For the 900th time, if your stereotype implicates a negative value-judgment – blacks are theives, Jews are cheap, Christians are bigots – the value-judgment extends to everyone in the group you are stereotyping. I just said this.
The absence of a qualifier means the definition extends to “all.” “All” is not a qualifier; “all” is the entire set. “All” is X[unqualified] as opposed to X[qualified]. Cars have tires (correct: all cars have tires). Cars are red (incorrect: some cars are red, but not all). I hate desserts implies I hate all desserts, precisely because the absence of a qualifier implicates the entire set. If you don’t get this, we are going to have problems 'til the end of time.
I can just imagine your childhood: ARL is playing videogames. His (her?) mother comes in and says “The groceries are in the car. Please bring the groceries in.” ARL brings in one bag and returns to his (her?) game, confident that if his (her?) mother had meant bring in ALL the groceries, she would have “qualified” her statement by using the word “all.” ALL is not generally a qualifier; ALL is presumed. “Put the pencils in the drawer.” Half the pencils? Some of the pencils? No; presumably all the pencils. “Vegetables are not fattening.” This presumes all vegetables, so you should not be surprised if someone says “Wait a minute – avacodos are vegetables and they are fattening.” I am AMAZED that you continue to make the tortured argument that a statement that appears to implicate an entire set – I hate Christians – should be interpreted to mean something less than it appears to mean because the “qualifier” “all” is not used. This, to me, is laughable.
I understand this is your contention. It is incorrect. Why? Because a stereotype that implicates an entire set (“cars are red”) is incorrect if you know that some sub-sets do not conform to the stereotype, AND because the unqualified stereotype implicitly indicts the entire set.
Oh, I don’t know. Lots. More than 50%. More than a 60/40 split. The vast majority. The point at which it becomes justifiable to impute a characteristic to all members of a group.
Oh, baloney. Is “you have the right to free speech” a meaningless statement? What about “you have the right to bear arms”? The contexts of these rights are not completely fleshed out either; therefore they must be meaningless, right? Anyway, you already argued this in your post of 12/13 at 5:38 and responded to by me on that date at 6:11. I don’t find you saying anything new.
No, you have found it to have different meanings depending on who you ask. Different meanings is not the same as no meaning.
Look, you are rehashing arguments you have already made, and they don’t get any more persuasive for being rehashed. Do you have anything new to say? Because if not, I think we’re done.
But, of course, 3 is wrong, because by failing to qualify “Christians dislike homosexuality” you are obviously implying that ALL Christians dislike homosexuality – because – for the 400th time – the failure to qualify a statement made about a given set means that the statement may be taken to apply to the ENTIRE set. “I don’t like cake.” Does that mean I don’t like carrot cake? What about spice cake – do I like spice cake? How about bundt cake? No. It implicitly means I do not like any cake; that I dislike all cake. This is simple logic, by the way, and has nothing to do with religion.
What are you talking about? I don’t know – do you?
Again, if you don’t have anything new to say, I wouldn’t bother reheating things again, because I’m not likely to respond. I have made my point as well as I can, and repeatedly, and I frankly at this point think its justice is obvious. Why you can’t see it, I don’t know; but I’m happy to assume it’s because I haven’t explained it well enough. So If someone else expresses disagreement or confusion, I’ll revisit the issue. But I see no profit in attempting to do so with you.
I’m not even going to bother rewording everything so you’ll understand, english obviously isn’t your native language. Instead, I will note this one thing:
“For the 900th time, if your stereotype implicates a negative value-judgment” Value judgement to whom? You see, like I said, YOU ARE THE ONE POSING MORALITY ON THE STEREOTYPE. Fuck. For a stereotype to implicate a value-judgement, it would need to say “Niggers are all bad,” “Jews are evil,” and so on. By indicating a trait, you indicate no morality. If you, again, choose to consider this trait moral/immoral/amoral be my guest, but you are incorrect, LOGICALLY, that it is implied. YOU PUT IT THERE.
Well, I’m at least familiar enough with it to know that it’s generally capitalized. I think anyone reading this thread can judge for themselves my command of the language.
I believe the word you’re looking for is “imposing,” not “posing.” Might I suggest you brush up on your English skills?
Ah. I see. Well, then I posit as a hypothesis that AYNRANDLOVER is a total idiot. By saying this, I am merely indicating a lack of intelligence, which is a morally-neutral trait, so if you see a negative value-judgment, it is only because YOU PUT IT THERE.
