[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

[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.