Ship of Fools: Religious Discrimination

Thread: Religious Discrimination Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026398

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

It is generally acknowleged in the community that discrimination based on race, sexual orientation and disability is totally unacceptable. Loud advertisements promoted by sportsmen etc appear on the tv decrying such discrimination. Why then does the public think it is ok to make bigoted and offensive remarks about the following of religious faith, particularly Christianity. I know of someone who lost a promotion due to her mention of Christian belief. The non religious find it hilarious to make jokes at the worshipper's expense and somehow it is considered unacceptable to protest. I acknowledge that I have been guilty in the past of remaining silent due to shyness, but I'm prepared now to say 'no more'. Am I being oversensitive?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
Why then does the public think it is ok to make bigoted and offensive remarks about the following of religious faith, particularly Christianity. I know of someone who lost a promotion due to her mention of Christian belief. The non religious find it hilarious to make jokes at the worshipper's expense and somehow it is considered unacceptable to protest. I acknowledge that I have been guilty in the past of remaining silent due to shyness, but I'm prepared now to say 'no more'. Am I being oversensitive?

Yes. You've provided three examples and only one of them is actually "discrimination" (getting passed over for an earned promotion). So you seem to be running a ratio of oversensitive umbrage to real issues of about 2:1. Being an offensive asshole is not necessarily the same thing as discriminating.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You've provided three examples and only one of them is actually "discrimination" (getting passed over for an earned promotion).

And I'm pretty darn sure that this example of discrimination is unlawful throughout Australia.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You've provided three examples and only one of them is actually "discrimination" (getting passed over for an earned promotion).
And I'm pretty darn sure that this example of discrimination is unlawful throughout Australia.

I think the ACLU would jump down your throat if you tried it in the US. Although it would be hard to prove that a non-promotion was due to one's religion. You'd have to have some kind of smoking gun (email, coworkers who can corroborate conversations).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Well, yes, and I'm not going to try and speculate about the accuracy of bib's statement and what there might be to prove it. I'm simply saying that I'm fairly sure there are laws against discrimination on the basis of religious belief (or lack thereof) in exactly the same way there are laws against discrimination on the basis of race or sexual orientation or disability.

So as far as that particular measure of community attitudes is concerned, religion is not worse off.

And if anyone wants to say that laws don't necessarily reflect real-world community attitudes, my response would be that's also exactly the same as with race, sexual orientation or disability. Nasty remarks on all those topics can be readily heard in parts of the community.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And if anyone wants to say that laws don't necessarily reflect real-world community attitudes, my response would be that's also exactly the same as with race, sexual orientation or disability. Nasty remarks on all those topics can be readily heard in parts of the community.

It's definitely true that the law about religious discrimination doesn't reflect community attitudes. It's also true that it is respected a lot more in the breach than in the observance. Evangelical Christians get a huge break in our country. They're bitching now because in some places they are being knocked off their pedestal and being made to live under the same rules as everybody else. Oh, how that stings. It's almost like they were being persecuted.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

bib

You mention that someone missed out on promotion

quote:
... due to her mention of Christian belief...

I feel bound to ask, was her belief or religion in any way relevant to the job she was applying for?

By that, I mean would it have precluded her from undertaking any part of the job, or stopped her from being present at certain times?

If the answer to those questions is "No" then the matter of her religion or faith was irrelevant.

That does mean that to not appoint based on her faith would have been discrimination.

But it also begs the question why she decided to bring it up at interview.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Religious discrimination is illegal in Australia under Article 18 of the ICCPR. I would say your acquaintance should take it up with a lawyer to see how to pursue this.

If a non religious person is making jokes about a believer's practice in the work place, that is creating a hostile environment. This should be discussed with human resources and/or up the chain of command through the supervisor, the boss, even to the CEO, if need be. If no resolution is achieved, again, take it to the courts.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

No. The ICCPR is not the law of Australia. Cf I don't know how many High Court decisions saying that an international convention doesn't mean a damn until local law is passed to implement it.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...

But it also begs the question why she decided to bring it up at interview.

Who said anything about it being mentioned in an interview? It could have come up at any time in the workplace, probably on a Monday while chatting about what she did on the weekend.

Remember we had a now-banned crusader on here a while ago from New Zealand who claimed to be in a management role and proudly claimed they would do exactly this kind of thing to stop any of "their" money (i.e. the employee's pay) from going to a church?

As said above by the thieving rodent, often this kind of "non-official" discrimination is not able to be proved without a smoking gun. The damage to a person's prospects of future employment would usually be even worse if they make too many waves trying to get satisfaction and gaining themselves only a once-off payout but a lifetime reputation as an unemployable troublemaker as it's still pretty easy to give a non-positive reference without defaming a person.

Unfortunately in Australia the only time you are safe from this in the workplace is if you work for a large enough corporation or government body that they have a fully competent human resources team. Any protection is a complete sham in a smaller company or non-profit where it's way too easy for an employer to cook up performance issues as a pretext for non-promotion or dismissal.

A similar type of "non-official" discrimination applies to people who take parenting leave as they supposedly have the right to do so, to both men and women. There is a strong perception that grudgingly acknowledges women giving birth need to be granted parenting leave because of the physical issues involved, and at the same time aggressively asserts the position that no men should ever be allowed to take parenting leave.

In the case of women taking parenting leave this discrimination often manifests itself in harsher expectations of performance on returning to the workplace (both from management and from other employees who had to pick up the missing woman's workload) and smaller businesses have been known to do restructures to squeeze them out into a minor role for a permanent replacement. Men get the same problems when they return after parenting leave, but with the added problem that everything is stacked against them in their chance of actually getting to the point of taking leave.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes. You've provided three examples and only one of them is actually "discrimination" (getting passed over for an earned promotion). So you seem to be running a ratio of oversensitive umbrage to real issues of about 2:1. Being an offensive asshole is not necessarily the same thing as discriminating.

Two, actually. Workplace harassment on the grounds of religion is illegal in Australia, and in some countries can be talked about as "verbal assault." The other workers doing that would be well advised to make sure none of their "jokes" are sent via email or recorded on a smartphone if they know what's good for them.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

I've had two managers at work (in the UK) who have directly said to my face that they think religious people are stupid. When I replied that I am Christian, they sort of stuttered and tried to backpedal. Had I been fired or laid off by either of those individuals I would certainly consider that their view on my faith might be a reason for it, whether or not there are legal protections in such cases.

Depending on one's contract it can be difficult or almost impossible to pursue a case of discrimination without serious long-term impacts on one's career and earnings ability. Most contracts that I've seen say that a former employee who pursues legal action forfeits any severance payments or long-term benefits. In some industries a lawsuit against a former employer becomes an unofficial blacklist, where no one else in the field will hire you either.

So it's not so simple as "well it's illegal to discriminate."

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Just to be clear, I don't doubt that this kind of discrimination occurs.

What I doubt is whether the situation for religious discrimination is any worse than it is for a variety of other kinds. That was the premise of the OP.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

The question in the OP isn't so much whether it is worse but whether the general public thinks it is OK whereas they don't think other forms of prejudice are OK.

I have to say I think substantial proportions of the general public still think racism is OK, and think that homophobia is OK. Very substantial proportions seem to think that sexism is OK.

I don't doubt there are sections of society where one can get cheap laughs about religion but other forms of prejudice are frowned on and challenged, and if you happen to be exposed to such a clique then the religious can feel quite picked on.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Just to be clear, I don't doubt that this kind of discrimination occurs.

What I doubt is whether the situation for religious discrimination is any worse than it is for a variety of other kinds. That was the premise of the OP.

I don't think you can rank discrimination on how bad it is - if you lose your job then whether it's race, gender, or religion it's pretty terrible!

I will say however that while racial and even gender based jokes are generally accepted as out of bounds in the work place, I have heard many negative comments about Christians or religious people, including former employees who were "God botherers" for example.

I worked with one person who wanted us to stop a project with a company whose shareholders were all members of a same church, saying that they were evangelical and therefore support bigotry. There is no evidence of any bigotry other than that they are Christian - not even any funding of anti-LGBT groups or anything. And this was raised in a meeting and seriously considered. That sounds like religion-based discrimination to me.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No. The ICCPR is not the law of Australia. Cf I don't know how many High Court decisions saying that an international convention doesn't mean a damn until local law is passed to implement it.

There's no doubt about that proposition at all.

I can't quickly see anything against discrimination on religious grounds in the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act and from memory there was a decision a few years ago saying that anti-Moslem comments were not caught by the provisions against racial discrimination. There's no federal legislation which covers the area (not field, Orfeo). There probably is in Victoria going from the litigation against the Catch the Fire ministry people. I don't know about other States.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Actually, religion is covered under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act. That protection isn't to the same extent as the separate race, sex, disability and age legislation, but it does cover employment.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No. The ICCPR is not the law of Australia. Cf I don't know how many High Court decisions saying that an international convention doesn't mean a damn until local law is passed to implement it.
There's no doubt about that proposition at all.

I can't quickly see anything against discrimination on religious grounds in the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act and from memory there was a decision a few years ago saying that anti-Moslem comments were not caught by the provisions against racial discrimination. There's no federal legislation which covers the area (not field, Orfeo). There probably is in Victoria going from the litigation against the Catch the Fire ministry people. I don't know about other States.

I think a distinction needs to be made between general bigotry which just causes a few people to be offended (which is where the Catch The Fire nonsense come is) and protection from discrimination in workplaces and government services that has real-world impacts, which was of course the original topic of this thread.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks Orfeo, as you say that Act does not make the Convention part of Aust municipal law, nor does it appear to create causes of action. It really appears to be a machinery provision rather than establishing individual and justiciable rights, in sharp contrast to the legislation on racial and sex discrimination.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

AIUI, the defence of the Catch the Fire people was that they were encouraging prayer for Moslems that they be converted. They said that such behaviour was not vilification. Really, their behaviour was very silly, much more than my brief summary of the defence implies, and the action was always doomed to fail.

Curiously, a recent MW report on a Catch the Fire group in Canada speaks highly of them. I wonder what connection, if any, there is.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Thanks Orfeo, as you say that Act does not make the Convention part of Aust municipal law, nor does it appear to create causes of action. It really appears to be a machinery provision rather than establishing individual and justiciable rights, in sharp contrast to the legislation on racial and sex discrimination.

Well, that gets into all sorts of questions about remedies and enforcement in human rights legislation, some of which is complicated at the federal level because of the Constitution. Probably more than this thread needs. And I don't really know what sorts of remedies are available in the State systems.

For employment there might be stuff in the workplace relations laws as well. I don't remember for sure, it's all too long ago since I worked on it.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
It is generally acknowleged in the community that discrimination based on race, sexual orientation and disability is totally unacceptable. Loud advertisements promoted by sportsmen etc appear on the tv decrying such discrimination. Why then does the public think it is ok to make bigoted and offensive remarks about the following of religious faith, particularly Christianity. I know of someone who lost a promotion due to her mention of Christian belief. The non religious find it hilarious to make jokes at the worshipper's expense and somehow it is considered unacceptable to protest. I acknowledge that I have been guilty in the past of remaining silent due to shyness, but I'm prepared now to say 'no more'. Am I being oversensitive?

First [Citation Needed] on the idea that someone lost a promotion due to her mention of Christian belief. I'm not saying it's impossible. Merely that it's something that she could sue over because it's illegal and wrong.

Second, most supposed anti-Christian discrimination turns out to be bunk. You do not get to ignore infection control rules just because you are a Christian and want to wear your cross on a chain rather than on your lapel.

Thirdly, I have never once heard an atheist be as uncharitable, unloving, and downright offensive as one of the core Christian doctrines. I have never once heard an atheist say that someone deserves to be tortured forever - I have heard Christians say that atheists deserve to burn in hell (which is being tortured forever). There is nothing Dawkins has ever said, even about child abuse, that remotely compares to the offensiveness of telling people they deserve to be tortured forever.

Fourthly, as far as I can tell there is no one who is trying to deny Christians the right to get married just because they are Christians. On the other hand in Britain and America (and I assume Australia) the lobby that tries to prevent people marrying those whom they love due to gender is based on Christianity. This is more offensive than minor jokes ever could be.

I'm not talking about Jack Chick, Fred Phelps, Stephen Green, or former Archbishop Jensen here (although that last is an archbishop). Denial of the right of people to marry those they love is a very mainstream Christian position - and the main place where Christian values are in opposition to those of mainstream society. The doctrine of hell is a very mainstream position.

Feel free to speak out. But make sure that you speak out against your own when they are being offensive. Because that will do a hell of a lot more good if you're actually worried about people being offensive, and there are comments that can be made about beams and motes.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Curiously, a recent MW report on a Catch the Fire group in Canada speaks highly of them. I wonder what connection, if any, there is.

None, apart from the coincidental use of a rather bland and unoriginal name.

My understanding is that Catch the Fire Ministries in Melbourne is not affiliated with anything else at all primarily because nobody else is pure and righteous enough to hang out with that odorous cretin Daniel Nalliah [Projectile]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Denial of the right of people to marry those they love is a very mainstream Christian position - and the main place where Christian values are in opposition to those of mainstream society. The doctrine of hell is a very mainstream position.

And, while it's not precisely an official "position," there's another aspect of some Christian practice which has unfortunate aftereffects: martyrdom, and the "sainting" of those who suffer it.

Martyred saints are Christian role models as defenders of a [once-persecuted] faith. As one result, some believers get the idea that Real Christians are meant to suffer from others' rejection of Christianity.