OK, jab1, but we’re hijacking now. Spin off a new thread and I’ll hit it next week. For now…
First, Luke 8:9 has his disciples asking him what he is talking about, then:
The “knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God” is not required for salvation. However, in the interests of the kingdom and maintaining an understanding of the world among the saved, they are certaintly permitted to have their own world view. This same understanding might be dangerous for the unsaved. I don’t even know for sure a good example to give you. Jesus does pretty much explain most of his parables eventually in the Gospels. But his teachings on how to enter the kingdom are clear from the get go – but, man, on a totally unrelated topic, are there some hungry crows around these days or what?
If you believe in Jesus, you can’t die. See the top of Luke 13. I am not certain where it speaks of the end of the world here – the Kingdom simply isn’t “official” until the disciples recieve the Holy Spirit after Jesus opened the doors to heaven (keeping with the Luke version here).
No, it should always be capitalized. I was in error when I missed the “shift” key.
From Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary:
pose: vt…2) To put or set forth: offer.
impose: vt…1b)To establish or make prevail by force.
Not necessarily synonyms; however, in the sense used, you are putting the morals into the statement. It is not a huge stretch by any means.
Glad to see you are catching on. Tell me, what are the implications of agreeing with an idiot? Ah, yes, instead of :rolleyes: one would get
Always glad to be of service! Shall I correct the punctuation you used incorrectly or can we leave off the paltry attacks?
Well, to jump into a battle and see if both sides fire on me, I think what’s being said is that stereotypes can be validly used but absolutely need to be nuanced to avoid tarring all persons with the same brush. To use Jodi’s valid example, “nonacculturated Hmong practice animal sacrifice.” Well, fine. The assumption is a generalization about Hmong social practices. It does not imply that every Hmong killed a chicken yesterday. And it is nuanced, so that the devout Catholic assimilated Hmong are not accused of a contrary-to-Catholic-practice activity, and new poster Montagnard informs Jodi in high dudgeon that he is in fact a Hmong and neither he nor his sainted mother nor in fact any of his family has ever practiced that loathsome custom, etc., etc.
But when a remark is made without nuancing and carries a negative connotation to boot, e.g., “gays engage in a promiscuous, immoral lifestyle,” “Christians are homophobic” (to attempt a vain return to the OP :)), then all persons of that category are being so described, and the stereotype moves from a neutral generalization to an offensive universal condemnation, which is nearly always not valid.
Either of you have objections to that interpretation?
I’m just about to go on vacation, and I’ll be away from the boards for a while. But I just saw your post, and I want to take one more shot at this thing. It will be my last statement in this thread, and you and Jodi can have the last word.
First off, the OP doesn’t say that “Christians are homophobic,” nor have I said it. I can’t vouch for every post made in this thread, but I myself have been scrupulous about differentiating between Christians and Christianity. It’s the belief system, as applied in America at the present time, which is problematic. To you this differentiation may seem overly technical, but it’s an important one to me. (As I mentioned in another thread, my girlfriend is a devout Christian.)
As for the overall issue of whether Christianity is anti-gay (reverting to the language that I’ve used in my own posts), let me approach things from a slightly different angle.
Sometimes the only thing that many straights know about the gay community is the pictures of Gay Pride parades on the evening news and in magazines. What do they see? Gays in drag or in leather bondage costumes. Is this representative of the gay community? Of course not. The vast majority of gays and lesbians who attend Gay Pride parades are dressed in business suits, nice slacks, jeans, or whatever. No feathers or leather. But because of this, they don’t make a good photo op. The cameras prefer the drag queens and the leather daddies, and that’s what shows up on the evening news. And so middle America has an incorrect image of the larger gay community, which results in stereotypes like the one you mentioned: “gays engage in a promiscuous, immoral lifestyle.” It’s a stereotype resulting from a lack of familiarity with the gay community and the inability to see the semi-closeted lifestyles of the millions of normal-looking, normal-living gays and lesbians scattered throughout every neighborhood in America. Given this context, “promiscuous, immoral lifestyle” is clearly a negative stereotype unreflective of the larger gay and lesbian community.
But now look at Christianity from the gay and lesbian perspective. a) According to many mainline Christian churches, simply falling in love is a sin for gays and lesbians. b) Gay and lesbian marriages aren’t recognized. c) Gays and lesbians aren’t allowed to belong to church hierarchy. Jodi advertises the Methodist Church as one of the most progressive Christian churches in America in terms of gay rights, and she is correct to do so—the Methodist Church has indeed made tremendous progress on this issue. Nonetheless, even in the Methodist Church gays and lesbians remain second class citizens: The Methodist Church doesn’t recognize gay and lesbian marriages or allow gays and lesbians to become preachers.
