Scorned Christians
Alright. I'm getting some heavy Christian traffic, and to save you all the trouble of leaving comments on every item, I have to clear up a misrepresentation about my (and I think I can mostly speak for my co-editor, but he can chime in) belief system.
As you can see there are some strong anti-Christian diatribes over the last however long we've been doing this. But it's not Christianity per se that we're against. Religion isn't for me personally, but unlike most religions, I'm tolerant of belief systems that are different from my own. But it's not as if the institution of Christianity is, by itself, intrinsically evil. Well, to put it in a single sentence:
Christianity has been ruined by Christians.
Let me explain. When we go on about Christianity, we're not insulting either of the following:
1) Jesus
2) Christians who actually practice the teachings of Christ
We are insulting, and I thought fairly clearly, the Christians who want to stick their noses into:
Just to name a few examples. THOSE are the people we're against. Someone wrote a comment down there that before he re-found Christ, he started to think that all Christians were closed-minded. I would never say anything like that. I have no idea how many closed-minded Christians are out there, but I am strongly opposed to the ones who are.people's bedrooms (anti-sodomy laws/abstinence-only) families' private affairs (Terri Schiavo) miseducation (teaching creationism in science class/not teaching proper sex ed) doctor/patient confidentiality (pharmacists refusing to pass out legally prescribed drugs to women/opposition to a cancer preventing drug) anti-environmentalism (the apocalypse is almost upon us, so what's the point in protecting the earth?) mixing church and state (trying to undermine the independence of the judicial branch)
Get it?
And I'm always in favor of someone challenging, and ideally changing my belief system. Don't confuse confidence and knowledge with closed-mindedness. But if someone wants to change my opinion, he'd better arm himself with actual facts. None of this "and America is safer" bullshit.
[added by emeryroolz]
Yeah, what he said. Actually, I'd like to carry it a little further. First, I disagree that Christianity was ruined by Christians. It was ruined by hypocrites who decided to use religion to further their own ends. Religion has been used by the powerful to suppress and control the weak from pretty much day one. Come on, the Divine Right of Kings for cripes sake? The infallibility of the Pope? Sheesh.
Unfortunately for Christianity, the teachings of Christ have too often been perverted to serve the ends of the most un-Christian among us, usually posing as the biggest religious icons at the party (GWB and Pat Robertson, I'm looking at you). This is how the beautiful sentiment that “the meek shall inherit the earth” becomes a cynical ploy to pacify the poor to the benefit of the rich (“you may be poor now, but think of how rich you’ll be when you die!”).
Also, my comments about religion shouldn't be construed as only applying to Christianity. They apply to any exclusionary or evangelical religion, by which I mean any religion that thinks they know "the truth" about god and that everyone else is wrong and will burn in hell or where ever, or that seeks to forcibly spread and impose their religious beliefs to everyone else. What's more egotistical than thinking that some supreme being favors you and your friends more than everyone else, all because you went to the "right" building every Saturday or Sunday, and you donated your money to the "right" group of people (so that they could buy the biggest and best gold candlesticks), and you denied yourself the "right" things, like meat on Fridays or bacon every day or sex outside of the process of pro-creation? I'd personally rather watch football on Sunday, preferably while spending my money on beer, eating a big BLT, and having sex just for fun.
Jesus said blessed are the meek and the humble. Those Christians who actually follow the teachings of Christ, good for you! "Christians" who attempt to regulate the personal or political behavior of others based on the Bible or Koran or whatever, however, will get no such leeway. Basing scientific, educational, or sexual policies on a 2000 year old work of historical fiction like the Bible is as ludicrous as basing racial and civil rights policies on Gone With the Wind. And I don't think anyone should apologize for calling bullshit when it happens. Of course, I haven’t seen anyone posting any totally off the wall comments so far, which leads me to believe we’re all pretty reasonable people…
3 comments:
Basing scientific, educational, or sexual policies on a 2000 year old work of historical fiction like the Bible is as ludicrous as basing racial and civil rights policies on Gone With the Wind.
There are plenty of full-blown athiests that would laugh at such an empty parallel. It's not the same and proclaiming so (even very loudly) doesn't "prove your point", it shows you to be clueless of world history (namely that of the first and second centuries). I'm not saying that you're not a thoughtful person unless you're Christian (obviously)...but what is received from this kind of angle is a lot of retarded anger, certainly not reasonable, fair, respectful, and intellectually honest dialogue.
We are insulting, and I thought fairly clearly, the Christians who want to stick their noses into:
-people's bedrooms (anti-sodomy laws/abstinence-only)
Those two examples are two entirely different things. The anti-sodomy thing is bullshit. Grown gay men should be able to legally bone each other silly in the privacy of their own homes.