IME, this can lead to some Christians asserting their faith in ways that actually invite criticism, rejection, ridicule, and even discrimination, as though getting oneself persecuted is a Christian Duty and somehow "proves" one is a Christian.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
It is generally acknowleged in the community that discrimination based on race, sexual orientation and disability is totally unacceptable. Loud advertisements promoted by sportsmen etc appear on the tv decrying such discrimination. Why then does the public think it is ok to make bigoted and offensive remarks about the following of religious faith, particularly Christianity. I know of someone who lost a promotion due to her mention of Christian belief. The non religious find it hilarious to make jokes at the worshipper's expense and somehow it is considered unacceptable to protest. I acknowledge that I have been guilty in the past of remaining silent due to shyness, but I'm prepared now to say 'no more'. Am I being oversensitive?

No, you're not being over-sensitive imv. You're making an observation that has been made by many others. Some try to shout it down, but it's a valid observation. There are laws in Britain against many kinds of discrimination, but not against religious discrimination. This allows some to freely deride and belittle people of faith, and to discriminate against them with no redress.

It takes courage to come out as a Christian, but it's the only way people will come to know the reality of who a Christian is rather than the caricature that's drawn and spread around.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The irony being, most opposition to having laws prohibiting religious discrimination doesn't come from atheists wanting to have a go at Christians, it comes from religious people wanting to be able to have a go at other religions.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No, you're not being over-sensitive imv. You're making an observation that has been made by many others. Some try to shout it down, but it's a valid observation. There are laws in Britain against many kinds of discrimination, but not against religious discrimination.

Before making such blatantly false statements you might want to educate yourself.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I'm sorry in many ways that I mentioned the work colleague as people seem to have focussed on that issue rather than my main concerns which are about general community attitudes which seem to becoming more prevalent while other forms of discrimination seem to be diminishing in my observation. I've particularly noticed a rise in anti Christian letters in the newspapers. It is fine to disagree with others' views but not when statements ridiculing other people for their beliefs are printed. Talk back sessions on the radio contain similar sentiments and are permitted by the moderator. Maybe I should stop reading and listening to the media.
The colleague at work wasn't thought suitable by the boss to be promoted (he's a real tool) because he heard her talking about church. She hadn't applied for any promotion, but I was chatting to the boss and suggested that my colleague would do a great job in a senior position. He agreed at first but then followed up by saying that she was unsuitable because she was religious. I defended her to my boss but I didn't say anything to my colleague as she knew nothing about it.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

If people want to feel discriminated against, on whatever grounds, they will. The jokes made against Christians and Christianity are trivial compared to the stuff you hear in pubs, see tweeted and read on websites about certain other faiths.

[ 14. October 2013, 12:30: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
The non religious find it hilarious to make jokes at the worshipper's expense and somehow it is considered unacceptable to protest.

The Christian church used to have a lot of power in this country. Many of my parents' generation grew up with a church which had financial, legal, moral and social power over them. It has subsequently been abundantly demonstrated that the church has on notable occasions, made very poor use of this power.

it is conventional, acceptable and necessary to use humour to attack corrupt authority.

Churchgoing Christians may now be in the minority, but the person who makes fun of the church (and that person may not, in fact, be a non-believer) is, still, in their view, mocking authority. And I would defend their right to do that.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes. You've provided three examples and only one of them is actually "discrimination" (getting passed over for an earned promotion). So you seem to be running a ratio of oversensitive umbrage to real issues of about 2:1. Being an offensive asshole is not necessarily the same thing as discriminating.
Two, actually. Workplace harassment on the grounds of religion is illegal in Australia, and in some countries can be talked about as "verbal assault." The other workers doing that would be well advised to make sure none of their "jokes" are sent via email or recorded on a smartphone if they know what's good for them.

Bib never specified anything about offensive remarks or jokes in the workplace, just a general sense that religious belief should not be subjected to criticism anywhere. In fact, the origins of such remarks was specified as "the public", not "co-workers".

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Bib never specified anything about offensive remarks or jokes in the workplace, just a general sense that religious belief should not be subjected to criticism anywhere.

How did you transit there from "offensive remarks or jokes" to "subjected to criticism"? Do you believe these to be synonymous?

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In fact, the origins of such remarks was specified as "the public", not "co-workers".

In context, it is rather clear that the OP wanted to point to a wider problem, which however also occurs at the workplace. The argument structure was general ("the public") - specific ("lost promotion") - general ("the non-religious"). Hence it is appropriate to point out that repeated offensive remarks/jokes about someone's religion in the workplace is an offense in many countries (including the UK).

Now, I favour robust debate and I think in matters known to raise emotions - like religion and politics - it is good to allow a certain degree of heat. However, if we think that certain actions poison the atmosphere at the workplace in a non-acceptable manner, then we should seriously consider to what extent we should accept them outside of the workplace. This does not necessarily require any law though. Social disapproval often works a lot better in such situations.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Bib never specified anything about offensive remarks or jokes in the workplace, just a general sense that religious belief should not be subjected to criticism anywhere.
How did you transit there from "offensive remarks or jokes" to "subjected to criticism"? Do you believe these to be synonymous?

The problem is that what's deemed "offensive" is subjective, a matter of opinion dependent upon the hearer. For example:

quote:
Four atheist bloggers in Bangladesh are facing up to 14 years in prison for defaming Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, including one who was stabbed viciously by fundamentalist attackers earlier this year.

<snip>

Bangladesh's blasphemy laws prohibit criticizing religion, and target those with "deliberate" or "malicious" intention of hurting religious sentiments.

Were the criticisms offered offensive? Only if the hearers decide they're offensive. So yes, they can be synonymous in any case where someone decides to take offense.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I'm sorry in many ways that I mentioned the work colleague as people seem to have focussed on that issue rather than my main concerns which are about general community attitudes which seem to becoming more prevalent while other forms of discrimination seem to be diminishing in my observation.

The corollary to this observation is that most of those fighting to keep discrimination going are Christian and very visibly so.

quote:
I've particularly noticed a rise in anti Christian letters in the newspapers. It is fine to disagree with others' views but not when statements ridiculing other people for their beliefs are printed.

If you can't ridicule people for what they think and what they do what can you ridicule them for? ("Nothing" is an acceptable and indeed commendable answer here.)

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I'm sorry in many ways that I mentioned the work colleague as people seem to have focussed on that issue rather than my main concerns which are about general community attitudes which seem to becoming more prevalent while other forms of discrimination seem to be diminishing in my observation.
The corollary to this observation is that most of those fighting to keep discrimination going are Christian and very visibly so.

quote:
I've particularly noticed a rise in anti Christian letters in the newspapers. It is fine to disagree with others' views but not when statements ridiculing other people for their beliefs are printed.
If you can't ridicule people for what they think and what they do what can you ridicule them for? ("Nothing" is an acceptable and indeed commendable answer here.)

Slight tangent: is laughing at something, or even making a joke about it synonymous with "ridiculing" it? Or, rather, is "ridiculing" something always a hostile act? Lots of believers joke about faith - in a sense, we know it is "ridiculous".

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I would say the only times that I would discourage all ridicule of a topic is if there are vulnerable people involved. I would strongly oppose protecting religions in this way as I don't think religions are either affected by intense past prejudice against them or generally weaker in some ways (say like young children)

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Martyred saints are Christian role models as defenders of a [once-persecuted] faith.

I would take issue with the comment that Christianity was 'once-persecuted'. In many parts of the world that is a still current reality. Article: The war on Christians - The Spectator

Having people say rude things about us in our secular western countries, although unpleasant, is pretty small fry in comparison. But being discriminated against was the lot of the church from its earliest beginnings. The alignment of Christianity with the politically powerful since the time of Constantine has meant that Christianity has forgotten that. But now the separation has happened again so perhaps we just need to get used to the fact that Christians no longer hold the power. I suspect in the long run this will be much healthier for the church.

However I wish that the discrimination, if it happened, was because Christians were standing up for the oppressed and calling the powerful to account. In other words being discriminated against because they are upsetting the status quo by being Christ-like.

[ 14. October 2013, 16:34: Message edited by: Lucia ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Lucia: everything you said. [Overused]

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Martyred saints are Christian role models as defenders of a [once-persecuted] faith. As one result, some believers get the idea that Real Christians are meant to suffer from others' rejection of Christianity.

To be fair, Jesus did say things to that effect. Blessed are you when men shall revile and persecute you and and say all manner of evil of falsely against you for my sake. When they bring you before the synagogues and rulers and authorities, do not worry about what you will say. And so on, and so on. People will think they are doing God a favor when they kill you. And so on.

quote:
IME, this can lead to some Christians asserting their faith in ways that actually invite criticism, rejection, ridicule, and even discrimination, as though getting oneself persecuted is a Christian Duty and somehow "proves" one is a Christian.

True. As Lucia points out, if we are going to be persecuted it should be for being Christ-like, not for being assholes (arseholes).

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Bib, would you object to people making fun of other religions, or just Christianity?

Along with the mocking authority thing mentioned above, all religions contain things that seem ridiculous to outsiders, including Christianity. Making fun of that seems to be a pretty natural thing to do.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Slight tangent: is laughing at something, or even making a joke about it synonymous with "ridiculing" it? Or, rather, is "ridiculing" something always a hostile act? Lots of believers joke about faith - in a sense, we know it is "ridiculous".

It could be argued that ridicule is the proper reaction to the ridiculous.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I've heard certain religionists tell offensive "jokes" about other religionists, quite often within the same faith tradition. Sometimes, the statements are not intended as jokes, rather they are deliberate slurs.

In some cases, these jokes were told in a deliberate attempt to stir up dissension or to increase the power of the teller and his friends, at the expense of the target.

And the target can expect the blacklisting mentioned upthread if they do make a fuss. I had a case described to me this morning by the target of one such attack.

Exposing the problem would also lead outsiders to think less well of the specific religious group, who once thought they were the power-behind-the-throne of a certain former colony.

Can one legislate against that sort of thing?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And the target can expect the blacklisting mentioned upthread if they do make a fuss. I had a case described to me this morning by the target of one such attack.

"I object to the way you portray all Judeo-Christian clergy as drunkards. I've heard you tell several stories involving a priest, a minister, and a rabbi, and according to you they do nothing with their time except visit various bars. This kind of stereotyping is hurtful!"

Something like that?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

You know, it's not that trivial. Back in my PhD study days the head of department took after me when he learned incidentally, and from a friend if i recall correctly, that i was married to a pastor. From that point on I got shit like public dressings down in class for being a Christian freak (i had made the mistake of mentioning Maimonides positively during a dicussion of the Merchant of Venice, which shows you the intellect we're dealing with here). This running harassment culminated in an attempt to prevent me taking my degree. Fortunately, i had an old Catholic scholar's wing spread over me, and his stature was such that the head didn't dare oppose him openly. So I made it through.

It can happen, though i'm not saying it's common in the West.

[ 14. October 2013, 23:34: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

You know, it's not that trivial. Back in my PhD study days the head of department took after me when he learned incidentally, and from a friend if i recall correctly, that i was married to a pastor. From that point on I got shit like public dressings down in class for being a Christian freak (i had made the mistake of mentioning Maimonides positively during a dicussion of the Merchant of Venice. This culminated in an attempt to prevent me taking my degree. Fortunately, i had an old Catholic scholar's wing spread over me, and his stature was such that the head didn't dare oppose him openly. So I made it through.

It can happen, though i'm not saying it's common in the West.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

The pendulum has swung here in the opposite direction. In one province a city bus displaying "Merry Christmas" was the subject of a human rights complaint (there is separate tribunal for these). Feeling offended has become enough to prosecute, where actual disadvantage or other negative outcome is not required. I am no apologist for discrimination of any kind in posting that, just wanting to raise the contrast from here to there. I have never heard anti-Christian discrimination, certainly heard anti-Native and anti-white, and anti-Americanism. Probably in about that order.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Lucia: everything you said.

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Martyred saints are Christian role models as defenders of a [once-persecuted] faith. As one result, some believers get the idea that Real Christians are meant to suffer from others' rejection of Christianity.
To be fair, Jesus did say things to that effect. Blessed are you when men shall revile and persecute you and and say all manner of evil of falsely against you for my sake. When they bring you before the synagogues and rulers and authorities, do not worry about what you will say. And so on, and so on. People will think they are doing God a favor when they kill you. And so on.

quote:
IME, this can lead to some Christians asserting their faith in ways that actually invite criticism, rejection, ridicule, and even discrimination, as though getting oneself persecuted is a Christian Duty and somehow "proves" one is a Christian.
True. As Lucia points out, if we are going to be persecuted it should be for being Christ-like, not for being assholes (arseholes).

While Christians certainly face danger, serious maltreatment and discrimination in various places in the world today, Christianity itself is the faith (if any) proclaimed by a majority of the populace of the U.S. and other substantial powers. Christians in these countries often advocate on behalf of others living in hostile circumstances (I've read such efforts on these boards).

The OP addresses things like missing out on a promotion -- which may or may not have been due to the subject's faith (or even arseholery of the sort described above), plus jokes or cutting remarks made at the religion's expense. That's a far cry from being excluded from political participation, abrogation of human rights, arrest, torture, imprisonment, or even execution.

Over against these real dangers (where they exist), however, I have to say: if you're a Christian who lives in, say, Saudi Arabia (where I believe Christianity is illegal), isn't it possible to practice one's Christianity in private, unobtrusive ways so as to avoid trouble with the law?