And the list goes on. If blacks or some other group were singled out in this manner, everyone would recognize the unfairness of the situation. But because it’s gays and lesbians…
And then there’s the reflection of these religious beliefs in American law, particularly the fact that gays and lesbians aren’t allowed to marry even in civil ceremonies. Opposition to gay marriage is routinely grounded in religious beliefs. By contrast, Americans today are gradually accepting equality for gays and lesbians in most non-religious aspects of life. It’s still an ongoing process, of course, but no one would think of confiscating a gay man’s home or refusing to let him trade on the stock exchange solely on grounds of sexual orientation. But the instant something with a religious basis enters the equation, the opposition grows fierce. It doesn’t even matter that gays only want civil marriage, not church marriages. The opposition is there simply because marriage is seen as based in the religious realm, and that’s no place for gays and lesbians.
Jodi at one point argued that public anti-gay opposition may well spring from another source and is merely reflected in the religious prohibitions of the various churches. In other words, which came first—the antipathy toward gays and lesbians or the religious prohibitions? But does it really matter? Christianity (and not only Christianity) is the last great provider of convenient anti-gay rationalizations for homophobes. Homophobes quote the Bible. The churches, even the most progressive ones, treat gays and lesbians like second-class citizens. The watchword for dealing with gays and lesbians is “love the sinner and hate the sin”—a particularly cruel formula at a couple different levels.
Which came first—the antipathy toward gays and lesbians or the religious prohibitions? I don’t know. But if the Christian Churches were to drop their condemnation of homosexuality and treat gays and lesbians as equals, it would remove a convenient way of rationalizing homophobia for a lot of people. At the very least, people would have to face up to the fact that it’s not God who hates fags, it’s the people themselves.
Getting back to the debate at hand, I have to admit that I got tired of arguing technicalities with Jodi. Who knows? Perhaps she’s right on the purely technical level. Maybe if we tinker with the “I hate Christianity” language a little bit and throw in enough qualifiers, as you suggested, we can find a formula that we all like
But at the same time, I want to object to the kind of side-by-side comparison that you made when you said …“gays engage in a promiscuous, immoral lifestyle,” [and] “Christians are homophobic”. I think it demonstrates the very lack of understanding that lies right at the heart of the gays community’s complaint against the various churches. Gays and lesbians are seen in a negative light because straights are typically unfamiliar with the gay and lesbian community. Much of the straight community has no contact with the gay community at all, and this is an lack of contact breeds negative anti-gay stereotypes. Gays and lesbians, on the other hand, are all too familiar with the religious prohibitions of the churches, and it affects them directly or indirectly every day of their lives.
(One quick story. An American gay acquaintance of mine is in love with a man in England. They would get married if they could, but they aren’t allowed to. Since they can’t marry and since there are various restrictions on immigration, especially for gays, it also means that they can’t live together or be together. They can only see each other for a couple months out of the year, or as long as their visas last. The rest of the time they have to be content with phone calls and e-mails. So they wait, hoping the laws will change someday.)
So let’s call it a difference in perception. When Christians form negative impressions of gays and lesbians, it’s from lack of familiarity or knowledge. When gays and lesbians form negative impressions of the prevailing religious beliefs in America, it’s from far too much familiarity—they know damned well they aren’t considered equals in most churches in America today. It’s written right in the by-laws and posted on the Internet. And given that the churches are blatantly and unapologetically discriminatory, it’s no surprise that it’s near-to-impossible to change civil laws that appear to encroach on religious territory.
Once again, it’s not about individual Christians–everyone knows and loves pro-gay Christians. And it’s not even that Christianity is intrinsically anti-gay–I’ve read that the Roman Catholic Church allowed gay marriages up until the 1200’s or so. However, it is about how gays and lesbians are treated by the various churches here and now, it is about the second-class status of gays and lesbians even in the most progressive of Christian churches like the Methodist church, and it is about the convenient religious rationalizations that otherwise thoughtful people suddenly spout when asked how they can justify denying gays and lesbians equal civil rights.
One more time: When Christians form negative impressions of gays and lesbians, it’s from lack of familiarity or knowledge about the gay community. When gays and lesbians form negative impressions of the prevailing religion in America, it’s from far too much familiarity with the religious community.
Okay, end of tirade. This is a post-and-run. I’m supposed to be on vacation, and my girlfriend’s waiting for me. You get the last word.
By the way, I know that you and Jodi are good people who want to see gays and lesbians treated equally, and I don’t have any grudge against you . I’m absolutely sincere when I wish you a very Merry Christmas!