As for abstinence-only...while this does have whiffs of similar irresponsibility (and is a viewpoint held by people who arrive at it with bunk reasoning, justification, etc.)...there's something to be said for a policy of, "We fund effect things, not just any ol' 'sorta, kinda, maybe' approach".
-families' private affairs (Terri Schiavo)
If you had ever versed yourself in approaching things dialectically and then set out to present the strongest argument against starving an invalid women to death, I think that even the "family affairs" clause would show itself to be much less one-sided than you make it out to be (as in, the family, parents, and other caretakers of Schiavo over her money-hungry, fucking-another-woman husband).
-miseducation (teaching creationism in science class/not teaching proper sex ed)
The notion that our world is to be accounted for by more than time and chance is something that completely non-religious scientists have come to (as well as the Left Behind nutjobs). And, for you to force the religion of "no religion" down the throats of others is also irresponsible. Your freedom "of religion" does not allow you to use selective info to back your "anti-religion" agenda.
Further, Darwin came up with a theory which he used to argue, "Hey...this would account for what I've seen and observed." It's not the only possibility (nor do I think that people in either the secular evolutionist or radically religious camps need to make the conversations of religion and evolution as antithetical as they have been).
-# doctor/patient confidentiality (pharmacists refusing to pass out legally prescribed drugs to women/opposition to a cancer preventing drug)
For all of your support for freedoms and convictions, a privately owned institution needs to be able to decline to particpate in behavior they are personally convicted against. If the same rights are argued for soldiers protesting a war they feel is immoral, the principle behind that argument doesn't stop just because your personal conviction happens to differ from theirs.
-anti-environmentalism (the apocalypse is almost upon us, so what's the point in protecting the earth?)
Yes! Republicans are disgusting pigs on the environmnent and for all of their rhetoric of being "the people of God", they need to do two things:
1.) Make their prayer that they are on God's side rather than pray that he take theirs.
and
2.) Recognize their vocation as being one of stewardship of the beauty and resources entrusted to them (rather than the present state which you hit right on the nose and which is repulsive and hypocritical).
Oh, and
3.) Read "Adventures in Missing the Point"...particularly the chapter on the environment.
-# mixing church and state (trying to undermine the independence of the judicial branch)
Read Lieberman's comments from Meet the Press on Easter Sunday. While there are certainly repulsive practices by religious nutballs, this is another instance where you fail to recognize the legitimacy of the other side of the conversation. And don't give me any more of that "no compromise" bullshit. This isn't about "this side" and "that side"...it's about recognizing that there's more to the larger conversation than either of them.
You're making it too easy, Brad.
As for abstinence-only...while this does have whiffs of similar irresponsibility (and is a viewpoint held by people who arrive at it with bunk reasoning, justification, etc.)...there's something to be said for a policy of, "We fund effect things, not just any ol' 'sorta, kinda, maybe' approach".
Look up the numbers. Kids who take these abstinence pledges not only get STDs and pregnant at the same rate as other kids, they also find loopholes in their own system by pulling a Monica or ridin' the dirt bike. It doesn't work, so where do we end up? With a high-and-mighty "well, at least I didn't suggest that they have sex," feeling, but they're out there fucking anyway.
starving an invalid women to death, I think that even the "family affairs" clause would show itself to be much less one-sided than you make it out to be (as in, the family, parents, and other caretakers of Schiavo over her money-hungry, fucking-another-woman husband).
This is kind of old news, but apparently news to you nonetheless - she was already dead. People who agree with that assessment - the courts, every doctor who ever examined her, and her legal guardian. She died 15 years ago, or whenever it was. So this "fucking another woman" crap is him trying to move on with his life after the unfortunate passing of his wife.
your "anti-religion" agenda.
Nope. Not anti-religion. Anti-anti-freedom. I'm not against religion. I'm against the imposition of other people's religious views on me and the American people at large. Funny thing, so was Thomas Jefferson. Heard of him?
Further, Darwin came up with a theory which he used to argue, "Hey...this would account for what I've seen and observed." It's not the only possibility
My nun teachers at my Catholic grade school used to actually teach that God and evolution can, in fact, be compatible. Those nuns were comfortable with the idea of parables in the bible. In other words, maybe to God, 6 days was 4 billion years. Maybe, who knows? But unfortunately, that's not what they're trying to say in Kansas, is it?
For all of your support for freedoms and convictions, a privately owned institution needs to be able to decline to particpate in behavior they are personally convicted against.
If they're against passing out legally prescribed drugs and they work in a pharmacy, maybe they ought to get another JOB. For fuck's sake. I'm against fur - should I go get a job at a furrier and then refuse to club the minks?
Read Lieberman's comments from Meet the Press on Easter Sunday.
Actually, I saw that episode. And while I'm not sure to what you're referring specifically, I do know that he made me angrier than anyone on that panel. Jim Wallis was brilliant, as always.
Post a Comment