Religious affiliation and observance, unlike gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., is a matter of choice. So, at least some of the time for at least some of the population, is residence. ISTM that Christians living in an environment truly hostile to their faith can legitimately choose to keep that faith to themselves for the sake of personal safety. Equally, where they can afford to do so, they might consider relocating to an environment where it's safer to practice Christianity.

Beyond that, how widespread, how frequent, and how ferocious is persecution against Christians?

I'm a female in midlife in the U.S. I've put up with all manner of annoying, appalling, and even actually discriminatory crap over gender in my life. Sometimes I make an issue of this stuff; mostly, I don't waste my time trying to educate a worldfull of assholes one asshole at a time. But I have never felt "persecuted," and only a few times in actual danger (rape survivor, and please don't tell me rape isn't about gender. In my particular situation, it was about both gender and perceived class).

If I can put up with and/or ignore and/or muddle through snide jokes, mischaracterization of my intelligence, motives, proclivities, abilities, interests, sexuality, denial of some jobs, promotions, scholarships, pay, and other opportunities, etc. etc. etc, I don't see why Christians living in situations where Christianity is unwelcome cannot manage the same.

Christians can avoid calling attention to their faith; women cannot hide their gender, at least not for long.

Christians -- at least some of them -- can move. Where on this planet can women move where they're actually both free and equal? Iceland? Norway? These are awfully small countries to accommodate the millions of women who might prefer their paths through life made somewhat fairer, institutionally-speaking.

Meanwhile, though, I recommend that Christians still occupying space above rather than below the grass might want to toughen up over hearing the odd rude joke or ridicule, and avoid characterizing every life disappointment as "persecution." This is the world: deal.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Over against these real dangers (where they exist), however, I have to say: if you're a Christian who lives in, say, Saudi Arabia (where I believe Christianity is illegal), isn't it possible to practice one's Christianity in private, unobtrusive ways so as to avoid trouble with the law?

It's a bit tricky if you happen to belong to a Christian denomination that requires group worship (e.g. the Catholic mass), since the Saudis forbid non-Islamic religious gatherings even in private homes. Eventually someone is going to notice gatherings of people every Sunday morning.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Over against these real dangers (where they exist), however, I have to say: if you're a Christian who lives in, say, Saudi Arabia (where I believe Christianity is illegal), isn't it possible to practice one's Christianity in private, unobtrusive ways so as to avoid trouble with the law?
It's a bit tricky if you happen to belong to a Christian denomination that requires group worship (e.g. the Catholic mass), since the Saudis forbid non-Islamic religious gatherings even in private homes. Eventually someone is going to notice gatherings of people every Sunday morning.

Saudi Arabia is a particularly bad situation since everyone who is not their particular sect of Islam faces persecution (they have a fairly large Shiite minority). In addition Saudi Arabia is not known for good treatment of its guest workers (particularly those in menial jobs) even if they are the right religion (or its treatment of women of any religion). Saudi Arabia has never signed the International Declaration of Human Rights, and, it didn't get around to officially abolishing slavery until 1962 (only Mauritania was later).

However in Europe and the Americas I suspect discrimination against Christians (or Jews or Muslims or Hindus or atheists) is most likely from other Christians.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Beyond that, how widespread, how frequent, and how ferocious is persecution against Christians?

Quite, quite and quite, to put it mildly.

Check out the situation in Saudi Arabia, Comoros, Central African Republic, Cote D'Ivoire, Mali, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, the Central Asian Republics, Burma, China, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, India and Cuba.

quote:

Christians can avoid calling attention to their faith
Christians -- at least some of them -- can move.

Why on earth should they?

You would not dream of saying anything as trivial, callous and ignorant as this about any other persecuted religious group.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Beyond that, how widespread, how frequent, and how ferocious is persecution against Christians?

[/QB]

OK, I messed up the coding last time so here is the link again to a recent article in a secular publication The War on Christians - The Spectator

"According to the International Society for Human Rights, a secular observatory based in Frankfurt, Germany, 80 per cent of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed at Christians. Statistically speaking, that makes Christians by far the most persecuted religious body on the planet.

According to the Pew Forum, between 2006 and 2010 Christians faced some form of discrimination, either de jure or de facto, in a staggering total of 139 nations, which is almost three-quarters of all the countries on earth. According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, an average of 100,000 Christians have been killed in what the centre calls a ‘situation of witness’ each year for the past decade. That works out to 11 Christians killed somewhere in the world every hour, seven days a week and 365 days a year, for reasons related to their faith."

Would you characterise that as widespread, frequent or ferocious?

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
However in Europe and the Americas I suspect discrimination against Christians (or Jews or Muslims or Hindus or atheists) is most likely from other Christians.

There's a whole world out there you know. Most people don't live in Europe or the Americas.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
However in Europe and the Americas I suspect discrimination against Christians (or Jews or Muslims or Hindus or atheists) is most likely from other Christians.

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
There's a whole world out there you know. Most people don't live in Europe or the Americas.

Indeed, there's Saudi Arabia to think about as well. Didn't you spare a thought for the Saudis? Oh, wait....

[ 15. October 2013, 07:51: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Actually, given that most people in northern Europe and America are not Christian or are post-Christian (pick your descriptor), I suspect that most of the discrimination against Christians, Muslims, Hindus and whoever else comes from non-Christians.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Most Americans describe themselves as Christians

In Europe there is the complexity of more people describing themselves as Christian than believe in God.

I suspect that in much of Europe the very-keen believer is something of an oddity, in the same way that the very-keen atheist is a bit of an oddity. Hence neither groups can understand why the other feels persecuted.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Christians can avoid calling attention to their faith; women cannot hide their gender, at least not for long.

Meanwhile, though, I recommend that Christians still occupying space above rather than below the grass might want to toughen up over hearing the odd rude joke or ridicule, and avoid characterizing every life disappointment as "persecution." This is the world: deal.

How would this post have gone down if it had suggested that gay people are capable of hiding their sexuality, and that they should toughen up over hearing themselves described as fags or dykes in the workplace? That's just a "life disappointment"?

It would (rightly) have been shot down. Why do different rules apply to religious minorities?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Actually, given that most people in northern Europe and America are not Christian or are post-Christian (pick your descriptor), I suspect that most of the discrimination against Christians, Muslims, Hindus and whoever else comes from non-Christians.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Most Americans describe themselves as Christians

In Europe there is the complexity of more people describing themselves as Christian than believe in God.

Also, most of the male residents of Scotland aren't really Scotsmen! [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Christians can avoid calling attention to their faith; women cannot hide their gender, at least not for long.

Meanwhile, though, I recommend that Christians still occupying space above rather than below the grass might want to toughen up over hearing the odd rude joke or ridicule, and avoid characterizing every life disappointment as "persecution." This is the world: deal.
How would this post have gone down if it had suggested that gay people are capable of hiding their sexuality, and that they should toughen up over hearing themselves described as fags or dykes in the workplace? That's just a "life disappointment"?

It would (rightly) have been shot down. Why do different rules apply to religious minorities?

Because religion is a choice and sexuality is not? It's a bullshit analogy.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Isn't Saudi Arabia the current regime which shows without a doubt that western countries aren't interested in human rights? There are a series of countries just like it, present and past. We support the Saudis, ergo we support religious discrimination. But they have oil and we have investments. That makes all the difference.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I do think there is a difference between jokes about religion and racist/sexist/homophobic jokes, although I can't quite put my finger on it. I don't have a problem with most jokes about religion, and I often find them quite funny. But I hate racist/sexist/homophobic jokes.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I do think there is a difference between jokes about religion and racist/sexist/homophobic jokes, although I can't quite put my finger on it. I don't have a problem with most jokes about religion, and I often find them quite funny. But I hate racist/sexist/homophobic jokes.

Good comedy usually relies on "punching up", or making fun of someone higher in the social hierarchy than the comic and/or his audience. "Punching down", or making fun of someone lower in the social hierarchy just comes off as mean-spirited. Religion is given a privileged place in our society, so jokes about it are almost always "punching up". Racist, sexist, and homophobic jokes are almost always "punching down". That may be part of the reason for your perception of difference.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Crœsos: Good comedy usually relies on "punching up", or making fun of someone higher in the social hierarchy than the comic and/or his audience. "Punching down", or making fun of someone lower in the social hierarchy just comes off as mean-spirited. Religion is given a privileged place in our society, so jokes about it are almost always "punching up". Racist, sexist, and homophobic jokes are almost always "punching down". That may be part of the reason for your perception of difference.

Good one, that might be it. Some people on this thread have commented about religious jokes that they found offensive. It would be good to have an idea or an example of what kind of jokes these might be.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Why do different rules apply to religious minorities?

Because, as already noted, religious affiliation and observance, unlike racial or sexual identities, are (except in cases of “conversion-by-sword”) voluntary and chosen.

So far as we know, gay people are born gay. They can’t be “persuaded” or “converted” into straightness. Males are born male, and females female, and you can cajole, threaten, coerce, or persuade until blue-faced, and (short of multiple complex surgeries), they will persist in being male or female. People arrive into the world with genetically-selected skin color, hair texture, and eye-fold with no control over these.

Nobody is born Christian, Muslim, or Jewish, at least in terms of actual belief (one has to have developed language and thought processes for this). People may be born to parents who self-identify as one of these; they may be born into a culture which identifies with Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist or atheist, etc. values. That said, significant numbers of people change from no belief to a belief-set, from one belief-set to a different one, or from a belief-set to no belief. Many people go through this process more than once.

So ultimately, people choose how, and whether, and to what degree, to identify with or to practice a religion. Those who choose to openly practice Christianity in environments actively hostile to that faith are therefore also choosing to run the associated risks.

Depending on your PoV, resistance to oppression / advocacy for freedom of conscience may look, from the outside, admirable or foolhardy. Either way, though, in matters of belief (as opposed to gender, homosexuality, race, etc.), it's a risk which results from choice. I wish more people would stop and reflect, when they hear a rude joke about a group they elect to identify with, that they share some small responsibility for any discomfort they experience, since it’s the result of choice.

There’s a substantial difference between thinking, “Well, yeah, this crap goes with the territory I’ve moved into,” rather than “Those assholes are dissing my religion and I’m gonna make ’em change their ways!” Where in Jesus’s comments which begin, “Blessed are you when people revile you” (Matt. 5:11 &ff) does he advise his followers to tell revilers they’re wrong, or to protest or argue, or to mount efforts to shut them up? Where does he suggest inviting or provoking revilers? That some (by no means all) Christians do in fact protest, argue, provoke, etc. is, alas, also part of the territory into which adherents of any widespread cause voluntarily move. Nobody’s cornered the market on assholes.

While I personally support both freedom of and freedom from religion, many places in the world deny this freedom to their populations, in whole or in part. Resistance to such oppression and advocacy for change take courage, persistence, time, and numbers. Success is not guaranteed; such efforts often fail and may be met with brutality.

Here’s where (some of) the rubber hits (part of )the road, though: both Islam and Christianity actively seek converts (I'm not aware of other traditions which do this). The act of seeking converts, in both cases (AFAIK) is based on the teaching that each tradition offers the One Truth. It’s a kind of Islamic or Christian (depending on the tradition under discussion) Exceptionalism, pretty similar to American Exceptionalism except that it applies to two different sets of religious traditions/practices/beliefs instead of to a large, wealthy, powerful nation.

For me, this exceptionalism taints some, perhaps many, claims of persecution or discrimination by Christian adherents (though this depends in part on the contexts in which such claims arise).

I don’t doubt that individuals suffer and even die as a result of holding to a particular religious tradition. What I am often driven to doubt, though, is the extent to which claimants desire, not freedom of conscience for themselves and fellow-citizens, but the freedom they think their brand of exceptionalism gives them to proselytize and/or impose their conscience upon others.

Lamb Chopped's situation described above is a case of true discrimination. There's no reason her husband's profession would have come up in that academic context; she didn't reveal it; she had no reason to suppose anyone would hold her accountable for a vocational choice made not by her but her husband, or that she'd be accused of Christian extremism she doesn't subscribe to. In short, she was in no way responsible for the undeserved ill-treatment and potential discrimination she suffered.

Croesos' objection about celebrating Mass in Saudi Arabia is a different situation. First, Catholics in Saudi Arabia surely already know they're in a hostile environment. They're faced with choices: 1. Don't hold Mass. 2. Hold Mass secretly. 3. Hold Mass openly.

If a group of Saudi Catholics decide they're willing to run the risk of holding Mass while trying to avoid the consequences, they'll choose Door # 2, and take precautions. They will not (or not always) hold Mass on Sunday mornings. They will vary the locations at which they hold Mass. They'll develop a staggered or random rota of voluntary "stay-aways" from their group so it's not always the same bunch of license plates parked in members' driveways, etc. They'll learn how to ditch a tail. They'll check members' houses for electronic bugs. They'll hold Mass in the kitchen with the water running. They'll keep their mouths shut about religion outside the group. Above all, though, they will fully and accurately inform themselves about the consequences they face when caught, will keep in mind the risks they are choosing to run each time they meet, and will plan ahead what they'll do when caught.

If they don't like the consequences or their odds, they'll select Door # 1: don't hold Mass. If they select Door # 3, we can all hope they're striking a blow for freedom of conscience.

[ 15. October 2013, 18:54: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Christians can avoid calling attention to their faith; women cannot hide their gender, at least not for long.

