Yeah, and go here while you’re at it:
http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000291.html
There is a fine line between believing all Christians look like MMZ’s (mind-melded zealots) because of an extremist and all Christians are MMZ’s. Perhaps Jodih has come across as saying there is no line, but I think this line has also been exaggerated.
Clearly, Satan (with the help of David) has tried making it clear that he personally doesn’t believe that all Christians are MMZ’s. But Jodih has also (if I understand her correctly) tried to make the point that she doesn’t agree with the statement as is, regardless of whether Satan thinks Christians are or aren’t MMZ’s.
To me, the following quote
says ‘A majority of the general public will believe that all Christians are mind-melded zealots because of the reverend’s statement and the various other statements/actions made by like-minded groups or individuals.’ Even if the person who made that comment doesn’t personally believe the implication made in the comment.
The rest of my discussion is based on the above interpretation of Satan’s statement. If this is an invalid interpretation, Satan, please correct me, because if my interpretation is wrong, and the interpretation that ‘you believe all Christians are MMZ’s’ is incorrect (which I believe it is), then I have no idea what you were trying to convey with that assertion. Please clarify.
Anyway, I don’t believe that a majority of the general public would label Christian’s as MMZ’s because of the Rev.'s comments, et al. (When I talk about the general public, I am basically referring to this continent, English speaking people, basically those people who have a chance to be swayed one way or another by comments made here in the U.S., using the American media.) For one, a good percentage of the general public are Christians, who don’t have the same beliefs as the Rev, and people don’t generally attribute negative stereotypes to themselves. Secondly, albeit somewhat trivial, the people who do have the same beliefs as the Rev. probably aren’t going to label themselves as MMZ’s either.
Let’s also whittle away the people who don’t care enough to even make a judgment of Christians based on news they are probably ignoring anyway. This basically leaves us with non-Christians who care enough to make a judgment about Christians. I find it difficult to believe that all or even most of these people would be ignorant, mis-informed, or illogical enough to come to the conclusion that the words and actions receiving the most attention, those from a fringe group, automatically must be attributed to everyone in that group. I think most people could make that distinction. I would also assert that a lot of those people who appeared swayed by the Rev. et al into attributing the MMZ stereotype to all Christians already had a predisposition to believing it (personal biases, other misinformation, first-hand experience with Christians acting very ‘un-Christian-like’, etc.) and the comments from fringe ‘fundies’ only strengthened their personal attitude (which is a far cry from saying that the comments and exposure ‘caused’ these people to feel this way).
Yes, it’s unfortunate that the loudest and most visible members of the group collectively known as Christians often don’t represent everyone. Yes, it’s unfortunate the rest of us don’t speak as loud and don’t become as visible to try to counter (I believe there are some good reasons for this, some of these points have already been made.) But are the loud words and visible actions of a fringe group enough to convince a majority of people to attribute a negative stereotype to the group? I don’t think that it does.
Wouldn’t that just be his judgmental self-righteous followers?
David B wrote:
Wow. That’s almost as ridiculous as blaming school shootings on easy gun access or violence in the media.
I spew forth the above little piece of sarcasm here and now because, last night, The Learning Channel had a show about school shootings, in which a “respectable” university guy said “This epidemic of school shootings is caused by kids having easy access to guns.” That there is an “epidemic” of school shootings (7 or 8 out of a U.S. pop of 300 million?!), that kids have easier access to guns now than they did 50 years ago (when you could buy guns at a gas station), and that gun access is the cause of these school shootings, are all OPINIONS unsupported by evidence. And NO ONE CAME ON AFTER HIM to give an opposing viewpoint! T.L.C. just presented his views as indisputable fact! Grrr! It makes me want to pick up my easily-accessed guns and go shooting up his university!
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
Ouch. :::putting bandaid on where Monty’s shot hit home::::
Yeah, I suppose you’ve got a point. What business do I have criticizing people who use the name of the Person in whom I put my faith to push their own ignorant prejudices?
Especially when it’s only people like Satan, PLD, and Manhattan who suggest that maybe I as a committed Christian who is not one normally inclined to be self-righteous and judgmental of others needs to speak out when others claim that that’s what He stood for.
Well, I suppose I’ve been put in my place on that one.
SARCASM??? From Polycarp?
SpoonsJTD:
Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket, I’m sick of explaining this.
X = Y is a solid mathematical statement that says under all circumstances that X does in fact equal Y.
What I said (and more exasperating, repeated several times) is that X = Y + Z.