JTR, a wonderful presentation. I do take your distinction between individual Christians and “Christianity as a belief structure” as a valid one, and that my juxtaposition was probably less than a perfect parallelism on the grounds you state. However, I’d comment that the words in quotes are simply another way of reconstructing the stereotype. The vast majority of Episcopalians are not members of that stereotype; neither are the vast majority of members and clergy of the United Church of Christ. And, as Esprix will be quick to point out, effectively no Christian UU members subscribe to it (drawing the only-fair distinction that only some UU people consider themselves Christian). I believe Jodi has asserted a proportion for Methodism but don’t recall it and a quick skim of recent threads she and I have been involved in doesn’t give me a link – in any case, it’s somewhere between a large minority and a significant majority there.
And I would suggest that only a tiny percentage of even the most rabidly anti-gay of denominations believes that “gays are evil/sinful from their orientation” – at worst, it would be seen as “an affliction from which God can heal them” (albeit very capriciously).
I’m most grateful for your kind words and wishes at the end of your post, JTR, and I reciprocate fully. I think your post was very well-intentioned. But for the reasons given, it only more carefully defines the same problem that ARL and Jodi have been trying to thrash out – to what extent is a stereotypical attitude a valid one, and when does it become arrant miscategorization?
For me, my activism in behalf of gay rights is part and parcel of my faith, as is my wife’s much more low-keyed supprt of the principles I’ve presented in thread after thread here. For Esprix to tar my faith with the brush he could validly use against Paige Patterson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, and James Dobson is probably something I have just cause to take offense to. (And, of course, he’s not strictly doing that, but his OP was, I think, calculated to cause us to examine exactly what we’re doing or not doing and how to get past any “watchful dragons” that might prevent doing the right thing.) I’ve noticed relative silence from him lately, and I hope he’ll be commenting on recent posts to this thread soon.
This clearly is, IMO, the crux of the issue. Steroetypes, whether about people or not, are tricky bastards. I will never deny that.
Now, some closure from me because this thread is close to being done…
Gaudere, sorry! :embarassed: Jodi, don’t take it personally! I see the point you are trying to make very clearly, my problem is only in how you are presenting it. Truly, I completely agree that social stereotypes should have a higher degree of qualification, necessarily should apply to a larger group, and that people do feel moral judgements imposed by them…I just don’t feel that you have successfully put the argument forth, is all. You were arguing morality from a moral stance: completely inappropriate, logically speaking.
That isn’t to say “my” stereotypes are necessarily well-founded, either, but I maintain that I do not use them out of hand, and under any other circumstance I do not let them interfere with getting to know someone. They are used, as I tried to point out, in a strictly amoral sense when dealing with individuals. Hope we can bring closure to this, because I agree with you in other threads and no need to stay pissy about it. Peace?
On rereading my post and ARL’s response, I realized that I had fallen into precisely the trap that JDR had counseled against.
It was my intent to clarify that “Christianity as a belief structure” is no more valid than “Christianity as a single organization” – the belief structures of various denominations and even individuals have some irreducible concurrence and some substantial disagreement. Then… [the list of churches and their pro-active pro-gay views]
As the post stands, it looks as though I missed JDR’s entire point that people are not organizations or doctrines. Do I agree in every way with Esprix’s views? This thread would make it abundantly obvious that I do not. Do I like and accept him and cherish him as a person? Absolutely. And the same holds true for Falcon, for Jodi, for RT, for the Pizza gang, for Gaudere, and almost everyone else I’ve gotten to know on these boards. (Even DITWD ;)) So let this stand as a clarification that my intent was to evaluate his “Christianity as a belief structure” as a stereotypical category of belief, by examples taken from particular subsets of Christianity, as exemplified by those who hold them.
JTR and Polycarp, you are both as eloquent as always - I can hardly think of anything to add. Bravo!
I will clear this much up, though:
Ah, see, here we go assuming again. When I said, “Don’t assume,” I meant don’t assume that by not saying “I hate” means “I doubt.” So when I said don’t assume I said “I doubt,” you then took that to mean “I hate.” I neither hate nor doubt Christianity entire; I simply don’t believe it to be true.
No, I do not.
However, this has little to do with the OP.
I’ve said before, I am no fan of Christianity, but I am a fan of religion; I encourage everyone to persue their spiritual side and find what works best for them, because I believe, in the long run, “an unexamined life is not worth living,” for lack of anything wittier to say. Part of life is what we believe, and if we’ve never bothered to think about that (or, worse, accept what we are taught and never question it), then our life remains unexamined, IMHO.