Meanwhile, though, I recommend that Christians still occupying space above rather than below the grass might want to toughen up over hearing the odd rude joke or ridicule, and avoid characterizing every life disappointment as "persecution." This is the world: deal.
How would this post have gone down if it had suggested that gay people are capable of hiding their sexuality, and that they should toughen up over hearing themselves described as fags or dykes in the workplace? That's just a "life disappointment"?

It would (rightly) have been shot down. Why do different rules apply to religious minorities?
Because religion is a choice and sexuality is not? It's a bullshit analogy.

Well that's at least debateable. But my friend who is actually a Christian just this week got told to "fuck off you fucking Muslim" in a cornershop.

Obviously his fault and not worthy of protection. He should just deal with it. In fact he should just move back to a Muslim country. [Roll Eyes]

What's more Porridge seems to be suggesting that if you can keep quiet about whatever people are persecuting you for, you should, to avoid rocking the boat. It was of course this "don't ask don't tell" that led to genuine persecution for minorities for years.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
]Well that's at least debateable. But my friend who is actually a Christian just this week got told to "fuck off you fucking Muslim" in a cornershop.

In other words racism can be the actual reason for some apparently anti-religious sentiment. News at 11. And there is nothing your Christian friend can do about the racism.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[What's more Porridge seems to be suggesting that if you can keep quiet about whatever people are persecuting you for, you should, to avoid rocking the boat. It was of course this "don't ask don't tell" that led to genuine persecution for minorities for years.

No. I am suggesting that people practicing a faith in a hostile environment* should carefully consider the risks they have chosen to run, and act and speak accordingly.

IOW, if you're truly willing to be a martyr to your cause (and those who love and depend on you are in agreement), go right ahead and sacrifice yourself. Personally, I suspect much more positive change gets accomplished by the living who continue to work for that, but that's just me. If, on the other hand, you wish to practice your faith in a hostile environment and also remain at large and unharassed, exercise appropriate discretion.

That's quite different from being hassled about something as obvious as gender or skin color which you can neither change nor hide and about which you never had any choice.

* That is, in an environment where there's actual persecution / discrimination, not an environment in which you've elected to take deep personal offense every time someone takes your god's name in vain.

As to your Christian friend, he obviously wasn't being hassled because of his religion. I'm guessing he "looks" Muslim (whatever "Muslim" looks like to the hassler. So he was hassled on the basis of his appearance, not his religion. As noted, nobody's cornered the market on ignorant assholes. Unfortunately. Your friend ran into one. It happens.

[ 15. October 2013, 22:31: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Christians can avoid calling attention to their faith; women cannot hide their gender, at least not for long.

Meanwhile, though, I recommend that Christians still occupying space above rather than below the grass might want to toughen up over hearing the odd rude joke or ridicule, and avoid characterizing every life disappointment as "persecution." This is the world: deal.
How would this post have gone down if it had suggested that gay people are capable of hiding their sexuality, and that they should toughen up over hearing themselves described as fags or dykes in the workplace? That's just a "life disappointment"?

It would (rightly) have been shot down. Why do different rules apply to religious minorities?
Because religion is a choice and sexuality is not? It's a bullshit analogy.
Well that's at least debateable. But my friend who is actually a Christian just this week got told to "fuck off you fucking Muslim" in a cornershop.

Obviously his fault and not worthy of protection. He should just deal with it. In fact he should just move back to a Muslim country.

What's more Porridge seems to be suggesting that if you can keep quiet about whatever people are persecuting you for, you should, to avoid rocking the boat. It was of course this "don't ask don't tell" that led to genuine persecution for minorities for years.

Why would I suggest that your Christian friend goes and lives in a Muslim country because some other people thought they were Muslim? That makes no sense, and is nothing to do with my comment. As Justinian says, the supposed religious discrimination in this case is more likely to be racial discrimination - which is something based on a non-chosen characteristic. Even if one disagrees about the chosen-ness or otherwise of sexuality, religion is certainly a choice, and for Christians in the West it's a choice that brings a certain social power or stability. It doesn't take much to imagine how being nominally Christian in say, France, is easier than being openly Muslim for instance.

As has also been said upthread, Christianity in the West is often (I would say mostly) ridiculed for being oppressive. Regarding jokes about Christians endorsing sexual abuse by clergy, oppressing LGBTQ people, being YECs etc, it seems to be in very bad taste for Christians to be offended by this considering how much harm they have caused in these areas. A more appropriate reaction would be for Christians to repent of the oppression they have caused, and work harder to not oppress but to set free. Perhaps if Christians loved more and harmed less, people would make fewer jokes about us.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

So ultimately, people choose how, and whether, and to what degree, to identify with or to practice a religion.

You appear to think that “choosing” a religion is like choosing which pair of socks to wear.

That might be true for a few religious people, but for the overwhelming majority, and not just Christians, it is something which they cannot not believe is true.

You want them to say, “ I believe that my faith holds the key to the universal and eternal meaning of existence, but people are persecuting me for it, so I’ll just move to another country, or shut up about it and pretend it is meaningless to me, or choose to abandon it”.

Recently, Muslims have persecuted Buddhists in Thailand, and Thais have persecuted Muslims in return.

Muslims have also been persecuted by Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Burma/Myanmar, as well as by Hindus in India.

Do you really have nothing more to say to such situations than, “You chose that religion, so you have to live with the consequences if you don’t choose to give it up when people give you a hard time over it”?

Politics is also a matter of choice.

Suppose Republicans and other conservatives got together to outlaw Democrats, and discriminate against them in areas such as employment; organize mobs to destroy their property; and imprison, rape, torture and murder them.

It is a bizarre and sensationalist scenario (except to the paranoid) but a valid analogy nonetheless.

In those circumstances, would you suggest that Democrats choose to abandon their political convictions, leave America, or try to meet secretly and quietly “in the kitchen with the water running”?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Ideally, both religious and non-religious people would choose not to offend others by making jokes about their religion, but it is imperative in an open and free society that there be no political or legal prevention of their doing so.

Danny Nalliah, a pastor here in Melbourne, was extravagantly execrated upthread, and I too hold the gravest reservations about him, but he is a good example to illustrate the issues involved.

Some years ago he was prosecuted for holding a meeting at which a speaker ridiculed Islam and the Koran.

First, religious freedom can never be absolute, but it should always be maximized, and laws limiting comment on it, including jokes and mockery, are very dangerous.

Secondly, Christianity throughout the West is incessantly mocked and blasphemed without any repercussions for its critics (which is as it should be) but other religions, such as Islam and (in Australia) indigenous beliefs, are required to be treated with punctilious respect.

Thirdly, comedians, journalists and others who specialise in attacking Christianity act as if they are being radical, daring and edgy.

This is a wank.

They are risking absolutely nothing.

There was a time centuries ago when it took enormous courage to attack institutionalized Christianity, but not today, claims to Christianity’s mythical hegemonic power notwithstanding.

On the other hand, anyone would think twice, and carefully count the cost, before vilifying Islam (which is why, for the most part, the aforesaid self-valorised comedians and journalists don’t do it, despite Islam’s extremist minority richly deserving it).

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

So ultimately, people choose how, and whether, and to what degree, to identify with or to practice a religion.
You appear to think that “choosing” a religion is like choosing which pair of socks to wear.

That might be true for a few religious people, but for the overwhelming majority, and not just Christians, it is something which they cannot not believe is true.

You want them to say, “ I believe that my faith holds the key to the universal and eternal meaning of existence, but people are persecuting me for it, so I’ll just move to another country, or shut up about it and pretend it is meaningless to me, or choose to abandon it”.

Recently, Muslims have persecuted Buddhists in Thailand, and Thais have persecuted Muslims in return.

Muslims have also been persecuted by Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Burma/Myanmar, as well as by Hindus in India.

Do you really have nothing more to say to such situations than, “You chose that religion, so you have to live with the consequences if you don’t choose to give it up when people give you a hard time over it”?

Politics is also a matter of choice.

Suppose Republicans and other conservatives got together to outlaw Democrats, and discriminate against them in areas such as employment; organize mobs to destroy their property; and imprison, rape, torture and murder them.

It is a bizarre and sensationalist scenario (except to the paranoid) but a valid analogy nonetheless.

In those circumstances, would you suggest that Democrats choose to abandon their political convictions, leave America, or try to meet secretly and quietly “in the kitchen with the water running”?

Religion and politics are choices in ways that gender, skin colour etc are not - nobody can do anything about their skin colour, but people can and do change their religion. Now, I don't think they should have to and disagree with Porridge re the rights of religious minorities, but it is not comparable to racism for instance.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Good one, that might be it. Some people on this thread have commented about religious jokes that they found offensive. It would be good to have an idea or an example of what kind of jokes these might be.

... is it really eight years since The Laugh Judgement?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
On the other hand, anyone would think twice, and carefully count the cost, before vilifying Islam (which is why, for the most part, the aforesaid self-valorised comedians and journalists don’t do it, despite Islam’s extremist minority richly deserving it).

Fatwa envy always seemed kind of ugly to me, like the speaker was wistful that their own religion doesn't have enough violent extremists to silence the critics.

At any rate, there's a far more practical reason for the dearth of Islamic jokes by comedians, as explained by Dara O'Briain in this video. (The relevant bit starts around 1:40.) It's very hard to get a lot of comedic material about something neither the comic nor the audience has more than a cursory knowledge about.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Justinian: ... is it really eight years since The Laugh Judgement?

I'm familiar with that. Thanks for linking to it here.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm embarrassed to say it, having been cited, [Hot and Hormonal]

but i too think religion (Christian faith at least) is not a matter of choice. I didn't choose to become a believer and i could more easily change my skin color or gender than my faith. I am aware that there are many people for whom religion is a choice, rather like choosing a social club or service organization. But if it's the content (truth value) that has you set down where you are, you might as well try to change your views on gravity. Nothing but a convincing demonstration is going to do it--simply choosing to disbelieve in it will have no effect on your gut convictions. Or your behavior, for that matter. You will still throw out your hands when you stumble, no matter what your official stance is during stress-free times.

I fear the hypothetical mass-holding Saudis are in for a hard time of it. If they are truly Catholic believers, that is not a behavior they are going to be able to cease.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
No. I am suggesting that people practicing a faith in a hostile environment* should carefully consider the risks they have chosen to run, and act and speak accordingly.

I'm somewhat appalled by a standard that blames the oppressed for their oppression and justifies it by suggesting that "closeting" is a perfectly good solution. Insisting on the closet is the way oppressors feel better about themselves, since any negative consequences are kept out of sight.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You appear to think that “choosing” a religion is like choosing which pair of socks to wear.

Where exactly did I suggest this? I've acknowledged that people make such choices in situations where they may suffer for it. Some people even sacrifice their lives. YMMV, but I doubt much genuine suffering attends anyone's choice of socks.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You want them to say, “ I believe that my faith holds the key to the universal and eternal meaning of existence, but people are persecuting me for it, so I’ll just move to another country, or shut up about it and pretend it is meaningless to me, or choose to abandon it”.

Again, where have I suggested that people abandon their beliefs or pretend those beliefs have no meaning? I am simply suggesting that people continue, after adopting a belief system, to understand what risks they run and make considered choices about their practices and observances.

Too often, what I see (here in my home town, in fact) is people deciding that the religion they've adopted, because they consider it a "higher" form of truth, somehow exempts them from obeying secular law. When unpleasant consequences ensue, they claim persecution. Example: a woman was praying aloud for students' safety and peace on our high school's steps every morning. She was asked to leave (on pain of being charged with trespass), having no business to conduct with students, staff, or faculty and therefore no reason to be on school grounds, where -- ironically, for the safety of the students -- access is restricted. She claimed she was being persecuted for her faith. Actually, she was trespassing. The same would happen to me if I stood on the school steps not praying, but reciting the Gettysburg address.

I don't doubt this woman's sincerity or faith or depth of feeling. I don't share her faith, but I would defend her right to follow it. What I can't defend is her insistence on trespass as part of her religious practice. Rather, I think she abrogated her responsibility to exercise her -- she might say God-given -- common sense. There's no reason she can't pray the exact same prayers, to exactly the same effect, every morning at her own kitchen table, at her church, or at the gas station across the road, provided the station owner agreed.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Recently, Muslims have persecuted Buddhists in Thailand, and Thais have persecuted Muslims in return.

Muslims have also been persecuted by Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Burma/Myanmar, as well as by Hindus in India.

Do you really have nothing more to say to such situations than, “You chose that religion, so you have to live with the consequences if you don’t choose to give it up when people give you a hard time over it”?.

First, we all -- not just religious people -- have to live with the consequences of our actions and decisions. That's as true of the perpetrators of violence as it is for their victims.

Look, I've been arrested for civil disobedience. No heroism here; I was lucky. I wasn't beaten or injured, was subjected only to the normal inconveniences and humiliations experienced by people who get arrested. I suffered no long-term consequences. I've engaged in non-violent protest of situations I considered unjust. I'd do it again; I'd do it to make a point I considered valid and important. But I'd never claim, in such circumstances, that I was being persecuted for my opinions. I was deliberately breaking a law, and suffering the consequences. I was getting arrested and jailed for my refusal to obey. But this, in every case, was what I expected to happen; when we break the law, we get arrested, jailed, fined, and so on. All we're doing, in such cases, is calling attention to an injustice.