X is of course the population as a whole.
Y are people in the population who who think that ALL Christians are like this loony.
Z represents people in the population who do not subscrbe to this theory, knowing that all religions have shades of gray.
As a firm member of the Z people - a point which was also made in the OP in the VERY NEXT FUCKING PARAGRAPHS WHEN I MENTION A CHRISTIAN WHO DOES NOT FEEL THIS WAY - I can still say with an open mind that the Y people exist, and even go so far as to say they have ample evidence to come to this conclusion, even if it is misguided.
Example: My grandma was a racist. I hate racism. But I also realize that she did not even see a black person until she was in her '30s and that she was of a generation that was predisposed to these thoughts.
DID I CONDONE HER RACISM? Not at all.
DID I UNDERSTAND WHY SHE WAS A RACIST? Yes.
Now then, the OP was put in for several reasons, aside from my own amusement:
It would give moderate Christians a chance to say, “I’m like your friend you mention in the OP.”
Some did this.
It would give athiests and agnostics a reason to snicker and make jokes at the rube in particular and those who share his feelings.
Some did this.
It would also give non-believers of all spiritual inclinations a chance to give evidence why he is wrong, on a scientific or spiritual level.
Some did, kinda, though a lot of specific opinions in the evolution vs. creation debate have been given in other threads in this forum.
It would give like-minded Christians a chance to say, “I feel this way, and this is why!”
The mere fact that nobody came to the aid of the guy in the OP shows a lot for the intelligence of members in this forum (jodih notwithstanding).
It would give a Christian a chance to say, “Wait, I don’t think like this guy - I wonder what my Christian friends think of this? I also wonder what the person who I identify as a spiritual leader and depend on for guidence thinks of this?” and open up a personal dialogue into the nuances of their own faith.
I don’t know if some did this, but it would be nice.
It could even make a Christian say, “Well, if this is what people call Christianity, maybe I should have chosen what was behind door #3, because this is not me.”
I doubt this happened, but I imagine it within the realm of possibility.
So the post could have produced a lot of constructive dialogue both on and off the board, which is a good thing.
Here is what jodih got out of it:
“Why are you saying that all Christians are like this?”
And in spite of 4,572 assertions from myself and people who realized that I never said that, she still says, “Oh yes you did.”
Which means that instead of opening up an intelligent discourse, or even offering an opinion on the issue at hand, the douche bag argued semantics until she was blue in the face, refused to listen to calm responses that rebuffed her, and ultimately did nothing to distinguish herself from the jerk in the OP.
But more importantly, this shows that she cannot argue her faith compellingly without getting defensive. Look at her first post for proof. And this, by extension, shows me that when it comes to the hard issues (or discussions that take a modicum of insight and speculation) it’s much easier to just say, “Why do you hate all Christians?” than answer the questions at hand.
Sounds like someone not too sure in her own faith, to be honest, but that is just informed speculation.
She’s a lawyer, huh? Well, if this was a court case, she would have been held in contempt for constantly asking “irrelevent” questions to the case at hand from an increasingly more furious judge, while a very confused jury scratched their heads in bewilderment.
Case fucking dismissed!
SpoonsJTD:
Having reread your post, especially when you DID address some of the issues I mention in my diatribe above here (which though addressed to you, should not be implied as blasting you, I hope), I have to say one thing: You get it. And I appreciate your support…
Polycarp:
I don’t know if what you intended was sarcasm, but I for one think that your self-righteous quotient is far from overbearing. In fact, I can’t think of a single occassion where I would have even thought that word applied to you, and in fact have seen you fight against it when it popped up in others.
Take it for what it’s worth, but I think you’re okay. even if you DON’T buy me dinner at Angus Barn!
Something’s missing from this debate. Wait, I know …
THE GOOD REVEREND IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! YOU’RE ALL GOING TO HELL!!
There, that’s better.
I don’t recall any references to a good reverend. The only reverends even mentioned have been Glidden, Falwell, and Robertson. (Did I miss someone?)
Tom~
off topic . . .
Satan, my wife used to know Van Eure, the owner/manager of the Angus Barn. We got lots of free dinners. Neener neener neener.
(god, I love doing that.)
In reference to Poly’s sarcastic remark above, two things:
-
Poly: you just might want to quit taking logic cues from Jodih.
-
Nowhere did I say that it was you being a judgmental self-righteous follower. You inferred that, and you inferred that incorrectly. What it appears to me that Satan was addressing at the outset of this particular thread was mainstream Christianity’s (hereafter referred to as MS) silence in regards to the fringe elements. Heck, MS doesn’t seem to have had a hard time in demonizing LDS and a couple of other groups. Apparently, you’ve never heard “silence is consent.”
