|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religious Discrimination
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
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 Pay no attention to the goalposts being moved.
SP: ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) 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]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
White-Knighting Christian: So you don't care about very real injustice somewhere else in the world?
SP: ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) 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 ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
OddJob
Shipmate
# 17591
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 97 | From: West Midlands | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
I fail to see what tangible difference either of those make to my status in society.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
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]](biggrin.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Oops, just realised where I am, apologies to H&As, inappropriate for Purgatory, as it's a dead horse!
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