There are many ways to deal with injustice, and being assaulted, maimed, or killed for one's religious beliefs is certainly unjust. Civil disobedience is one way to deal with injustice. Violence, unfortunately, is another. Organizing, developing alliances, and putting pressure on those in power, is yet another. However, to make such efforts produce change takes a substantial body of people able to persist in their protests. Getting yourself, as an ordinary person like me(rather than a leader/martyr like Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King), killed or permanently imprisoned separates you from efforts to right the injustices; it reduces the numbers you need to apply pressure.

Second, you might just quote the bit where I propose that people surrender their faith. Rather, I'm suggesting that people not make themselves targets; that way, they can continue trying to right the wrongs. I do not suggest abandoning faith; I know better. I know that my freedom to follow no religion at all is absolutely dependent upon, and indeed identical to, the freedom of others to follow theirs, even if that religion's tenets bewilder or horrify me (and some do).

Third, you're inventing. Further, you're inventing in exactly the same manner to which I object in the local woman's reaction to her trespassing charge. Because I suggest that small groups of people in circumstances adverse to their faith make considered choices about the risks they run, including understanding and accepting that they face potentially dire consequences for flouting local law, you want to claim me as an enemy of religion. You want to number me among the persecutors. Well, go ahead; I can't stop you. But that is not who I am.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I do agree that homosexuality, ethnicity and religion are not good parallels in that the process of acquiring either identity is rather different.

On the other hand how one displays that identity does have parallels.

The advice to Christians to think about being a bit less obviously Christian in public in the face of persecution (I mean real persecution a la Saudi Arabia not a la Carey) shows a similar sensitivity to mentioning that gay people might think about looking a bit less obviously gay on nights out to avoid being targeted by homophobic attacks.

These are technically correct points, but the wrong place and time to make them, and lacking an understanding of the human dimensions to identity.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Fatwa envy always seemed kind of ugly to me, like the speaker was wistful that their own religion doesn't have enough violent extremists to silence the critics.

"Fatwa envy" sounds about as convincing a concept as penis envy.

You just don't get it.

What we should be "wistful" for is a state of affairs in which no-one is intimidated by death threats for publicly criticising any religion.

quote:
At any rate, there's a far more practical reason for the dearth of Islamic jokes by comedians, as explained by Dara O'Briain in this video. (The relevant bit starts around 1:40.) It's very hard to get a lot of comedic material about something neither the comic nor the audience has more than a cursory knowledge about.

And just how much "knowledge" is it necessary to acquire before we are justified in disagreeing with, and satirising, death threats against editors and cartoonists who lampoon Mahommed, or girls being shot in the head because they demand an education, or suicide bombers who indiscriminately kill hundreds of innocent victims?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

Too often, what I see (here in my home town, in fact) is people deciding that the religion they've adopted, because they consider it a "higher" form of truth, somehow exempts them from obeying secular law. When unpleasant consequences ensue, they claim persecution. Example: a woman was praying aloud for students' safety and peace on our high school's steps every morning. She was asked to leave (on pain of being charged with trespass), having no business to conduct with students, staff, or faculty and therefore no reason to be on school grounds, where -- ironically, for the safety of the students -- access is restricted. She claimed she was being persecuted for her faith. Actually, she was trespassing. The same would happen to me if I stood on the school steps not praying, but reciting the Gettysburg address.

You appear to be attempting some species of argumentum ad absurdum.

The issue is not about isolated religious loonies and extremists who push the envelope, but vast masses of ordinary people of every religion who just want to be free to practice their faith free of both persecution, and blame, when it occurs for allegedly bringing it on themselves.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
]Well that's at least debateable. But my friend who is actually a Christian just this week got told to "fuck off you fucking Muslim" in a cornershop.
In other words racism can be the actual reason for some apparently anti-religious sentiment. News at 11. And there is nothing your Christian friend can do about the racism.

According to Porridge's logic there is actually - he can move somewhere where his distinctiveness isn't so obvious.

People have said what I think. Aside from this bland assertion that your religious beliefs are your choice, which is at the very least debateable, (and I would argue, in many people's experience, untenable) the idea that it should be normal in society for people to take responsibility for hiding their religious practice in order to avoid low level intolerance is....well...disturbing IMHO.

But maybe that's where we are. Porridge is at least right that Christians shouldn't be surprised.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
]Well that's at least debateable. But my friend who is actually a Christian just this week got told to "fuck off you fucking Muslim" in a cornershop.
In other words racism can be the actual reason for some apparently anti-religious sentiment. News at 11. And there is nothing your Christian friend can do about the racism.
According to Porridge's logic there is actually - he can move somewhere where his distinctiveness isn't so obvious.

People have said what I think. Aside from this bland assertion that your religious beliefs are your choice, which is at the very least debateable, (and I would argue, in many people's experience, untenable) the idea that it should be normal in society for people to take responsibility for hiding their religious practice in order to avoid low level intolerance is....well...disturbing IMHO.

But maybe that's where we are. Porridge is at least right that Christians shouldn't be surprised.

Religion is a choice in contrast to race, disability etc. Obviously it's not a choice in the same way as choosing an outfit, but it is actually possible to change religion. Not actually possible to change race.

I don't think people should have to hide their beliefs in order to avoid low level intolerance, but given the injustices Christians have committed, I don't see why Christians should be surprised or even annoyed if others react negatively to Christianity. Maybe Christians should spend more time living lives which show the goodness and benefits of Christianity, rather than complaining that people don't like religions that oppress others?

It's also nothing new, especially in England where anti-clericalism has a long history. The church has been seen as in cahoots with those in power and rather understandably, people don't like that.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I can't say that I find this 'religion is a choice' line of argument terribly convincing. The fact that it's a choice shouldn't be an excuse for a kind of 'you asked for it' line of thinking, any more than a woman wearing a sexy dress should be an excuse for 'you asked for it'.

There might well be a place for criticism of some religious behaviour, and even ridicule of it, but it's not derived from saying that it's just a consequence of having chosen to adhere to a widely held belief system.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
but given the injustices Christians have committed, I don't see why Christians should be surprised or even annoyed if others react negatively to Christianity.

I notice you slip from Christians to Christianity for the last word.

I think what people are upset about is when they experience personally directed negative reactions because of their membership of a group. In the same way that English people, Gay people, Arsenal supporters, builders and others might get upset if the negativity that someone attaches to the English/the gays/ the gunners/ brickies gets attached to them personally.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Religion is a choice in contrast to race, disability etc. Obviously it's not a choice in the same way as choosing an outfit, but it is actually possible to change religion. Not actually possible to change race.

If I consider that the price of changing my religion is losing my soul, then that is not a price that anyone should consider it right, or even possible, to ask me to pay. "Yeah, if you don't like being persecuted for being a Christian, you could just become a Hindu instead. You'll go to hell but that's your choice, so who cares about that."

Remember, countless people have died rather than deny their faith - given that, it's not something that we should consider to be changeable. Changing my faith would have far greater consequences than changing my sex.

quote:
I don't think people should have to hide their beliefs in order to avoid low level intolerance, but given the injustices Christians have committed, I don't see why Christians should be surprised or even annoyed if others react negatively to Christianity.

Could we please get over the post-imperial guilt already? Let's all have another read of Lucia's linked article and remind ourselves that the idea of Christianity being the oppressor is very out of date: The War on Christians: Spectator

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
...the idea of Christianity being the oppressor is very out of date

Assuming you're not homosexual or female, of course.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Religion is a choice in contrast to race, disability etc. Obviously it's not a choice in the same way as choosing an outfit, but it is actually possible to change religion. Not actually possible to change race.
If I consider that the price of changing my religion is losing my soul, then that is not a price that anyone should consider it right, or even possible, to ask me to pay. "Yeah, if you don't like being persecuted for being a Christian, you could just become a Hindu instead. You'll go to hell but that's your choice, so who cares about that."

Remember, countless people have died rather than deny their faith - given that, it's not something that we should consider to be changeable. Changing my faith would have far greater consequences than changing my sex.

quote:
I don't think people should have to hide their beliefs in order to avoid low level intolerance, but given the injustices Christians have committed, I don't see why Christians should be surprised or even annoyed if others react negatively to Christianity.
Could we please get over the post-imperial guilt already? Let's all have another read of Lucia's linked article and remind ourselves that the idea of Christianity being the oppressor is very out of date: The War on Christians: Spectator

Given conservative Christian Republicans' war on women/gays/the poor in the US, Christianity being the oppressor isn't out of date at all. It's very, very real for a lot of people.

And um yeah, I'm well aware that religion isn't a simple choice, I've said this ad nauseum. But it isn't the same as race, disability etc, so it's inaccurate to compare religion with such things.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

I think there is a further complication in this discussion in that it is all too easy to project our Western individualism onto Christians in other parts of the world. We tend to see religion as all about individual choice because we live in very individualistic societies.

In many places your religious identity is very tightly bound up with your cultural ethnic group. If you are part of a despised minority who are historically Christian whether you are actively practicing your faith in overt ways or not may make little difference to the discrimination you are on the receiving end of simply because you are identified as being part of that community.
The Christian community in Pakistan would be an example of this. And the recent bombing of a church in Peshawar shows the devastating consequences.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
but given the injustices Christians have committed, I don't see why Christians should be surprised or even annoyed if others react negatively to Christianity.
I notice you slip from Christians to Christianity for the last word.

I think what people are upset about is when they experience personally directed negative reactions because of their membership of a group. In the same way that English people, Gay people, Arsenal supporters, builders and others might get upset if the negativity that someone attaches to the English/the gays/ the gunners/ brickies gets attached to them personally.

Of course it's annoying, but then....don't take it personally? If people are mocking your religion because that religion has acted badly towards xyz group in an unfair way, and you agree with the mockers that this was wrong, then what's the problem? Is it impossible to mock one's own religion?

Just talking about jokes here though, more serious abuse is rather different (and illegal in the UK anyway).

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

And um yeah, I'm well aware that religion isn't a simple choice, I've said this ad nauseum. But it isn't the same as race, disability etc, so it's inaccurate to compare religion with such things.

I think, at that level, race and disability and gender and religion are not the same as each other clearly. Two of those are changeable, and two are not, for example. But religion goes in with those in human rights legislation as a protected characteristic so I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here.

Both you and Porridge have experience of Christianity being a somewhat oppressive force, I get that. It's totally wrong. Nevertheless, to suggest that people should just make their religion private in order to avoid hassle moves the problem of religious abuse onto the victim, even if in your culture religious people are not currently the victims in question. The fact that they may or may not have chosen their faith shouldn't really bear in the discussion.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I think there is a further complication in this discussion in that it is all too easy to project our Western individualism onto Christians in other parts of the world. We tend to see religion as all about individual choice because we live in very individualistic societies.

In many places your religious identity is very tightly bound up with your cultural ethnic group. If you are part of a despised minority who are historically Christian whether you are actively practicing your faith in overt ways or not may make little difference to the discrimination you are on the receiving end of simply because you are identified as being part of that community.
The Christian community in Pakistan would be an example of this. And the recent bombing of a church in Peshawar shows the devastating consequences.

Bombing churches isn't the same as people in the UK making jokes about the CoE. Criticism of religion is not persecution. I know you're not saying it is, but the two situations are so different that I don't think they belong in the same discussion.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

And um yeah, I'm well aware that religion isn't a simple choice, I've said this ad nauseum. But it isn't the same as race, disability etc, so it's inaccurate to compare religion with such things.
I think, at that level, race and disability and gender and religion are not the same as each other clearly. Two of those are changeable, and two are not, for example. But religion goes in with those in human rights legislation as a protected characteristic so I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make here.

Both you and Porridge have experience of Christianity being a somewhat oppressive force, I get that. It's totally wrong. Nevertheless, to suggest that people should just make their religion private in order to avoid hassle moves the problem of religious abuse onto the victim, even if in your culture religious people are not currently the victims in question. The fact that they may or may not have chosen their faith shouldn't really bear in the discussion.

I don't think people should make their religion private. I disagree with porridge on that. I DO think that religious people should do more to correct the oppressive forces within their own religions - easier said than done I know, but it seems like the only way to stop people from reacting to oppression by religious people with intolerance of their own. Well, aside from stopping people from reacting to oppression like that which I don't think is particularly likely or reasonable.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

I'm also not convinced that feeling mildly annoyed and uncomfortable because someone is making fun of you or of something which is precious to you is really discrimination.

I think the point is that religious discrimination is a scale. Being personally targeted verbally just because you identify as a member of a particular religion rather than for something you have personally done is perhaps the mildest extreme of the scale, physical aggression or discrimination in the workplace or in receiving goods and services that you should be entitled to is a bit further along it, violence, being driven from you home under threat, death are at the other extreme. But they are not disconnected things, as experience has shown with other forms of discrimination. We know how rhetoric can feed more extreme forms of prejudice.

I think there is a difference between satirically poking fun at some aspect of religious belief or practice and actually targeting personally individuals or groups in a way likely to stoke up hatred or encourage people to despise them. That is where I think the risk becomes that we step onto that scale of discrimination.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Could we please get over the post-imperial guilt already? Let's all have another read of Lucia's linked article and remind ourselves that the idea of Christianity being the oppressor is very out of date: The War on Christians: Spectator

You mean we should take seriously an article that claims that the Battle of the Bulge was the turning point in World War 2. Right. And then gives statistics with no baselines using blatantly partisan sources including a theological seminary and no link to the actual data.

Yeah, I'm going to take the rag that used to be edited by Boris Johnson about as seriously as I normally do. Or only slighly more seriously than Alex Jones.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

I think many of the events that are cited can be verified by an internet search.

