[/sub]

I am always happy to “attack” religion, as it seems, because there is no other way to understand it. I am truly just trying to get a straight answer on a subject, but I fear I back the badger into the corner. Were you not Christian but Wiccan, or satanist, or whatever, I would still get under your skin just as much. In fact, unless you agree with me, I am always going to be trying to find out why we think differently.

I, for one, am still not convinced that people can live without stereotypes and that LTSHTS is able to be practiced. I am also not convinced that Love the christian hate christianity is able to be practiced, either (obviously). All that’s been proved, IMO, is that people can’t agree on everything.
In general.

[jmullaney]

I might as well point out that the majority of Christians world wide are Roman Catholics. So, Esprix – if he finds the stance of the RCC offensive, and I understand that he does – does have a valid, if overgeneralized, point. Good thing we don’t live in a democracy!

[JTR]

I said:

I realize it’s a gross generalization, but I tend to agree with Esprix that the Christian religion as a whole has more blood on its hands than the average Christian realizes.

Jodi said:

And this is what discourages me. How can you simultaneously admit it is a gross (over)generalization, and in the same breath say you agree with it? You acknowledge that it doesn’t apply, and then you attempt to apply it. I don’t understand this.

I think this is our only real point of contention. Basically, I feel I have the right to draw conclusions about a group and judge accordingly, based on the actions of the majority of that group. I don’t think it’s an overgeneralization. Just a generalization. And if you qualify them properly, generalizations can be made legitimately. For example, it is commonly said that America is isolationist if the President and Congress pursue isolationist policies with the support of a majority of the American people. Such a statement does not imply that 100 percent of individual Americans are isolationist. But the collective entity of “America” can indeed be said to be isolationist in common parlance.

Hence I feel that I can say that the collective entity of “Christianity,” as it is practiced today in America, is anti-gay for reasons I have already described at length. Obviously I’m going to be happy to qualify that statement any number of ways. I know full well that the Metropolitan Community Church is not anti-gay by any stretch of the imagination, and I know full well that the Methodist Church and other Protestant denominations are making great strides to address the issue of anti-gay policies. I’ll be happy to admit those things and shower such exceptions to the rule with praise whenever appropriate.

But I reject the assertion that a group of people making up a collective entity cannot be judged or labeled just because there exist exceptions to the rule in that group. I believe that a judgment can be made where it is warranted. (Emphasis on the word “warranted,” in an attempt to keep you from heading down the usual slippery slope and accusing me of providing a justification for racism and other expressions of unwarranted labeling.)

And I believe that it is warranted to say that Christianity as a collective entity is anti-gay, based on an objective look at the dismal state of civil rights for gays and lesbians in the country as a whole (rationalized largely by religious prohibitions against homosexuality) and the blatant and unabashed espousal of unequal status for gays and lesbians within the various churches themselves, including the Methodist Church. In fact, I think there is harm in taking the opposite position, because it allows Christians to keep on their blinders and assume that everything’s hunky-dory, when it isn’t. The denial of civil rights to fellow citizens is inhuman, especially when it comes from people who profess to love the very people they are tormenting.

This is not an indictment of the Methodist Church. It is an indictment of Christianity as a whole. Obviously the various Christian churches have to shoulder differing degrees of blame. In my mind, the Methodist Church and its individual believers have to shoulder far less than most. But I still believe that I can state that Christianity as a whole (as practiced here and now) is anti-gay in the same manner that I used to be able to say that the old apartheid-based South Africa was a racist country, even though not all individual South African individuals or South African institutions were racist.

Oh well. That’s all I have to say on that matter. We’re probably going to have to agree to disagree. Let me just add that I was heartened and gratified by your latest post, and that I do in fact respect you both as a person and as a Christian.

And no, I most emphatically do not think you should leave your church. Just keep on doing exactly what you have been doing (pressuring the church leadership when feasible), and I guarantee that you’ll be doing a world of good for gay rights.

[Jodi]

AYNRANDLOVER:

All generalizations are "over"generalizations if you feel attacked by them.

Not in my mind.

I don’t want to get back into this . .

On the contrary, you obviously do.

. . . but clearly only positive generalizations are allowed by your standard.

My “standard”? Which “standard” is that? Positive generalizations are as indefensible as negative ones; they are just far less likely to be objected to, for reasons that should be obvious.

This is reprehensible, and positive generalizations can do just as much harm as negative ones…perhaps more so.

I seriously doubt that, in the context of social labeling, positive stereotyping does as much or more harm as negative stereotyping. YMMV.

