[links.politics, sorta]

[wispfox]

theferrett is back, and notes that

As someone who loves Jesus, a lot of liberals - not all of you, but enough to seriously matter - have a real problem with Him. As a liberal pragmatist, I also know damn well that we need the Jesus-lovers to vote Democrat if we want to really change power in this country. There are a lot of Catholics and Christians out there - and if you can offend me twenty times a year or so, you're certainly turning enough of them away at the door.

And I did not write about Christian-bashing because All Humans Deserve Respect And Dignity. (If I did, I would have written it at least a year ago.) I wrote about it because we lost this election big-time, and we've been losing ground for years, and I want the Democratic party to win for a change. As such, the best way to do that is to reach out to a large group of largely-abandoned voters who I believe can be swayed.


I hope that I've managed to not be particularly anti-Christian, either on or offline. I'm not _sure_ because I grew up Catholic, and have had a bit too much exposure to evangelical Christians. I can therefore entirely too easily see myself ranting about fundamentalist or evangelical Christians, if I'm not thinking about it. (I _really_ don't like being preached at, especially not if that is how someone is attempting to change the way I think about anything)

And, worthy of note - I'm not generally one who rants. And not generally one who has a habit of painting people with a large brush (due to _lots_ of practice, mind - it's difficult to remember that any large group of people is still made up of individual people...). So the fact that I'm not sure if I'm guilty of this says a lot. Certainly means I've read entirely too much of that kind of behavior of late, if nothing else.


[edit: I can't tell if theferrett's post was simply advocating not being instantly nasty upon hearing the term 'Christian', and finding out that someone is one, or if he's actually attempting to say that people shouldn't be displeased if someone is actively beating you over the head (figuratively) in an attempt to cause one to change one's beliefs. The former, I approve of, and agree with. The latter? No, _way_. I mean, I wouldn't suggest being nasty about someone being evangelical at you, but I certainly do agree with asking them to stop and/or going somewhere else. Both work, depending on context]

Comments

[signsoflife.livejournal.com]

Well, I can tell you that if you'd been obnoxiously anti-Christian in LJ, I wouldn't still be reading your blog.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Noted, and thanks for letting me know!

I can't always tell what I have and have not ranted about.

But then, the fact that I've not had any direct exposure to anyone who is likely to make me rant about fundamentalists in a very long time probably helps.

Am curious, though - I'm not sure I can tell at what point a rant (say) about being told one too many times that I should convert to save my soul (or whatever) would be too general. That's by far the most likely thing for me to feel a need to rant about... (other things would likely include telling me that I'm evil for something relating to who I am). Any thoughts?

[beowabbit]

(Disclaimer: haven't read theferrett's whole post, just your excerpts.) It's tricky, because Christians are the majority in this country in something somewhat akin to the way white people are a majority in Scandinavia, so many of them completely don't notice when they're being Christian-centric and excluding the non-Christian minority, and it often makes many of them uncomfortable to have that pointed out to them (even in passing and even just by example). And a level playing field would lose them a little bit of power and influence — although it would certainly also gain them quite a bit, in terms of safety from political interference in their religion.

So if we're¹ completely unwilling to offend or disturb Christians, ever, that means acquiescing in the notion that the United States should be a Christian nation not just in the sense of having a Christian majority, but in the sense of non-Christians being second-class citizens. Maybe that's a pragmatic decision we have to hold our noses and make, but I hope not; I think there's a less extreme balance we can strike that will still be palatable to enough Christians that they feel like they can vote for people we're willing to live with.

---

¹("We" here means non-Christian liberals; the sort of people who are presumably offending theferrett twenty times a year.)

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

As for not reading his post, you probably should. He's talking about the fact that people get really _nasty_ in a very general way about people being Christian.

Things like calling them stupid for what they believe in, or presuming that all Christians act the way that (in actuality) a fairly small and noisy number do.

It's not about trying to not offend or disturb them, it's about not calling them names all the time, or saying or implying stupidity because of their beliefs, etc, etc, etc. It's about not instantly reacting to someone talking about their beliefs as if they were trying to convert you.

I _am_ a bit confused as to whether or not he's suggesting that, in addition to not being nasty when someone talks about their (Christian) religion ever, people should not be reacting strongly when someone's actively trying to convert them. (me, I go elsewhere. Not sure if that's a strong reaction or not, but it has the result I want)

[ian-gunn.livejournal.com]

I read it and it seem to me he thinks christians have the right to speak openly about their religion and even try to convert you. Which they do. You can ignore them of course.

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

"Catholics and Christians" reads as really wierd to me. Evangelicals seem to me to be much less 'christian' than less loopy groups. There's rarely any sign they've read a gospel. And no sign they've paid attention to Jewish scholars re the 'old testament'. to me, Catholics are certainly contained within the concept of "Christian", but the minions of Hate are not.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

to me, Catholics are certainly contained within the concept of "Christian", but the minions of Hate are not.

Agreed. But note that a fair number of Christians refuse to admit that Catholics are a subset of Christian. Which is interesting, and likely why those two are often separated out. (I can't remember if Catholics do or do not refuse to be called Christian, but I don't think they do)

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen this refusal in Oz.

But then we routinely mock evangelical creationists, and don't have many.

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Sadly, mocking them doesn't seem to make them go away, here.

I wish it did!

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

So do I.

There was a thread on alt.polyamory where people discussed the proper treatment of those who come knocking at the door, evangelising.

Here they get very short shrift. The consensus on alt.poly seemed to me to treat them far more nicely than we do. It isn't seen as a gross intrusion and appalling manners to lay your religion trip on others apparently!

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

It isn't seen as a gross intrusion and appalling manners to lay your religion trip on others apparently!

Depends on who you ask. And... we're so damn _used_ to it here. There's so many of them!

It's a rather lot like telemarketing in that regard. We're just so used to it...

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

Eeek, then it could happen here! Oh no!

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Not if you keep mocking them; they're unlikely to move there. :)

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm safe, and not saved!

[wispfox.livejournal.com]

Yes! You are safe from being saved!

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

:-)

[opalmirror.livejournal.com]

"Christian" is for some reason more associated with Protestant Christianity. "Catholic" seems more closely defined as following Rome's take on Christianity. Hundreds of amazing varieties.

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

There you go. I'm in Australia, where this isn't so.

[opalmirror.livejournal.com]

This (http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ.htm) looks like an interesting site that tries to make sense out of what it claims are 34,000 different Christian groups.