Are you disputing that the oppression of Christians that is cited is real or do they not count because they are not westerners?

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

And while I'm on the subject I thought I'd try running down the ISHR statistic about 80% of religious persecution. I hoped to find something fascinating, if unwanted.

My googling found that the ISHR puts its reports online. And the list of reports doesn't include anything obviously relevant.

quote:
Reports at Human Rights
Public Health in Cuba
Cuba: Death in prison
Vladimir Novitski, President of the ISHR-Section Russia: Interview and opinion on Russia's new NGO law
Cuba: Protests in front of Havanna´s capitol knocked down
Cuba: "I was afraid that something like this happens"
Cuban opposition leader killed in mysterious car accident
Annual Meeting of the ISHR Section Russia
Europe Cuba Network calls for immediate release of Jorge Luis García Pérez
Eugenia Timoshenko's speech at the ISHR Annual Meeting
Human Rights in occupied North Mali
Obit to the ISHR Founder, Mr. Ivan Agruzov
Nguyen Van Dai: The International Human Rights Day 2011 - An Appeal to the World
Statement by the Europe-Cuba NGO Network on the Government Violence Against Women's Organizations in Cuba
Lebanon: Maids are a status symbol
Germany: Former GDR-prison Cottbus now in "Prisoner's" Hands
ISHR-Costa Rica Working Group: Activity Report 2010
ISHR-Colombia: Activity Report 2010
ISHR-Cameroon: Activity Report 2010
ISHR-Australia: Activity Report 2010
Houshang Asadi: Iran Is a Mine Field For a Writer
CRDHC-Annual Report on Human Rights in Cuba 2010
A sign of hope from Havana
ISHR Georgia Report 2010: Prison Conditions in the Republic of Georgia
ISHR Guatemala Report 2009/2010
ISHR Cameroon Section and FHRD Activity Report 2008/2009
Systematic Torture in the People's Republic of China
Methods of torture in the People's Republic of China
Bangladesh: Drop False Charges against the Journalist and Peace Activist, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury!
ISHR Australia: Kenya - Nepal Appeal
ISHR Senegal: Activity Report 2007
ISHR Australia Report 2007
Mae Sot - Rocky Mountain Village in Thailand

You know what I don't see on there? Any attempt at a world report - and the reports go back at least six years. Everything is country specific. So they simply don't have the expertise to make the statement the Spectator is claiming they did. Either they were claiming that 80% of religious discrimination in one specific country was anti-Christian (eminently plausible) and were taken out of context or someone was being hyperbolic, or they were acting outside their expertise (note that there was no report on e.g. America). And in any of these three cases we can treat the 80% figure that makes up the centrepiece of the Spectator's case with a pinch of salt - unless you have a better source.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I think many of the events that are cited can be verified by an internet search.

Which I was busy doing... Such a pity that it didn't turn up anything approaching the Spectator's claim.

quote:
Are you disputing that the oppression of Christians that is cited is real or do they not count because they are not westerners?

I'm saying that the Spectator doesn't appear to be a reliable source. There is definitely some anti-Christian discrimination. There is also an entire cottage industry of people like Former Archbishop Carey or, seemingly, the Spectator, trying to invent anti-Christian persecution like the "War on Christmas" in an attempt to claim they are being persecuted.

Yes, there are bad things happening in the world that often fission along apparently religious lines. I think that claiming them as religious discrimination rather than looking for root causes (as in e.g. Northern Ireland or the Balkans) gets in the way - with Leprechaun's Christian friend demonstrating how irrelevant the actual religion often is. And the Christian persecution complex does one thing - means that any actual religious persecution is taken less seriously.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Of course it's annoying, but then....don't take it personally?

Depends on how and where it is done. If I am being bullied at work it is likely I'll have a hard time not taking it personally. If I'm watching a stand-up show then I'll find it easier.

Most brick-layers, Arsenal supporters and various other groups might find it equally hard to not take it personally.

Also in this thread it can be difficult to keep track of when we are talking about Christians in the UK feeling persecuted and Christians in Saudi or North Korea feeling persecuted. For the former talking about taking it personally may be arguably appropriate, for the latter it won't be.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't think people should make their religion private. I disagree with porridge on that.

Actually, you don't disagree with me. Let me try once more:

1. Freedom of conscience is perhaps the single most fundamental human right.

2. It's SO important that it should be defended wherever those in power try to deny it, especially when they do this through prohibitions.

3. People try to obtain / defend this freedom in a variety of ways.

4. ONE way is to openly defy laws whose purpose is to deny this freedom. Let's come at what I'm trying to get across from this other end of the telescope.

The outcomes of open defiance depend very much on the circumstances of the oppressors, the circumstances of the oppressed, and the goals each is working toward.

A small group of person-in-the-street co-religionists which openly defies the oppressive anti-religion laws of a wealthy, powerful government committed to enforcing those laws is, as Lamb Chopped notes above, in for a very hard time.

Before launching their open defiance, they should discuss and anticipate what could happen. They should also consider deeply what their desired goals are. Some possible examples:

* They want to be able to worship in peace on Sunday mornings.

* They want to be able to evangelize.

* They want to be able to wear symbols of their religious affiliation in public.

* They want to get rid of the law which forbids their worship.

-- and so on.

If they determine that the law itself is the problem and their goal is to change or repeal it, they may have an opportunity to expand their numbers. There may be other groups who are similarly oppressed. Bigger numbers = a bigger voice = more attention to the situation = more pressure on those in power = a better chance of achieving the desired goal.

Then there's some strategizing to do about the open defiance. Some members of their group may be willing (and better-circumstanced) to risk the most severe punishment which could be handed out to open defiers. The act of defiance should be crafted in such a way that these are the people who suffer the consequences -- because they're willing.

Other members may be unwilling or unable to cope with those consequences. The act of defiance should crafted in such a way that these members are NOT put at risk -- because they aren't willing or able.

IOW, those willing and able to deal with the consequences are the ones who should engage in any act of open defiance. Those unwilling or unable to do so should withdraw from that action. They should keep quiet and private, at least temporarily, so as to remain free and unharmed because they will have a different task: to continue the larger group's work toward the group's goal, by enlarging their numbers, soliciting support for their cause, forming alliances with groups able to put pressure on those in power, etc.

I am not suggesting that people keep their religion private (though, in the interests of group goals, SOME group members should do so); I am suggesting that a single parent with no child care should not be the one who risks extended time in jail. She should stay away from the open defiance; her kids need her. Rather, someone without dependent children is a better candidate for that role (that's exactly part of why I, rather than some of my colleagues, went to jail). In short, I am stating what I've been stating all along: when dealing with injustice, oppression, and danger, people should carefully weigh out the risks they're willing to run and plan together how, as a group, they are most likely to achieve their common goal.

Personally, I don't think the woman praying on the steps is especially loony or extreme. She is targeting the wrong law; she has not enlisted her co-religionists in whatever her goal is, and she has (publicly) stated no goal. In addition, she is not, IMO, oppressed. No one is insisting that she change her beliefs or her actions, just her location. Her claim of persecution is therefore bogus.

The hypothetical would-be Saudi mass celebrators face an entirely different set of problems: an unjust law, a powerful government eager to enforce it, and probably far more serious possible consequences than a small fine or a few days in jail.

If nobody in our hypothetical Saudi group is willing to deal with the likely consequences of openly disobeying the law, they have two options: continue meeting for religious purposes while keeping this activity private, or discontinuing to meet. Either way, I think they owe it to themselves and one another to tackle what this means for them as a group. I also think they should make some effort to reach out to others in their situation.

That said, I have to say that any group focusing on allowing practice of their own faith to the exclusion of other faiths or non-adherence to any faith, is a group that, IMO, utterly misses the point.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, there's a far more practical reason for the dearth of Islamic jokes by comedians, as explained by Dara O'Briain in this video. (The relevant bit starts around 1:40.) It's very hard to get a lot of comedic material about something neither the comic nor the audience has more than a cursory knowledge about.
And just how much "knowledge" is it necessary to acquire before we are justified in disagreeing with, and satirising, death threats against editors and cartoonists who lampoon Mahommed, or girls being shot in the head because they demand an education, or suicide bombers who indiscriminately kill hundreds of innocent victims?

There's only so many ways you can make a joke based on your suggested "isn't it funny how all Muslims are terrorists" premise, in part because making jokes about tragedies is always treading a fine line but mostly because it'd be too repetitive to sustain a twenty-minute stand-up set. Anything requiring a broader understanding of Islam generally will fly over the heads of most Western audiences. For example, any joke that starts out "A Sunni, a Shiite, and an Ibadi walk into a café . . . " will probably be lost on anyone not familiar with these groups and the common stereotypes about them.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
There is definitely some anti-Christian discrimination. There is also an entire cottage industry of people like Former Archbishop Carey or, seemingly, the Spectator, trying to invent anti-Christian persecution like the "War on Christmas" in an attempt to claim they are being persecuted.

Silly Western squabbles about Christmas are not on the same level as Christians - and other minority faith groups in the Middle East - being threatened with the death penalty because they are perceived to have ‘ insulted the Prophet’, as in the Asia Bibi case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Bibi

Please note that two senior government officials were killed because of their support for Bibi and for their opposition to the blasphemy laws.

quote:
Yes, there are bad things happening in the world that often fission along apparently religious lines. I think that claiming them as religious discrimination rather than looking for root causes (as in e.g. Northern Ireland or the Balkans) gets in the way - with Leprechaun's Christian friend demonstrating how irrelevant the actual religion often is.

You need to look outside the Western/European framework. Seriously.

quote:
And the Christian persecution complex does one thing - means that any actual religious persecution is taken less seriously.

And how, exactly, would you know that? Amnesty International reckon there are 200,000 political prisoners in the hell-holes which are North Korea’s concentration/labour camps: 70,000 of these are reckoned to be Christians. Obviously it is completely illegal to be a Christian in North Korea, as well as to express any kind of opposing political or intellectual opinion to the regime. You might not care how Christians (or other minority faiths, for that matter) are treated in post-Communist or Muslim countries, but happily there are groups who do: human rights groups and Christian groups who advocate for the persecuted church.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
You need to look outside the Western/European framework. Seriously.

I thought the OP was all about the Western/European framework.

You can see this happening a lot in conversations like this - it starts with how Christians are discriminated against/persecuted in the West, and then as soon as someone points out that Christians aren't in fact being persecuted in the Western/European framework out come the Saudi Arabias and Vietnams, as if what's happening in those places somehow justifies a claim of persecution in the Western/European framework.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You can see this happening a lot in conversations like this - it starts with how Christians are discriminated against/persecuted in the West, and then as soon as someone points out that Christians aren't in fact being persecuted in the Western/European framework out come the Saudi Arabias and Vietnams, as if what's happening in those places somehow justifies a claim of persecution in the Western/European framework.

And then you get Justinian, who denies there's actually a problem with the Saudi Arabias and the Vietnams ... I personally don't see the situation in the West as analogous to that in the Middle East (for example), but he seems to.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Silly Western squabbles about Christmas are not on the same level as Christians - and other minority faith groups in the Middle East - being threatened with the death penalty because they are perceived to have ‘ insulted the Prophet’, as in the Asia Bibi case:

Indeed they aren't. But if you would care to look back at the OP the very premise of this thread was about, as you put it "Silly western squabbles about Christmas".

And this is a fairly standard rhetorical trick from those with a Christian Persecution Complex.

Christian with a Christian Persecution Complex: The West is so mean to us. [Waterworks]

Sensible Person (often themselves Christian): No it isn't. Christianity is the dominant religion here and pretty high status.

CWCPC: But what about this list of anti-Christian incidents?

SP: People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. They are mostly myths or misunderstandings.

CWCPC: Look, some Christians elsewhere are being oppressed, and it's JUST THE SAME [Waterworks]

Pay no attention to the goalposts being moved.

SP: [Mad]

Comedians picking targets they know is nothing to do with being locked up in North Korea. You're trying to make yourself feel good because other people in the world are suffering. [Projectile]

White-Knighting Christian: So you don't care about very real injustice somewhere else in the world?

SP: [brick wall]

The very real injustice elsewhere is nothing to do with what they were originally talking about.

If you want to start a thread about such things then feel free. But it's ... startling ... how it comes up so much more often in relation to topics that started about supposed anti-Christian discrimination here than it does in its own right.

[ 16. October 2013, 15:31: Message edited by: Justinian ]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
And then you get Justinian, who denies there's actually a problem with the Saudi Arabias and the Vietnams ... I personally don't see the situation in the West as analogous to that in the Middle East (for example), but he seems to.

This is a complete misrepresentation of my position.

I deny that the problems in Saudi Arabia or North Korea (North Korea ffs) are in any way relevant to this conversation except in that they are a symptom of the goalposts having been moved quite literally half way round the world from where they started in an attempt to keep the persecution claims going after they have been exposed as wishful thinking.

Is there discrimination against people who are Christian in countries other than the West? Yes. Normally along ethnic/social lines as much as religious ones. Are these injustices? Yes. Are they something I have control over, influence over, or are directly going to impact the writer? Almost certainly not.

But for someone in the West to portray their position as akin to that of a Christian in North Korea is something I find blackly comic.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
...the idea of Christianity being the oppressor is very out of date
Assuming you're not homosexual or female, of course.

Or not the right flavor of Christian.