The generalizations I use are not created to impose morality on a group that I already feel a certain way about.

You cannot impose your morality on anyone; certainly not through generalizations or stereotyping. You can make overt or implicit value judgments about groups of people based solely on a single trait held in common, which may have little or nothing to do with the value judgment you base on it. That is what social stereotyping is.

They are created in light of personal observations. I then use those observations to find out how I feel about that group.

Except that if you know or should know that your personal observations do not reflect the reality of the larger group, then some people might find willfully obtuse your reliance on your personal observation in the light of facts offered that refute those observations.

The goal of this is the same as abstraction in any other form of data-gathering. We find multiple instances of the same case. We correlate similarities and disregard differences. We make a general case/abstraction/stereotype/whatever.

This assumes, of course, that you draw from a large enough sample to ensure the accuracy of your extrapolations. It also assumes that you can set aside your value-judgments long enough to clearly evaluate the data you acquire, as opposed to judging the data as it comes in, in light of prejudices you have already formed.

From there is a matter of preference, but it is entirely valid and oft-practiced to make such a general case.

It is NOT entirely valid to make such a “general case” from a small sample of individuals and, based upon your own personal observation of that small sample (filtered through your own preconceptions or prejudices), extrapolate your conclusions to the group at large.

In fact, psychologists do it with even smaller groups than I do, and try to apply it to a larger segment of the population! jeez, did I just use psychology to make a point? ::shudder::

Do you maintain they do so successfully?

I am always happy to “attack” religion, as it seems, because there is no other way to understand it.

Baloney. The acquisition of knowledge of any subject does not require attack. You may personally prefer the Socratic method, but that does not mean it is the only method. I suggest that if your method of acquiring knowledge devolves to attacking others beliefs, then you at least have the grace to not pretend surprise when people are unwilling to share their knowledge or experience with you.

I am truly just trying to get a straight answer on a subject, but I fear I back the badger into the corner.

You have not struck me as a person who is seeking a straight answer; you have struck me as a person who seeks to present an ad hominem attack. And I think that you are far less likely to see that badger in a corner than you are to see its back as it walks away from you.

Were you not Christian but Wiccan, or satanist, or whatever, I would still get under your skin just as much.

I continue to be amused that you think you get under my skin. I suspect your motives and I dislike your methods of “acquiring knowledge,” since it involves both self-declared attack and an demonstrated lack of respect. Therefore I choose not to participate in it insofar as it deals with me personally. But I assure you that this discussion is not personal for me. On any level.

In fact, unless you agree with me, I am always going to be trying to find out why we think differently.

Which, of course, you are free to do.

I, for one, am still not convinced that people can live without stereotypes and that LTSHTS is able to be practiced.

Which doesn’t surprise me, since I don’t believe anyone has tried to convince you of either.

I am also not convinced that Love the christian hate christianity is able to be practiced, either (obviously).

I think it is practicable – provided you are willing to say that you hate ALL Christianity – no matter how broad or narrow, no matter or how liberal or conservative. My point is that I think (I hope) there are relatively few people who can honestly say this.

JTR:

Basically, I feel I have the right to draw conclusions about a group and judge accordingly, based on the actions of the majority of that group.

And I, for my part, contend that it is irresponsible for you to continue to "draw conclusions’ about the entire group when you know that a sizeable minority does not act in conformance with the generalization you choose to draw.

I don’t think it’s an overgeneralization. Just a generalization. And if you qualify them properly, generalizations can be made legitimately.

Sure they can. The point is that manny people in general and in this thread do not bother to qualify them at all. That’s the problem. Where are the qualifiers in “Love The Christian, Hate Christianity”?

For example, it is commonly said that America is isolationist if the President and Congress pursue isolationist policies with the support of a majority of the American people. Such a statement does not imply that 100 percent of individual Americans are isolationist. But the collective entity of “America” can indeed be said to be isolationist in common parlance.

“America” is a single definable political entity about which generalizations may legitimately be made. As I (and others) have already said repeatedly, there is no “The Christian Church” that will support similar generalizations. It is the difference between saying “America is an isolationist country” (true) and “Americans support George Bush” (not true – you know or ought to know that many Americans do not support him).

Hence I feel that I can say that the collective entity of “Christianity,” as it is practiced today in America, is anti-gay for reasons I have already described at length.

But there is no collective entity of “Christianity,” and since a sizeable minority is not anti-gay – and you know it – it is an indefensible generalization for you, knowing that, to declare that American Christianity is anti-gay.