The foundation of Christianity is that Jesus was the son of God - I do not believe this to be so. Therefore, I view Christianity as I view most other religions I have a fundamental disagreement with; that is, it works for them, not for me. And, yes, I’ll take verbal jabs and spar about it when appropriate. And, yes, I do agree with the fundamental command to love, but that is hardly unique to Christianity.
Now, because this country remains predominantly Christian, it happens to be the religion I am most familiar with - I was, after all, raised Methodist, and remain UU, which certainly doesn’t shy away from studying Christianity (among other religious beliefs). Furthermore, as a gay man, I am acutely aware of what has and has not been done and said by Christians on behalf of their religion, and the overwhelming impression has been as JTR describes.
So, here I am, proud little gay UU, protesting the unfairness I see. And, rightly, people call me on it - “Well, I’m Christian, and I’m not that way.” And, truthfully, they’re not (and I do know you’re not, Jodi). But with the overwhelming evidence I’ve seen, it’s a hard reconciliation to make. That’s what prompted the OP - if many a Christian makes the distinction between who I am vs. what I do, is it a valid distinction for me to make between who they are vs. what they believe?
After all this, I think the answer for me is no, it is not.
If I am offended (and deeply so) by the platitude of “love the sinner, hate the sin,” then I ought to be just as offended to utter the words, “love the Christian, hate Christianity,” for the same reason of offense, and additionally, truly, I don’t actually hate Christianity (although I do steadfastly disagree with most of it, all of the ensuing arguments aside of whether or not that constitutes the cut-off point of whether or not one can justifiably say they hate all of something when they really only hate most of something). Even qualifying it seems hollow to me.
It is, however, important for me to note the speed and vehemence people came into to defend the qualifications of both sides - “not all gay people are like that” and “not all Christians are like that.” We all want to be the exception (and truly we are), and that’s the problem with stereotypes. It is also interesting to watch the defense of a Christian who might say “LTS/HTS” when the tables are turned and someone might say back to them “LTC/HC.” It remains a snappy comeback to an ignorant statement, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the speaker (in this case, me) believes it; it’s a good way to make people realize what they say is hurtful (and a time-honored witticism at that). Besides, sometimes I just get so tired of hearing it - I mean, I can’t be a politically correct activist before I’ve had my morning tea.
So, yes, if people are going to shovel that tripe at me, I’ll shovel some back. If people are willing to have an intelligent discussion with me about the issues at stake, I can give that back, too. Has my view of Christianity entire changed? No - I still disagree with its basic tenent. But it would behoove me to always show the respect every individual deserves.
Listen, do me a favor. As a grown-up, no longer attending school, I am rarely if ever looking to be graded on how I present a point. So the next time you “see it very clearly,” why don’t you own up to that so I don’t have to repeat it for six pages? I’m not asking you to agree with me – although evidently you largely do – just admit that you’re on the same page. It will save a lot of time.
See above.
Peace.
EXPRIX – I see your point and I respect it. I’m just unsure – again, or still – of what people expect of moderate or liberal Christians that we don’t already do. As I’ve said before, we can speak out (and we do), but we can’t make people hear us when it’s the devisive, hate-filled beliefs of the small minority that seem to get all the press.
Jodi, you and I need to do the same things for our respective communities - I have to be myself to make the point on a person-by-person, one-on-one personal relationship level that the entirety of the gay community is not child molesters, man-hating lesbians and men who want to be women; similarly, each and every day you have to be proud to be Christian and proud to be individually-minded. It’s how we live our lives that make our points, not the groups we belong to.
Yeah, but just think how much more popular he’d be if he did more than one trick! :o
We’re having a meeting in early January at my church – I just received e-mail on it today – that will consider what we discussed in the recent class on Christian response to homosexuals and several activities involving Bp. Spong and his work (he’s been one of the leaders in the Episcopal Church’s move to get unhomophobic). So I’ll be doing exactly what people have called for.
Though I’m still upset that nobody found “Touched by an Anglican” funny! :mad:
>1 No- he does not speak to save those who 'do not understand or strive to understand" His teachings. If you do not understand the teachings of JC, you will not be saved by Him. You must at least undersatnd enuf to accept Him as your saviour.
>2 Right after this verse, JC takes Peter, John & James, up into the mountains, where Moses & Elijah come out of Heaven to converse with Him, ie the “transfiguration”. Or, if you do not accept that THAT would would be 'seeing the Kingdom of G-D", the verse is worded slightly different in Matthew ie 16:28 …“There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom”- which the Disciples did on the Pentecost.