In this particular part of the Western World the most common type of religious discrimination that I've encountered over the last 20 years involves Christians trying to enforce their religious views on others by force of law. That's the public perception of "Christians" held by many non-Christians I know.

Some Christians may feel persecuted that they are not permitted to do so as easily as they might wish, while other Christians might be offended by being lumped together with the first group as the subject of derisive comments. But the backlash they are getting isn't really about their religion, but their attempts to force others to live by their own religions views.

That's not to say that Christians and those of other religions are not persecuted in other parts of the world - they are. But in the context of the OP concerning Western societies, my experience is that Christians (at least certain groups of them) are far more likely to be doing the persecution and discrimination rather than the victim of it, regardless of how much they try to pretend otherwise.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
This is a complete misrepresentation of my position.

OK, fine. I clearly misunderstood what seemed to me a rather cavalier dismissal on your part of the claims made by The Spectator article. (I'm not a reader of The Spectator but the article seemed plausible).

quote:
But for someone in the West to portray their position as akin to that of a Christian in North Korea is something I find blackly comic.

Oh, I'd find it blackly comic too, if anybody in this thread had actually done that.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
Christians (at least certain groups of them) are far more likely to be doing the persecution and discrimination rather than the victim of it, regardless of how much they try to pretend otherwise.

Personally I've not been the victim of Christian persecution. However, if I ever come away from the workplace or pub having been treated badly over it, I reserve the right to say that this annoys me without a) having to admit that it's not as bad as North Korea and b) having to admit that Christians have it all coming to them for what they've done to others.

Just as if I get picked on for being a Bricklayer, I don't expect to have to caveat my compliant with the fact that bricklayers in Pakistan are often bonded laborers and have indeed swindled many honest home-owners without doing an honest days work. It becomes tiresome being judged as a member of a group sometimes.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
OK, fine. I clearly misunderstood what seemed to me a rather cavalier dismissal on your part of the claims made by The Spectator article. (I'm not a reader of The Spectator but the article seemed plausible).

You mean my cavalier dismissal of the spectator where I pointed out that their initial claim (that the Battle of the Bulge was a turning point in WWII rather than a speedbump) didn't measure up and that their claim about 80% of discrimination being against Christians didn't hold up either?

quote:
Oh, I'd find it blackly comic too, if anybody in this thread had actually done that.

Go back and re-read the OP. This thread was set up to be about the old canard of anti-Christian discrimination in what you term the Western World. Mysteriously, miraculously, inevitably, when such claims are demonstrated as the jokes they are, the goalposts get moved to either the Middle East, North Korea, China, or all three. I'll accept that there is anti-Christian persecution in North Korea and Saudi Arabia - two places I can do absolutely nothing about and don't see as terribly relevant.

Now I agree that some of the statements made by Porridge are at best dubious and I'm not defending him.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Personally I've not been the victim of Christian persecution. However, if I ever come away from the workplace or pub having been treated badly over it, I reserve the right to say that this annoys me without a) having to admit that it's not as bad as North Korea and b) having to admit that Christians have it all coming to them for what they've done to others.

Fair enough. But from what I know about you you'd be posting something along the lines of "TICTH the gits at the pub". Rather than creating an entire OP in Purgatory about how anti-Christian discrimination was acceptable and other forms of bigotry weren't. And you wouldn't be bringing in other countries by linking a badly written article in the Spectator.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I have to admit I might well do the latter more as a means of providing myself with some perspective on the issue, but wouldn't appreciate it as a "shut up 'cos this is what it's really about" sort of way.

And indeed it does seem to me that racism, homophobia and sexism are all more pervasive and pernicious than anti-christian sentiment in the UK.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I have to admit I might well do the latter more as a means of providing myself with some perspective on the issue, but wouldn't appreciate it as a "shut up 'cos this is what it's really about" sort of way.

And indeed it does seem to me that racism, homophobia and sexism are all more pervasive and pernicious than anti-christian sentiment in the UK.

Put it this way: would you rather be opposed by Tommy Robinson (former EDL leader), Stephen Green and Godfrey Bloom (ex-UKIP MEP) or Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins and Nick Clegg?

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

Sensible Person (often themselves Christian): No it isn't. Christianity is the dominant religion here and pretty high status.

Dominant? High status? Rubbish. I live in Britain and I have never once in my life been accorded a higher status for being Christian. If applying the label to myself has ever done anything, it's given me lower status, something along the lines of "Oh look at those God botherers over there". If I prepend it with the adjective 'evangelical', I might as well be a hysterical street preacher or a member of the American Right. A Christian is not a fashionable thing to be in any of the places I've lived. As for 'dominant', that's just laughable. We can't even keep our own churches open, let alone dominate anyone.

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

My view is sometimes Christians in Britain are treated negatively for their faith, but unlike a large proportion of Christians, I'm not convinced that the problem's getting worse.

I was sacked from a job in 1985 for refusing to lie to customers and due to not sharing the boss's unprofessional and highly racist practices. Three Christian friends in other workplaces had similar experiences at around the same time. Yet I haven't heard of a single such case arising in recent years amongst anyone I know, nor amongst friends of friends. Not because people are more moral, but probably because it's harder to get away with porkies when most communication is by email. Also there's much more supervision and auditing in today's business world.

Racism and sloppy professional standards, meanwhile, have become less acceptable to society as a whole.

Admittedly there are growing tensions between Christian attitudes and the equality agenda - and jobs have been lost as a result - but this needs to be weighed against past concerns which are probably less of an issue now.

I also think there's much less mickey-taking against Christians in today's PC culture than a generation ago.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

Dominant? High status? Rubbish. I live in Britain and I have never once in my life been accorded a higher status for being Christian.

So you've never been, for example, to a Remembrance Sunday occasion without assuming it was going to be Christian? Never considered that moving remembrance from 11 November to the nearest Sunday wouldn't be to many people an unwarranted Christian takeover of their grief? Never questioned why Royal weddings always happen in churches?

If you've never thought about those things then that just suggests that you are comfortably immured in your Christian high status.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

I fail to see what tangible difference either of those make to my status in society.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I fail to see what tangible difference either of those make to my status in society.

The religion is dominant and high status, not you as a particular individual though you may benefit. Many Christians in western countries automatically get their main day of worship, Sunday, off. They also get some of their major holy days off as official holidays such as Christmas and Good Friday (though how many depends on the country). People of other religions have to take vacation days or negotiate with their employer to honor Eid or Yom Kippur and observant Muslims probably have to make a major effort in western countries to regularly attend Friday noon worship. Jews probably have problems properly observing the Sabbath in winter when Friday sunset may happen before the end of normal working hours (and even more problematic if they have a long commute). Observant Jews running some businesses in areas with Sunday closing laws are at a disadvantage since they have to close on Saturday because of their religion and Sunday because of the law while their Christian competitors can still close on their holy day without fear of competition (and Muslim businesses might prefer to close on Fridays instead of Sunday).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

There are many advantages to being the 'default' type of person in a society, and in Western Europe and the countries made up from the descendants of Western Europe, the 'default' person is Christian or of Christian background.

It's also basically a white heterosexual male, as well.

To be honest the only reason I'm even aware of the difference being the 'default' person makes is because I'm a Christian white homosexual male. It's the one attribute that differs from the 'default' that makes me even notice there is a sort of inbuilt assumption about what is normal or standard - and what every variation from the standard is measured against.

There is an argument that the default is shifting from 'Christian' to 'Christian background', but I wouldn't underestimate the power of even that. Some phrases or ideas found in the Bible can be alluded to without comment, because they are part of the cultural landscape. Phrases or ideas found in the Quran or a Hindu sacred text are weird or exotic.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Put it this way: would you rather be opposed by Tommy Robinson (former EDL leader), Stephen Green and Godfrey Bloom (ex-UKIP MEP) or Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins and Nick Clegg?

Vicious bigoted and stupid vs clever and informed but disagreeable. Hmmmm.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

There is an argument that the default is shifting from 'Christian' to 'Christian background', but I wouldn't underestimate the power of even that. Some phrases or ideas found in the Bible can be alluded to without comment, because they are part of the cultural landscape. Phrases or ideas found in the Quran or a Hindu sacred text are weird or exotic.

I tend to agree with this. I wonder if there isn't something extra here, though. I'd agree that the default is closer to "cultural Christian" rather than "Christian" in many places, and given that, I think finding an actual Christian is sometimes more jarring than finding a Muslim or a Hindu.

To the average "cultural Christian", a Muslim or Hindu appears culturally foreign, so he might be expected to hold non-default opinions. A Christian will appear like his normal default sense of "normal person", right up until the point when he is revealed to take his faith seriously, at which point there is surprise without the prior warnings of foreignness.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
if you would care to look back at the OP

Enough already with the incessant references to the OP.

You know as well as I do that on the Ship threads diverge in all sorts of directions from OPs.

There is room for disagreement on the nature and degree of anti-Christian prejudice and discrimination in the West, but it is sheer obscurantism to pretend that it does not exist, and it is a perfectly legitimate to subject to discuss.

Such a discussion is inevitably going to lead to the topic of persecution in the rest of the world.

I happen to agree with you that it is wrong to conflate what happens to Christians in places such as Somalia, Comoros and Laos, which is genuine persecution, with mere unpleasant anti-Christian bigotry in the West, which is not.

Information about global anti-Christian persecution is not limited to a single Spectator article.

It is well-documented, all too real and horrific, and cannot be dismissed, to paraphrase Neville Chamberlain, as merely something in faraway countries involving people of whom we know nothing.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Anything requiring a broader understanding of Islam generally will fly over the heads of most Western audiences. For example, any joke that starts out "A Sunni, a Shiite, and an Ibadi walk into a café . . . " will probably be lost on anyone not familiar with these groups and the common stereotypes about them.

But being familiar with their Western Christian heritage, they will piss themselves over the one about the Arminian and the Calvinist, or the Penty and the cessationist, or the Nestorian Assyrian and the Monophysite Armenian.

Get real.

The average stand-up audience knows as little about Christianity as it does about Islam, but conversely it knows as much about Taleban and Al Qaeda atrocities as it does about the Phelps family (in America, at least) and clerical child sex abuse.

If there is any justification for making religious jokes at all, it is to attack egregious abuses, so a comedian could use any of the above material.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Put it this way: would you rather be opposed by Tommy Robinson (former EDL leader), Stephen Green and Godfrey Bloom (ex-UKIP MEP) or Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins and Nick Clegg?
Vicious bigoted and stupid vs clever and informed but disagreeable. Hmmmm.

No contest, really. Give me Dawkins, Fry and Clegg over the other three any day.

Especially Fry. [Big Grin]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
religion is a choice and sexuality is not

Not quite that simple.

Someone who feels same sex attraction is not analogous to a black, Asian or Jewish person who cannot do anything about their ethnicity and appearance.

There is no choice about feeling same sex attraction, but there is a choice whether to act upon it, to assume it as an identity, and to do so publicly.

Inclination is not destiny.

In the same way, a straight or gay person can feel sexual attraction to many people, but has a choice whether to be faithful to one, or to identify as a polygamist/polyandrist/ polyamorist or whatever, and have relations with multiple partners.

Your response would presumably be that if someone experiences strong same sex attraction and chooses to identify and live as gay, their choice should be respected.

In the same way, someone who experiences a strong internal conviction, which they “just have”, that the Christian faith is true, can go with it or repress it, but if they choose to identify as a Christian their choice should be respected.

The point is that there is objectively a choice in each case, even though in each case it will feel subjectively that there is not.

That is why it is neither unreasonable for a conservative Christian (or Muslim or Jew) to teach that those with same sex attraction should choose to not engage in homosexual relations, nor unreasonable for an atheist to demand that the Christian (or Muslim or Jew) choose to ditch their faith.

Unless someone thinks that everything is predetermined by a gay gene or a religion gene.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Put it this way: would you rather be opposed by Tommy Robinson (former EDL leader), Stephen Green and Godfrey Bloom (ex-UKIP MEP) or Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins and Nick Clegg?
Vicious bigoted and stupid vs clever and informed but disagreeable. Hmmmm.

Disagreeable? Fry? Everyone's favourite hypothetical Dinner party guest and National Treasure? Surely not! (though I'll give you Clegg and Dawkins)

As an aside, did anyone see "Out There" the other night (available to UKers on iplayer). His discussion with the Ugandan Pastor would have put anyone off Christianity, I would think.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
originally posted by Kaplan Corday

Your response would presumably be that if someone experiences strong same sex attraction and chooses to identify and live as gay, their choice should be respected.

I think that "chooses to identify...as gay" is a rather loaded and contestable way of putting it. I'm straight. I don't "choose to identify" as straight, I just am. Similarly, a gay person just is gay. It's a matter of objective fact, not a choice. If it's possible to imagine them not identifying as gay, we'd call that denial, and it wouldn't alter their "gay-ness" one jot.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Oops, just realised where I am, apologies to H&As, inappropriate for Purgatory, as it's a dead horse!

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Dominant? High status? Rubbish. I live in Britain and I have never once in my life been accorded a higher status for being Christian.

Which affords you an immense amount of this country going out of its way to cater to your specific beliefs and ignore massive amounts of rudeness that lie at their centre.

Christianity is an incredibly obnoxious religion at the core. It's about converting others (or spreading the "good news"). This obnoxiousness comes backed with threats of eternal torture. But people will treat what you do as normal despite it being both obnoxious and threatening.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Anything requiring a broader understanding of Islam generally will fly over the heads of most Western audiences. For example, any joke that starts out "A Sunni, a Shiite, and an Ibadi walk into a café . . . " will probably be lost on anyone not familiar with these groups and the common stereotypes about them.
But being familiar with their Western Christian heritage, they will piss themselves over the one about the Arminian and the Calvinist, or the Penty and the cessationist, or the Nestorian Assyrian and the Monophysite Armenian.