Obviously I’m going to be happy to qualify that statement any number of ways.

And, of course, once you qualify the statement, then you are not making the same statement. You are not saying “X.” You are saying “X [qualified].” I have no problem with “X [qualified].”

But I reject the assertion that a group of people making up a collective entity cannot be judged or labeled just because there exist exceptions to the rule in that group.

Any group obviously can be labelled. The question is whether it is appropriate to label an entire group as holding a particular belief when you know that many, many people within that group do not hold that belief. Under what rationale is such misinformation appropriate?

I believe that a judgment can be made where it is warranted.

I have never said you shouldn’t judge and reach your own conclusions. What I have said is that you should not generalize that a particular group stands for a particular proposition when you know or ought to know that a large minority does NOT stand for that proposition. If you disregard the sizeable minority, how can your judging be considered impartial anyway? It seems to me that it’s back-formed: I think Christians are anti-gay, so I’m going to disregard the sizeable minority that are not and stick with that generalization as my working premise. I don’t understand this. Without meaning to insult you, it strikes me as almost willfully ignorant.

And I believe that it is warranted to say that Christianity as a collective entity is anti-gay, based on an objective look at the dismal state of civil rights for gays and lesbians in the country as a whole (rationalized largely by religious prohibitions against homosexuality) and the blatant and unabashed espousal of unequal status for gays and lesbians within the various churches themselves, including the Methodist Church.

You can surely see that this is an example of exactly the back-forming rationale I am speaking of. Gays do not have equal rights in this country. Many in this country are Christian. Therefore gays do not have equal rights in this country because many in this country are Christian. Therefore Christians are generally anti-gay. BTW, the taboo against homosexual sex is not even exclusively religious, let alone exclusively Christian; it is a taboo found throughout history and throughout the world. Do you then lay the lack of equal rights for gays on a world-wide scale at the feet of Christianity as well? It would be equally as defensible.

In fact, I think there is harm in taking the opposite position, because it allows Christians to keep on their blinders and assume that everything’s hunky-dory, when it isn’t.

Nonsense. Recognizing that while most fundamentalist or conservative Christians are anti-gay, many moderate or liberal Christians are not does not translate to thinking the current situation is “hunky-dory.” The one has nothing to do with the other.

The denial of civil rights to fellow citizens is inhuman, especially when it comes from people who profess to love the very people they are tormenting.

But, of course, churches are not in charge of the extension or denial of human rights. Legislatures are. But wait! Many legislatures have failed to pass eqaul-rights legislation. That must mean that ALL legislatures – and all legislators – are anti-gay.

This is not an indictment of the Methodist Church. It is an indictment of Christianity as a whole.

I admit that I am occasionally not very bright. So please explain to me how you can indict “Christianity as a whole” and not indict Methodism – and every other denomination. If you unqualifiedly indict the entire set, you are obviously indicting each and every sub-set If you qualify, then you can pull sub-sets out: All letters between A and M, except D, F, and J. If you don’t, then you can’t.

Obviously the various Christian churches have to shoulder differing degrees of blame. In my mind, the Methodist Church and its individual believers have to shoulder far less than most.

Once more, with feeling – if you talk about [all] Christians or [all] Christianity, then you by definition cannot talk about apportioning blame among denominations; you are blaming all of us equally. It is only when you realize that we are NOT all equal and do NOT all belief the same things that you can talk about apportioning blame.

Oh well. That’s all I have to say on that matter. We’re probably going to have to agree to disagree. Let me just add that I was heartened and gratified by your latest post, and that I do in fact respect you both as a person and as a Christian.

Thanks!

[pldennison]

Jodi, you (and perhaps Poly and RTF) seem to be at odds with JTR when he refers to “Christianity collectively,” at points explicitly denying that there is such a thing, apparently because of the fractious nature of its denominations.

But do you not feel that there is an entity, “Christianity,” or a worldwide community of Christians of which you are a part, which describes the Methodist denominations and the Southern Baptists and the Eastern Orthodox, et al.? The fact that you as a Methodist, Poly as an Episcopalian and Wildest Bill as a fundamentalist may have differing and in cases irreconcilable opinions on specific points of theology doesn’t make the three of you any less described by the word “Christian,” does it?

It just seems to me, as a disinterested observer, to be a needlessly semantic quibble undermining a serviceable analogy. (Although I can sympathize if you wouldn’t want to be categorized with, say, WB.) And I disagree with the OP, too. I, for one, don’t hate Christianity; I simply disagree completely with its fundamental premises.