Sorry about the typo above, folks. MS should’ve been MC.
Hey, Satan:
What is a “Chick tract”, exactly? I presume that it’s one of those little comic books (approximately 2 1/2 inches by 5 inches) that evangelical vandals/litterbugs sometimes leave in telephone booths, newspaper racks, or hidden in among the Playboy magazines at the convenience store, but this forum is the only place I’e actually sen the term. Could you provide me with an etymology for it? Or, if my presumption is wrong, a definition?
Yes, that is a Chick tract.
I have to agree with this. Jodi has taken a lot of personal abuse in this thread that she did not deserve. The OP was provocative, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But it was just a matter of time before someone objected to the manner in which Christianity was portrayed in the OP. Jodi took the bait and suffered the consequences.
Christians have been in the news for their wide variety of opinions, ranging from right-wing to left-wing. One of the biggest ongoing stories lately has been about the various Protestant ministers who perform same-sex unions. There is no lack of news about Christians who support homosexual rights, who work on behalf of the homeless, who fight against racism, and so on. The Rev. Jesse Jackson, one of the nation’s most prominent Christians, is always speaking publicly on behalf of labor and minorities.
Newspapers sometimes frame the news by presenting stories that cast certain groups in a negative or positive light. The OP is an example of framing the news. You are correct, Brian, that you did NOT say “all Christians are mind-melded zealots.” But Jodi is correct that you chose to present a negative stereotype of Christianity. The operative words in the OP were:
That might be true for some people, but only if they disregard the more tolerant forms of Christianity.
Jodih did not object to the way Christianity was portrayed in the OP. That would have made sense…
What she did was object to MY PERSONAL feelings on the matter, and debate me incessantly on how I can possibly say that dudes like the Rev. make all Christians look bad, yet maintain that I don’t believe it myself.
What you said SHOULD have been the issue, but it wasn’t. Instead of answering the HARD questions the OP posed, she instead took it as a shot to complain, “I hate it when people say loonies like he make us all look alike, just like Satan did,” even though the complaint was not valid, not particularly relevant.
Actually, I think she did. In her second post, she said she had made a mistake in her first post. Then she clarified what she meant. She wrote:
It’s possible that I misunderstood what Jodi was saying here, but I interpreted her words to mean that in her opinion, your OP portrayed Christianity negatively.
The way I read Jodi’s posts, she’s saying that by framing Christianity in the way you do in your OP, you perpetuate a negative stereotype of Christians. It’s possible to perpetuate a stereotype without believing in that stereotype, but why would anyone want to? At first, Jodi did not accuse you of believing in this stereotype. On the contrary, she wrote:
Later, she muddied the waters by suggesting that you DO buy these negative stereotypes. Your exchanges became more and more personal. But her core objection, as I understood it, was that she felt you perpetuated a negative stereotype of Christianity when you said views like Glidden’s “turn people off from Christianity, and make ALL of its followers look like mind-melded zealots.” Your statement is a generalization; it’s not true unless these people are ignorant of or disregard more tolerant forms of Christianity, such as those espoused by prominent pastors who perform same-sex unions.
Subsequent posts focussed mostly on personal attacks, and I won’t defend Jodi for engaging in them. But I think the point she was trying to make in her second post got lost in the shuffle. One of her questions in a later post was:
Your response:
If I understand your response, you were saying that you highlighted Glidden’s views to show that he is a fanatic who does not represent Christianity. If that is what you were trying to do (and I apologize if I misinterpreted your words), then it becomes even more difficult to understand why you said views like Glidden’s turn people off to Christianity.
If you are trying to show that his views aren’t representative of Christianity, why did you say that his views turn people off to Christianity? People would only be turned off to Christianity as a result of hearing Glidden’s views IF they felt his views were representative of Christianity. Otherwise, they would merely dismiss him as a fanatic, as you do.
So, a reasonable person might interpret your OP as a straw-man argument against Christianity. I suspect that’s what originally motivated Jodi to raise her objections (although I might be wrong).
Temujin: you are evidently willfully deluding yourself.
Satan explained himself very well point-by-point and you, as Jodih did, have taken it into some other realm.
Perhaps you realize you (and she) are now making yourself appear as one of the fringe types he asked about in the OP.
Perhaps you don’t realize that, but it’s still the truth.