Get real.

The average stand-up audience knows as little about Christianity as it does about Islam,

I'll take "Inappropriate comparisons" for 10. The equivalent of Creosus's comparisons would be Anglicans, Catholics, and Baptists. That your examples to try to show the average person knows little about Christianity involve a heresy that was rejected hundreds of yoears before Mohammed rather than major branches of Christianity that are around now to match major branches of Islam that are around now is pure double standards.

And do I think the average standup could make Catholic, Anglican, or Baptist jokes and have them be understood by the audience? Yes.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
if you would care to look back at the OP
Enough already with the incessant references to the OP.

You know as well as I do that on the Ship threads diverge in all sorts of directions from OPs.

There is room for disagreement on the nature and degree of anti-Christian prejudice and discrimination in the West, but it is sheer obscurantism to pretend that it does not exist, and it is a perfectly legitimate to subject to discuss.

Such a discussion is inevitably going to lead to the topic of persecution in the rest of the world.

And that such a discussion is inevitably going to lead to the topic of persecution in the rest of the world is exactly my point. The Observer Article came out on October 5 - which means that if it was discussed in its own right it would be on the first two pages of Purgatory. Mysteriously there is no such thread that I can see. The plight of Christians in other parts of the world was not brought up on its own merits over this. But I am shocked, shocked to discover Christians claiming the persecution of other people or Christians in other times whenever the subject of the laughable supposed persecution of Christians in the West comes up.

Threads drift - and drift in a predictable manner. Predictable thread drift - such as the attempts of Christians in the West to claim to be persecuted by using completely different situations is itself a legitimate topic for discussion, especially when it has happened on this very thread (and IIRC another one recently). It is also relevant to both the OP and to the subject people are trying to drift the thread to.

As for the nature of the supposed anti-Christian persecution in the West, it boils down almost invariably to two things. The first is that some people look for an excuse. The second is that a lot of the very real persecution in the West is coming from Christians (especially the homophobia) - and there is return fire.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Not quite that simple.

Someone who feels same sex attraction is not analogous to a black, Asian or Jewish person who cannot do anything about their ethnicity and appearance.

There is no choice about feeling same sex attraction, but there is a choice whether to act upon it, to assume it as an identity, and to do so publicly.

Inclination is not destiny.

In the same way, a straight or gay person can feel sexual attraction to many people, but has a choice whether to be faithful to one, or to identify as a polygamist/polyandrist/ polyamorist or whatever, and have relations with multiple partners.

Your response would presumably be that if someone experiences strong same sex attraction and chooses to identify and live as gay, their choice should be respected.

In the same way, someone who experiences a strong internal conviction, which they “just have”, that the Christian faith is true, can go with it or repress it, but if they choose to identify as a Christian their choice should be respected.

I'll take "Further inappropriate comparisons for 10". Effectiveness of the "Ex-gay movement": Risible. Even Exodus International has given up and admitted that trying to "cure" people of being gay simply doesn't work (and most of their success stories seem to have been bisexuals who have a choice). On the other hand lots of Christians have become atheists.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Disagreeable? Fry? Everyone's favourite hypothetical Dinner party guest and National Treasure? Surely not! (though I'll give you Clegg and Dawkins)

From what I'm told Dawkins makes an even better dinner party guest than Stephen Fry (there is a reason he's married to Romana after all). It's just when he pulls the soapbox out that he's highly obnoxious. Nick Clegg on the other hand ... is sorry. And I was going to mention Stephen Green, Jack Chick, and Fred Phelps as enemies. But I'll take your word for a Nigerian pastor.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Christianity is an incredibly obnoxious religion at the core. It's about converting others (or spreading the "good news"). This obnoxiousness comes backed with threats of eternal torture. But people will treat what you do as normal despite it being both obnoxious and threatening.

It's not helpful to include your particular value judgement on Christianity in part of the reasoning towards describing its privileged status in the West.

It clearly is in a privileged position, but there are nuances to that which don't make it seem so for adherents of various strands of it, and it isn't terribly helpful to lump all forms of Christianity together so simplistically with a twist of value judgement to make the point. Slightly more Dawkins-on-soapbox than Dawkins-at-dinner-party stuff I think.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Christianity is an incredibly obnoxious religion at the core. It's about converting others (or spreading the "good news"). This obnoxiousness comes backed with threats of eternal torture. But people will treat what you do as normal despite it being both obnoxious and threatening.
It's not helpful to include your particular value judgement on Christianity in part of the reasoning towards describing its privileged status in the West.

It clearly is in a privileged position, but there are nuances to that which don't make it seem so for adherents of various strands of it, and it isn't terribly helpful to lump all forms of Christianity together so simplistically with a twist of value judgement to make the point. Slightly more Dawkins-on-soapbox than Dawkins-at-dinner-party stuff I think.

Yes. There are significant strands of Christianity that don't place a particularly high value on missionary work/converting others, and many many Christians that do not believe in Hell (myself included).

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
originally posted by Kaplan Corday

Your response would presumably be that if someone experiences strong same sex attraction and chooses to identify and live as gay, their choice should be respected.
I think that "chooses to identify...as gay" is a rather loaded and contestable way of putting it. I'm straight. I don't "choose to identify" as straight, I just am. Similarly, a gay person just is gay. It's a matter of objective fact, not a choice. If it's possible to imagine them not identifying as gay, we'd call that denial, and it wouldn't alter their "gay-ness" one jot.

Same sex attraction cannot be “cured”, but a person still has a choice whether or not to accept it as a defining label, and whether or not to engage in homosexual sex.

In the same way, a person with innate and ineradicable kleptomaniac tendencies has a choice whether to steal or not, and therefore whether or not to self-identify as a kleptomaniac.

Gays will object to the comparison on the grounds that stealing is universally regarded as illegal and immoral, but that is begging the question, because those with same sex attraction who choose not to identify as gay regard same sex relations as also immoral.

We might agree or disagree with their decision, but we have no right to demean their choice by telling them that we know better than they do what they “really” are, and that they are in “denial”.

It would be interesting to know, incidentally, how many of those who demand that those with same sex attraction must identify as gay, are the same people who subscribe to the post-modern dogma of the infinite fluidity of identity.

(Apologies to Hosts for DH - the only excuse I can come up with is that I did not introduce it).

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

And do I think the average standup could make Catholic, Anglican, or Baptist jokes and have them be understood by the audience? Yes.

If you have any pretensions to stand-up yourself, all I can say is good luck with that, and don't give up your day job.

The average pub audience could as soon explain the theological differences between Anglicans, Catholics and Baptists as between Alawites, animists and Christadelphians.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
So you've never been, for example, to a Remembrance Sunday occasion without assuming it was going to be Christian? Never considered that moving remembrance from 11 November to the nearest Sunday wouldn't be to many people an unwarranted Christian takeover of their grief? Never questioned why Royal weddings always happen in churches?

I would suggest that these are issues of civil religion, ie tradition and cultural inertia, rather than assertions of Christian power and status.

The only explicitly religious feature of Melbourne’s service for Anzac Day, Australia’s annual military remembrance, is a rendition of Abide With Me by a choir and an army band, with a volley of rifle shots discharged between the verses.

I’ll guarantee that almost no-one in the crowd knows the words or cares about their theology.

It just has a moving sound, and contributes to the plangent ambience.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's not helpful to include your particular value judgement on Christianity in part of the reasoning towards describing its privileged status in the West.

Unless it is a case where behaviour we expect from Christians would be seen as wrong from someone else.

quote:
Slightly more Dawkins-on-soapbox than Dawkins-at-dinner-party stuff I think.

Oh, possibly. There's a time and a place for both.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If you have any pretensions to stand-up yourself, all I can say is good luck with that, and don't give up your day job.

The average pub audience could as soon explain the theological differences between Anglicans, Catholics and Baptists as between Alawites, animists and Christadelphians.

And this is utterly irrelevant. The important differences are social ones. The average pub audience could tell that Catholics are followers of the Pope, have only male priests, and are against contraception and abortion but most of them ignore those rules (c.f. the Pythons' Every Sperm is Sacred). And then there's a long line of twisted jokes about what Catholic priests get up to. Also Father Ted. Anglicans? Gay marriage, women priests but not bishops, married priests, the great beard (Rowan Williams). Also the Vicar of Dibbley. Baptists? Full immersion dunking, those weird people who are against drinking and dancing (c.f. the Protestant going with the Every Sperm is sacred sketch).

What people do is far more a vein for comedy than abstract academic beliefs. People might not know the difference between Monophysitism and Nestorianism - but they know people.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Gays will object to the comparison on the grounds that stealing is universally regarded as illegal and immoral, but that is begging the question, because those with same sex attraction who choose not to identify as gay regard same sex relations as also immoral.

Universally. By a small subgroup. One of these things is not like the other one. One of these things doesn't belong.

quote:
We might agree or disagree with their decision, but we have no right to demean their choice by telling them that we know better than they do what they “really” are, and that they are in “denial”.

I don't know many cases where people have claimed that specific people are in the closet without further evidence. On the other hand what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If homophobes can say that gay practice are immoral then by the same token it's legitimate to say that homophobic practice is immoral.

quote:
It would be interesting to know, incidentally, how many of those who demand that those with same sex attraction must identify as gay, are the same people who subscribe to the post-modern dogma of the infinite fluidity of identity.

It would be interesting to know how many people are actually in either category or whether both categories are largely a result of mythmaking. As far as I know there are very few people who support my ability to identify as a starfish. Or as Napoleon Bonaparte. If there really was a dogma of infinite fluidity of identity both of these would be perfectly acceptable. And I want to know who is saying that eveyone with same sex attraction must identify as gay (a few, I have no doubt). The excuse for outing people is that if they are politically active homophobes then it is relevant information about them. If they want to live and let live, I don't think that anyone is saying they should do otherwise.

So this is yet another set of inappropriate comparisons.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think that "chooses to identify...as gay" is a rather loaded and contestable way of putting it. I'm straight. I don't "choose to identify" as straight, I just am. Similarly, a gay person just is gay. It's a matter of objective fact, not a choice. If it's possible to imagine them not identifying as gay, we'd call that denial, and it wouldn't alter their "gay-ness" one jot.
Same sex attraction cannot be “cured”, but a person still has a choice whether or not to accept it as a defining label, and whether or not to engage in homosexual sex.

The "defining label" thing is an important point. Back when I worked for the health department (early 1990s), the CDC was moving away from the term "gay" in favor of "MSM" or "Men who have sex with men" because there were many men who had sex with men but didn't self-identify as gay, so that if you put a survey in front of them, they wouldn't tick the "gay" box, and the statistics were getting skewed. (The statistics were used to allocate funds for fighting the spread of HIV/AIDS so they weren't some academic exercise.)

In the area of sexual attraction, if you have somebody who says, "I am attracted entirely to members of my sex, but I'm not gay," what you're having is, in part, a semantics problem. They can reject the term "gay" until the cows come home, but they are still a person who is attracted entirely to members of the same sex. Maybe a new term needs to be invented to prevent the "denial" charge.

One group sees "gay" as meaning simply "people sexually attracted to people of the same sex," so when someone says "I'm attracted to people of the same sex but I'm not gay," it sounds like "I'm an unmarried male but I'm not a bachelor." The word associated with gay people who say they're not gay is "denial" so that's the word that gets trotted out.

Whereas the other group uses the term to mean something along the lines of "people who are sexually attracted to AND date, have sex with, get romantically involved with, and/or marry people of the same sex, or would if they got the chance." Since they are trying to live celibately, they reject the word, and rightfully so if that's the definition of it.

This all of course overlooks people who are sexually attracted to people of either sex (usually called "bisexual"). A bisexual woman of my acquaintance says that the confusion between "capable of being attracted to" and "is having sex with" means that people accuse her of (or "politely" ask her about) going out and having sex with women even though she is happily partnered with a man. If she's feeling charitable she explains that no, being bi means that should, God forbid, this relationship end, and should further she be interested in seeking a new one, it could potentially* be with a member of either sex. The descriptor "bisexual" refers to the fact she could potentially be happily partnered in a romantic and/or sexual relationship with a person of either sex. It does not refer to what she is doing at the moment.

I am straight. That doesn't mean I'm at all in danger of falling into bed with any woman that happens along (although Diana Krall would be hard for me to resist -- thankfully the likelihood of that being an issue is about nil).

____
*I almost said "conceivably."

[ 18. October 2013, 15:44: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Let's keep this thread off homosexuality. It's a great topic, but it belongs in the Dead Horses forum not here. There are so many other ways to discuss religious discrimination!

Gwai,
Purg Host

[Belated edited to clarify]

[ 18. October 2013, 16:25: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I would suggest that these are issues of civil religion, ie tradition and cultural inertia, rather than assertions of Christian power and status.

Of course you would. Your faith is a civil religion, accorded its privileged place by tradition and cultural inertia. It's the other guy whose religion is asserting power and status.

It's always the other guy.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Let's keep this thread off homosexuality. It's a great topic, but it belongs in the Dead Horses forum not here. There are so many other ways to discuss religious discrimination!

Gwai,
Purg Host

I created a new thread in DH to continue the conversation.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0